A Painful Issue

The Christian church of the first-half of the first century was not a monolithic entity. We have seen how divisions arose between “Hebrew” (Hebrew-speaking) and “Hellenist” (Greek-speaking) believers. Besides following Greek – instead of Jewish – customs, the Hellenists may also have felt less of an attachment to the Temple and the sacrificial cult. After persecution drove them out of Jerusalem, Hellenists like Philip found kindred spirits in the Samaritans who also devalued Temple worship.

The Gentile Problem

Jewish monotheism and ethical practices were attractive to a certain segment of Gentiles known as God-fearers, but a full embrace of the Mosaic law which included circumcision and dietary restrictions was beyond them. So when Peter baptized Cornelius and his family, God-fearers like these could be accepted into the church as if they were Jewish converts.

But it was one thing to for a church comprised largely of Jews to accept a few Gentiles knowledgeable of Jewish law and practices, and quite another to be faced with entire congregations of Gentile Christians who knew almost nothing of Jewish scriptures and traditions. If church leaders insisted on circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law for these new Gentile Christians, most would not accept it and the budding Christian church would become just another Jewish sect. On the other hand, if the Gentiles were accepted without insistence on circumcision and following the law, then the church would lose all of its Jewish character and become a separate religion.

Four Factions

Such was the dilemma facing church authorities at the so-called “Council of Jerusalem” described in Acts 15 and Gal 2:1-10. To the question of “What is required of the Gentile Christian?” there were four basic answers, each represented by a faction within the church:

1. Full observance of the Mosaic law, including circumcision. Believers in this group were headed by former Pharisees (Acts 15:5) who saw Christianity as just another way of being Jewish. They could point to the example of Jesus who followed the Mosaic law and preached only to Jews. Therefore, Gentile followers of Jesus needed to become Jewish.
2. No circumcision, but adherence to some Jewish practices. Jews were chosen by God and were required to follow the Mosaic law, but that was not a burden that needed to be laid on Gentile converts. Lev 17-18 provided rules for Gentiles living among the people of Israel that could be applied in this situation. Peter and James were proponents of this view.
3. No circumcision and no insistence on Jewish food laws. In the view of Paul, the law served as a disciplinarian until Christ came (Gal 3:24). But Christ removed the curse for failing to fully follow the Mosaic law (Gal 3:10-13). If the risen Lord chose Paul while he was still a persecutor of the church, this proved that a person is not justified through works of the law.
4. No circumcision, no food laws, and no significance in Jewish cults and feasts. This view was held by Hellenists like Stephen, the author of the Gospel of John, and the author of Hebrews. The Temple is rejected as a place where God dwells and Jesus is seen as the replacement for the Jewish high priesthood and sacrificial offerings. More radical members would teach that Jewish Christians no longer needed to circumcise their children or observe Jewish traditions (Acts 21:21).

The Jerusalem Conference and Its Aftermath

With this background in mind, we can turn to Paul’s account of the Jerusalem Conference in Gal 2:1-10. Paul says that, “in response to a revelation,” he and Barnabas travelled to Jerusalem and brought along Titus, an uncircumcised Christian. Concerned that the church authorities could shut down his ministry, Paul laid out the gospel he proclaimed to the Gentiles. Although he was opposed by members of the “circumcision party” (group #1 above), the “pillars” of the church – James, Peter and John –– did not insist Titus be circumcised and authorized continued outreach to the Gentiles. To hear Paul tell the story, he got everything he wanted.

The Dispute at Antioch: Saints Peter and Paul by Jusepe de Ribera (1591-1652) aka “Lo Spagnoletto” (“the Little Spaniard”). Peter is the one holding the big key.

Thus it is something of a surprise when Paul continues to tells us the story of what happened when Peter visited the Antiochene church (Gal 2:11-14). After his arrival in Antioch, Peter enjoyed communal meals with the Gentile members of the church, but once members of the pro-circumcision faction arrived, he no longer shared in the communal meals with the Gentiles. Peter’s position within the Jerusalem church led other circumcised Christians and even Barnabas to isolate themselves from the Gentiles as well. Paul called out Peter on his hypocrisy but does not report what happened next. We can only conclude that Paul realized he lost the battle and severed his ties with the Antiochene church. (This episode may also explain why Paul chose Silas instead of Barnabas to accompany him on his next missionary journey.)

Was Peter really the hypocrite Paul made him out to be? At the Jerusalem Conference Peter and James were trying to split the difference between the pro-circumcision and Pauline factions. The circumcisers insisted that full observance of the law was the price of admission to the Christian church. Paul had no objection to a Christian – Jewish or Gentile – following the Mosaic law as long as they understood that justification came through belief in Jesus, not adherence to the law. Peter and James did not want to impose the Mosaic law on Gentiles but considered it necessary for Jewish Christians.

The Dietary Problem

Unwittingly, Peter and James had solved one problem only to introduce another. With no requirement that Gentiles follow Jewish dietary laws, the circumcised Christians had no way of knowing if a communal meal prepared by a Gentile Christian was kosher or not. There had to be some element of trust that a Gentile would not knowingly serve ritually unclean food to his circumcised Christian brother. Peter had first-hand experience of Jesus’ table fellowship with outcasts like tax collectors and prostitutes, so he didn’t have a problem eating with Gentiles.

But when the party from James arrived from Jerusalem, they planted seeds of distrust in the minds of the circumcised Christians. James still required Jewish Christians to fully observe the law of and part of that law required them to eat separately from Gentile Christians (Acts 10:28a). Peter was caught in the middle but had to side with James because separation at meals was the logical consequence of the decision of the Jerusalem Conference that he was party to.

Paul, though, saw it as both a betrayal and counter-productive. Without shared table fellowship, there was nothing to hold the Antiochene church together and the two sides would grow further apart, perhaps leading to a schism. The Jerusalem church would need to take action to ward off such a disaster.

The Gentile Pentecost

How is Acts of the Apostles like the television series The Walking Dead? In terms of story-telling, both are sprawling tales with a vast cast of characters. When those characters become separated due to a traumatic event, the narrative thread splits to follow individual characters as they cope with new challenges.

Following Multiple Storylines

In the middle of the fourth season of The Walking Dead, the main cast of characters are separated into five groups when their home comes under attack. For the rest of the season, each episode focused on one of the five groups struggling to reunite with their friends and find a safe haven in the zombie apocalypse.

In Acts, the shattering event that drives the characters apart is the persecution of the Jerusalem church first mentioned in Acts 8:1. The rest of Acts 8 focused on the evangelist Philip in Samaria and Judea. Acts 9:1-31 rewound back to the persecution with Saul pursuing Christians to Damascus and his conversion there. He eventually returns to Jerusalem to meet with Peter, and in 9:32-43 we follow Peter healing the paralyzed Aeneas and raising Tabitha from the dead, miracles reminiscent of those Jesus performed in Luke’s gospel. Although this passage appears after Saul’s return to Jerusalem, due to the story-telling technique, the events may have occurred during the three years Saul was in Damascus.

Peter’s two miracles are merely a prelude to the more important story of the baptism of the centurion Cornelius and his family in 10:1-11-18. The story is recounted in five acts:

1. Cornelius has a vision of an angel who instructs him to send his servants to Joppa to find Peter (10:1-8); 
2. Peter has a vision instructing him to eat clean and unclean animals (10:9-16);
3. Peter greets the messengers from Cornelius and invites them to spend the night (10:17-23a);
4. Peter sets off to Cornelius’ house in Caesarea. Finally understanding his vision, Peter begins to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles and they receive the Holy Spirit. Peter then has them baptized. (10:23b-48);
5. Peter is asked to give an account of his actions (11:1-18).

The vision of Peter and the conversion of Saul are both pivotal events for Luke because he narrates each three separate times. Another similar feature is the “double vision” of the convert and his sponsor (Cornelius and Peter, Saul and Ananias) which is more common in Greek than Jewish literature. Luke wants to be clear to his readers that these foundational events were under divine direction.

God-Fearers

Cornelius is described as a “God-fearing man” (10:2), a term referring to non-Jews sympathetic to Judaism. The God-fearers agreed with Jewish ethical principles and attended synagogue services, but did not submit to circumcision or observe the Torah in its entirety. In modern parlance, I suppose you could call them “Jew-curious.” But Cornelius was more than that. In v. 22, he is also called “upright,” meaning that he actually followed Mosaic law.

In addition to circumcision, one of the religious practices that dissuaded God-fearers from conversion to Judaism was the dietary restrictions. Certain food items – like pork – were forbidden to Jews. Peter explains in 10:28a that it was actually unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. This rule was probably adopted to eliminate the possibility of the Jew unintentionally bringing ritual impurity upon himself through contact with a Gentile.

Peter’s Vision, engraving from the Dutch theology text History of the Old and New Testament by David Martin (1639-1721)

In this context, we can understand Peter’s vision of “all kinds” of animals and the instruction that God has declared them all to be clean (kosher). Scholars are divided on whether Peter’s vision is an integral part of the Cornelius story or something Luke took from a separate strand of tradition – for example, a dispute story about whether Christians are allowed to eat non-kosher foods – and introduced into the Cornelius narrative. In 10:28b Peter interprets the vision of various animals as an allegory for people: “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.”

After Peter arrives at Cornelius’ house, he delivers a missionary speech. After a brief introduction (vv. 34-36), he launches into the Christian kerygma (vv. 37-41), before reaching his conclusion (vv. 42-43). Kerygma is a Greek word used to refer to the initial and essential proclamation of the gospel message. You can think of it as “the gospel in a nutshell.” Luke usually writes Greek that indicates he is cultured and educated, but portions of this passage are written in a “miserable Greek” that is not at all his style. This indicates to biblical scholars that Luke is incorporating very old material. Some scholars believe that apostolic preaching such as this eventually developed into the synoptic gospels.

The Gentile Problem

At this point in Acts, we have seen the word of Jesus spread among Jews (both Hebrew and Hellenists), Samaritans, and Gentile converts to Judaism like the Ethiopian eunuch. Being a follower of Jesus was seen as just a different way of being Jewish, certainly not a separate religion. It just didn’t make sense that one could be a believer in Christ without also being Jewish.

Cornelius presents an interesting case. He’s a Gentile God-fearer who follows Mosaic law and attends synagogue, but he isn’t circumcised and therefore not Jewish. Fortunately for Peter, God takes the initiative and sends the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his relatives and friends who have gathered in his household. Seeing the Gentiles “speaking in tongues and extolling God,” Peter decides there is no reason not to baptize them with water as well.

Word of what happened in Cornelius’ house got out and the next time Peter was in Jerusalem, he was confronted by the “circumcised believers” and asked to explain why he visited and ate with the uncircumcised. The term “circumcised believers” is apparently being used to describe Jewish Christians, in distinction from Gentile Christians like Cornelius who would be “uncircumcised believers.” Interestingly, the Jewish Christians seem to be more concerned about Peter visiting Gentiles than with him baptizing them as Christians. For the time being, they are satisfied with Peter’s explanation of the divine initiative in pouring out the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles. Soon, however, the church will have to decide on expectations for the newly baptized Gentiles.

The thought that Peter’s fraternization with Gentiles was considered scandalous among the Jewish Christians tells us that there was no episode in Jesus’ public ministry that could be referenced as justification for such a ministry. The church had no blueprint for how to address questions such as: Do Gentiles need to be circumcised to become followers of Jesus? Do Gentile Christians need to follow Jewish dietary restrictions? Without clear statements from Jesus to lead them, the early church had to rely on insights gained through the Holy Spirit to guide them on what Christ wanted for his church.

The Adventures of Philip

Most of what we know about Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven, comes from two incidents in Acts 8. In the first (8:4-25), Philip preaches in Samaria and encounters Simon the magician. In the second story (8:26-40), Philip baptizes an Ethiopian eunuch he meets on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza.

Appointment in Samaria

According to Luke in Acts of the Apostles, Saul led a wave of persecution in Jerusalem that caused the Christian community to scatter to the winds. As a result, Philip relocated to Samaria and followed the model of Jesus with a ministry of preaching combined with exorcisms and healings.

Samaria was the area we know today as the West Bank. Once part of the heartland of Israel, it was resettled by various peoples after Israel’s defeat at the hands of the Assyrians and Babylonians. The Samaritans accepted only the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, and did not acknowledge the Temple in Jerusalem as the only place of worship. Upon the return of the exiles from Babylon, the Jews considered the Samaritans as heretics and worse than pagans. For the Jews of Jesus’ day, there was no such thing as a “good” Samaritan, such was the hostility between the two.

Therefore it is with some surprise that (1) Philip traveled to Samaria and (2) was accepted there. At the time, the Samaritans were enamored of a certain magician named Simon who they referred to as “the Great Power of God.” Better known in later Christian tradition as Simon Magus (“magician”), he was converted by Philip’s message, submitted to baptism, and became a follower of Philip.

The success of Philip’s mission drew the attention of the apostles in Jerusalem, so Peter and John were sent to investigate. Since the Samaritans had only been baptized, Peter and John laid hands on them to confer the Holy Spirit. Presumably, at this point the Samaritans began to demonstrate charismatic gifts such as speaking in tongues. Seeing this, Simon Magus offered the apostles money to give him a share of their power. Peter berated him, essentially saying, “To hell with you and your money!” (v. 20). Unlike the story of Ananias and Sapphira, however, Peter gave Simon the opportunity to repent and Simon asked Peter to pray for him.

Who was Simon Magus?

For such a minor character, the amount of legends surrounding Simon Magus are quite surprising. The term “Great Power” (v. 10) used to refer to Simon is found among later gnostic texts. Gnosticism was a popular movement in the 2nd century that believed in a strong dichotomy between spiritual (= good) and material (= evil) existence and salvation relied on a special knowledge (gnosis) that was only granted to a select few. The early church considered Gnosticism a heresy and identified Simon Magus as the first gnostic. In other church traditions, Simon was considered a charlatan and opponent of the apostles.

Fall of Simon Magus (1461-62) by Benozzo Gozzoli. The apocryphal Acts of Peter tells the story of a contest between St. Peter and Simon Magus in Rome. Simon uses his magic to levitate (seen in the background) and Peter (on right) prays to God that he be struck down (where he lays at Peter’s feet).

Certainly Luke’s intent is to subordinate the person of Simon Magus to apostolic authority. Since Simon is described as a sorcerer with a substantial Samaritan following, there could be a polemical purpose to the story, especially if Simonians were still active at the time Luke wrote Acts (80-85 CE). In a similar fashion, the NT sought to subordinate John the Baptist to Jesus to the point of trying to obscure Jesus’ baptism by John.

As a side note, the term “simony” (buying an ecclesiastical office or grace) comes from this episode.

The Ethiopian Eunuch

After Peter and John arrive in Samaria, we hear nothing more of Philip and his ministry there. We’re told in v. 25 that Peter and John eventually returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to the Samaritans as they went along. Apparently Philip went along with them, because when he is next mentioned in v. 26, he is told by an angel of the Lord to go down the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, one of the five ancient Philistine cities.

Along the road, he encountered a eunuch who was treasurer to the Candace (the queen of the Ethiopians). Luke tells us that the eunuch was returning to his country after worshipping in Jerusalem. Running alongside the eunuch’s carriage, Philip heard him reading Isaiah 53:7-8 and offered to explain it to him. Believing in the message of Jesus, the eunuch stopped his carriage beside some water and asked to be baptized. Immediately after the baptism, Philip was snatched away by the Spirit of the Lord and he found himself in Azotus (Ashdod), another of the five ancient Philistine cities. He continued travelling north along the Mediterranean coast until he arrived in Caesarea where Paul later finds him in Acts 21:8.

Many have seen correspondences between this story and the Emmaus narrative. Both have as their core the narrative of travelers (two disciples; eunuch) overtaken by a stranger (risen Christ; Philip) who interprets Scripture for them. A request from the traveler leads to a sacramental outcome (Eucharist; baptism). Upon conclusion of the sacrament, the stranger disappears from the traveler’s presence.

Another side note: v. 37 is missing in the oldest texts and appears to be a baptismal formula that was incorporated into the text within a hundred years or so of the writing of Acts.

Evangelizing Beyond Jews

In both the episode of the Ethiopian eunuch and the preceding passage, we see the good news of Jesus being preached for the first time to people other than mainstream Jews. While not considered Jews, the Samaritans weren’t Gentiles, either. They did accept the Torah and some traditional Jewish practices like circumcision. Baptizing Samaritans into the Christian community didn’t run into the same objections that would come with Peter’s baptism of Cornelius and his family in Acts 10.

The Ethiopian eunuch is either a Jew or a convert to Judaism. Deuteronomy 23:2 (23:1 in some English versions) seems to preclude the possibility of a eunuch entering “the assembly of the Lord” but in the later understanding reflected in Isaiah 56:3-5, “eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths…and hold fast to my covenant” will be given an everlasting name. Luke portrays the Ethiopian treasurer as that kind of eunuch.

In these two stories, Luke is showing how the first Christian evangelists are quick to welcome those who would be considered on the outskirts of mainstream Judaism or who would be rejected altogether. He is setting the stage for the next big leap in Acts 10 when Peter baptizes Gentiles for the first time. But, before we can get to that momentous event, we have to backtrack a bit in Acts 9 and report the story of Saul’s conversion.

Knock 'em Dead

The picture of the early Christian community that Luke paints In the opening chapters of Acts of the Apostles is a communist ideal: “No one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common” (Acts 4:32). A positive example is given of Barnabas (4:36-37), who sold a field he owned and laid the proceeds “at the feet of the apostles.” And then you have the negative example of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11).

Holding Back

As Luke tells the tale, Ananias – with the full consent and knowledge of his wife Sapphira – sold property and held back some of the proceeds when donating it to the apostles. Peter, aware of the subterfuge, called Ananias out on it, whereupon Ananias immediately dropped dead. Three hours later, completely unaware of what had happened to her husband, Sapphira is questioned by Peter. When she backs up her husband’s story, Peter tells her that those who have just returned from burying her husband will also bury her and then she is struck dead as well.

The passage reads like a tale that would be comfortable in the OT. Indeed, it has similarities to the story of Achan in Joshua 7. In that story, after the fall of Jericho, Achan took some of the gold and silver that should have gone into YHWH’s treasury. When the Israelites suffered a military setback, Joshua learned of the transgression and eventually fingered Achan as the culprit. Achan confessed and was executed by the people, thus restoring order.

Death of Ananias by Gustave Doré (1832-1883)

The main difference with the story of Achan is that here God is the one carrying out the death sentence. Peter, acting as spokesman for the apostles, declares their sin (“you have lied to God;” “you have put the Lord’s Spirit to the test”) but he does not curse them or condemn. But after rebuking them, neither does he offer them a chance to repent and be forgiven as Jesus instructed his disciples to do in Luke 17:3-4.

There are other irregularities. First, it strains credulity that word of Ananias’ sudden death would not have made its way to Sapphira, if only so she could attend his burial. Second, Acts 4:32 quoted above stated no one in the Jerusalem community owned private property, yet Peter clearly tells Ananias that he was under no obligation to sell his property. And, if he did sell it, he was also under no obligation to donate the money from the sale to the community.

So what was their crime?

Trying to Explain

Ananias’ sin was essentially that of lying, claiming that he had donated the entire value of property when he really had not. And Sapphira not only lied to cover up for her husband, but also having full knowledge of what he planned to do, she failed to dissuade him from his course of action. But are those transgressions so terrible that death is a just sentence? What sort of church requires such purity that it can only be preserved by the death of sinners?

The story is so at odds with Jesus’ teachings of repentance and forgiveness that many have struggled to make sense of it. Some biblical scholars have looked for an explanation in the Essene community of Qumran. According to that community’s rule book, after a two-year probationary period, it was obligatory for a candidate to hand over all his property to the community. There were punishments (although not the death penalty!) for deception in regards to property. If there was such a rule in the early Jerusalem community, Ananias and Sapphira would be guilty of failing to fulfill their obligation to God, not simply lying about how much they donated.

Another attempt at explaining the point of the story is that it was the “original sin” of the Christian community. After describing an idyllic community, we see a Christian couple who sin against God and receive a punishment of death. Satan (v. 3) enters the Christian community for the first time. Other examples of sin at the “beginnings” would be the Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3), the golden calf at Sinai (Exodus 32), and David arranging the death of Uriah to claim Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11). But the magnitude of this sin compared to those seems way out of balance.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

The most plausible explanation to me is an etiological reading. In the primitive Christian community, it was believed that death had been conquered through Jesus’ resurrection. Since Jesus would return soon in his glory, none of his followers would suffer death. If Ananias and Sapphira were the first members of the Jerusalem community to die, people would want to know why had they died before Christ came again. Death before the second coming is a problem that Paul tries to explain to the Thessalonians (1 Thes 4:13-17).

A simple explanation for the couple’s unexpected death was that they were guilty of some grievous sin (for example, lying to the Holy Spirit) for which death was a suitable punishment. If they had just donated money to the community before their death, their sin must obviously have had something to do with that. The story would then have been re-told in that light, emphasizing the sin and the immediate punishment. It would then become a cautionary tale for members of the community.

If this hypothesis is correct, Ananias and Sapphira were not condemned to death by a vengeful God because they sinned; they died and sin was proposed as an explanation for their untimely demise. It’s not that different from today when, after a great natural tragedy strikes a city, televangelists cast about for some heinous sin that “explains” why God let loose his fury on that city. Never mind that those who died in the natural disaster played no part in the “sin” that supposedly brought down God’s wrath.

Incidents and Accidents, Hints and Allegations

With the Last Supper now over, the passion narrative in the Gospel of John begins to align with the Synoptic Gospels as Jesus takes his disciples to a spot on the Mount of Olives. Mark (14:32) identifies the location as Gethsemane (from the Hebrew name for “oil-press”) and John (18:1) calls it a garden, but Luke (22:39) identifies it as their customary place on the Mount of Olives. Most likely it was an olive garden. John (18:2) agrees that the spot was well-known to Judas as a place where Jesus often met with his disciples.

The Agony in the Garden

While the Fourth Gospel proceeds directly to the arrest, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus retreat a distance from his disciples to pray to his Father to “remove the cup” of suffering he is about to undergo. After this, according to Mark and Matthew, Jesus returns to the disciples three separate times only to find them sleeping. Luke puts the disciples in a better light by having Jesus return only once to find the disciples sleeping. Not only that, but he provides “sorrow” (22:45) as the reason for their slumber, although insomnia would seem to be a more common condition for someone in that state.

Christ in Gethsemane (1886) by Heinrich Hofmann. This painting has been reproduced countless times in kitschy religious art.

The familiar term “agony in the garden” comes from Luke 22:43-44 in which God answers Jesus’ prayer by sending an angel to strengthen him and “in his agony” his sweat fell to the ground like drops of blood. These verses are missing from several of the oldest manuscripts of Luke and are bracketed in many modern English translations. NT scholars are divided on whether these verse are original to Luke or were added later.

In this context, “agony” does not have the connotation of extreme pain. Instead it refers to the moment of tension of an athlete poised at the starting line, sweat beginning to break out. In this case, Jesus is tense as he is about to begin his trial. Although a common understanding is that Jesus’ sweated blood, the verse only says that his sweat dripped like blood.

The Arrest

At this point in Mark (14:43-52), Judas arrives with a crowd to arrest Jesus. Judas tells them that they are to arrest the man that he identifies with a kiss. Someone draws and sword and severs the ear of the high priest’s slave and all the disciples flee, including a lightly-clad young man who left his linen cloth behind to run away naked.

Matthew (26:47-56) is mostly faithful to Mark. He clarifies that the person who severed the ear of the slave was one of the disciples and Jesus urged him to sheathe his sword “for all who take up the sword will perish by it.” The call to sheathe the sword matches John (18:10-11) and John identifies the sword wielder as Peter and the servant as Malchus.

The Taking of Christ (c. 1602) by Caravaggio

Luke’s account of the arrest (22:47-53) abbreviates Mark so much that his narrative is close to being nonsensical. Judas approaches Jesus to kiss him without any explanation. The disciples ask if they are to use the swords in their possession and, before Jesus can answer, attack the high priest’s slave. Only in Luke, however, does Jesus heal the ear of the slave. Along with Matthew, Luke deletes the strange reference to the naked young man. Indeed, because of the high esteem in which he holds the disciples, Luke eliminates any reference to them fleeing.

In John’s brief account of the arrest (18:2-12), Jesus identifies himself (“I am”) rather than have Judas identify him and submits to arrest as long as the other disciples are free to go. The Johannine Jesus is in complete control of events.

Interrogation and Denials

After the arrest, the evangelists differ on the details of what happened next. According to Mark (14:53-65), Jesus was led to the high priest and assembled members of the Jewish council (Sanhedrin) for a night trial where witnesses were presented and Jesus was convicted of blasphemy and condemned to death. This is followed by abuse and mockery. While this is going on, Peter is in the courtyard denying and cursing Jesus (14:66-72). Matthew (26:57-75) agrees with Mark, but notes the name of the high priest was Caiaphas.

In John (18:13-27), Jesus is brought to a high priest, but in this case it is Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. John has Annas interrogate Jesus before sending him on to Caiaphas for transfer to Pilate. The abuse is limited to Jesus being struck by a guard for being less than deferential to the high priest. While Jesus is being passed back and forth, the Beloved Disciple was able to get Peter into the courtyard where he three times denied that he was either a disciple or present at Jesus’ arrest.

Christ before Caiaphas (c. 1630) by Matthias Stom. Great use of light in this one.

Luke (22:54-71) splits the difference. Just as in the other gospels, Peter follows Jesus to the courtyard of the high priest, but the Sanhedrin doesn’t gather until morning. Sitting around the fire with others, Peter denies he knows Jesus, denies he is one of the disciples, and even denies being a Galilean. As the cock crows, Jesus – who apparently was also in the courtyard all this time – turns to look at him and Peter remembers the prophecy. Jesus is also mocked and beaten before any sort of hearing. Luke’s account of the Sanhedrin hearing is different in that no witnesses are presented and there was no mention of the charge of blasphemy or passing of a death sentence. It is more like Annas' interrogation in John.

The differing details have caused NT scholars to debate which version of events are most likely to be historical. Was Jesus convicted by the Sanhedrin after a trial or did he only have a preliminary interrogation before being delivered to Pilate? In other words, how big a role did the Jewish authorities play in the execution of Jesus? We’ll discuss this more next week when we get to Jesus’ trial before Pilate.

These three scenes would have had special importance for the early Christians. Although Mark has Jesus prostrate on the ground praying that “the hour might pass” from him, he did accede to the Father’s will. Some of the disciples tried to resist his arrest with a sword, but Jesus accepted his fate “so that Scripture might be fulfilled.” Peter may have committed the worst sin in the early Church, that of renouncing Jesus, but he would regain his faith and become the head of the Church. The example of Jesus taught the early Christians the proper way to respond when faced with persecutions and death. Peter taught them that even if they failed, redemption was still possible.

What's the Catch?

Let’s say that you are asked to write the screenplay for a movie about the life of Jesus. In your source material (the Gospel of Mark), Jesus begins his ministry in Galilee by calling the first disciples (Mk 1:16-20): Simon and Andrew, John and James. They were fishermen and he tells them, “Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.” And they left everything behind and followed him. After this, Mark records a typical day in the life of Jesus (Mk 1:21-39) where, on one Sabbath in Capernaum, he exorcises a man possessed by an unclean spirit, heals Simon’s mother-in-law as well as many others, and leaves town early the next day.

The sequence of events bothers you as a screenwriter because it doesn’t seem plausible that four fishermen would just leave their families and business behind to follow some stranger who happened to be passing by. You need to establish a motivation for the characters in your movie. So you transpose the Capernaum events to occur before the calling of the first disciples. That way, the audience will have seen there’s something special about Jesus. And you will also have Jesus perform a miracle for the fishermen – not just healings or exorcisms – to provide motivation for them to drop everything and follow Jesus.

Alternate Versions of the Same Event?

This is exactly what Luke did with his gospel. We have already discussed how Luke transposed Jesus’ rejection in Nazareth from later in Mark (6:1-5) to the inauguration of his public ministry. Luke follows this with his version of Mark’s events in Capernaum (Lk 4:31-44). Only then does Luke recount the calling of the first disciples (Lk 5:1-11). He uses Mark’s call of the first disciples – along with 4:1-2 – as a frame, but uses his special “L” material as the centerpiece.

The story of the miraculous catch of fish is not in Mark, but it does have similarities to a post-resurrection story found in John (21:1-14). In the Johannine account, the disciples – among whom were Simon Peter and the sons of Zebedee – had returned to their old jobs as fishermen. Having caught nothing all night, a stranger on the shore suggested they cast their net over the right side of the boat and they caught so much fish, they couldn’t pull it into their boats and had to drag it ashore. Only then did they recognize the stranger on the shore “was the Lord.” This story in John is immediately followed by its sequel (21:15-23) in which Jesus twice tells Simon Peter (vv. 19, 22) to “follow me.”

Just like in John’s version, in the Lucan account, Simon and the sons of Zebedee had fished all night and caught nothing. Jesus directed them where to cast their nets and they brought in an extraordinary haul of fish, so much so their nets were near breaking and the boats almost sinking. Simon Peter reacts by saying, “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.” Jesus responds, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” And then we rejoin the Marcan frame with the disciples leaving everything behind to follow Jesus.

“You’ve seen the catch, now here’s my offer: Follow me.” The Miraculous Draught of Fishes (1545) by Jacopo Bassano

Internal Clues

There are obviously some differences between the two stories – Jesus on the boat in Luke, on the shore in John, for example – but they have similar DNA. Biblical scholars believe that we’re looking at one miracle story that was recalled slightly differently in the sources available to John and Luke.

One clue is Simon’s name in v. 8. This is the only time in Luke’s gospel that he is referred to as “Simon Peter.” Otherwise, Luke calls him “Simon” prior to Jesus giving him the name “Peter” in Lk 6:14. In John’s “fish catch” story he is consistently referred to as “Simon Peter,” so Luke is probably reflecting his private source (“L”) in using the double name.

So is it a miracle story from Jesus’ ministry (Luke) or a post-resurrection encounter (John)? Again, scholars believe that the internal evidence in Luke’s story points to it being a post-resurrection story, and a key point is Simon Peter’s reaction in v. 8.

Faced with the miraculous catch of fish, a natural reaction might be gratitude for the catch or awe at the magnitude of haul. Instead, Simon falls to his knees in front of Jesus and says, “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.” The fear, the feeling of unworthiness, and addressing Jesus as “Lord” are consistent with a post-resurrection context in which Peter had previously denied Jesus and feels guilt or shame. Jesus’ reassuring words of “Do not be afraid” are almost standard in post-resurrection appearances.

The events in Luke’s account take place in a boat, so when Simon tells Jesus to “depart from” him, it is not clear how he expects Jesus to do that. However, it would make sense if the original setting took place on land and/or Peter had just recognized the risen Jesus.

Combine this with a setting in which the disciples had returned to fishing in Galilee and the focus on a missionary call specifically to Peter, and perhaps the core of this story is the first post-resurrection appearance to Peter. If this hypothesis is true, the point of the story would be to explain the rehabilitation of Peter after his denial of Jesus and confirm his apostolic mission.

Catchers of Men

Note how Luke changes the challenge of Jesus from “you will be fishers of people” in the Marcan account to “you will be catching people” in the Lucan version. One obvious reason is the grim fate of the fish brought up in the nets. The words usually translated as “catching people” literally means “taking people alive.” Luke wants to put a positive spin on the commission.

The fish are symbolic of the success the disciples will have in bringing in followers. Despite their skill, the disciples cannot do it alone, but with the power of Jesus behind them their achievements will surpass their wildest dreams.