After-Supper Conversation

Luke is the only one of the synoptic evangelists to recount a conversation between Jesus and his disciples after the Last Supper. John has a lengthy one that runs from the end of Chapter 13 to the end of Chapter 17. But in Mark (14:26) and Matthew (26:30), after the words instituting the Lord’s Supper, each evangelist has Jesus and the disciples simply sing a hymn and leave for the Mount of Olives.

In order to create a post-Supper discourse (Lk 22:21-38), Luke cobbled together material from his various sources: Mark, Q, and L. There are four distinct units that are only loosely connected:

1. Jesus foretells his betrayal (vv. 21-23). Summarized from Mark and transposed from before the supper.
2. Dispute about greatness (vv. 24-30). Reworked from Mark, with L and Q additions, and transposed from earlier in the ministry.
3. Peter’s denial predicted (vv. 31-34). Mostly L material added to Mark and transposed from the walk to the Mount of Olives.
4. Purse, bag and sword (vv. 35-38). L material.

Looks like the Beloved Disciple has had too much to drink. Inspired by Leonardo’s masterpiece, Jacopo Bassano’s Last Supper (1542) depicts the crucial moment when Jesus announces one of those at table will betray him. 

Jesus Foretells his Betrayal

Luke abbreviates the parallel passage in Mark (14:18-21) which takes place before the words instituting the Lord’s Supper. Relocating the scene to take place after the meal allows Luke to make it part of the post-Supper discourse. It also heightens the drama because it lays bare the fact that one of Jesus’ disciples who has just shared the bread and the cup will betray him.

In Mark (and Matthew), Jesus first announces to the disciples that one of them will betray him and they each immediately take turns asking him, “Is it I?” John’s Gospel has a much lengthier scene (13:21-30) in which the Beloved Disciple asks Jesus to name his betrayer and Jesus identifies Judas by handing him a morsel of food. Only John describes Judas departing from the supper.

Dispute About Greatness

In Mark’s gospel, on the road to Jerusalem, there’s a scene where James and John asked to sit at the right and left hand of Jesus in his kingdom (Mk 10:35-40). (Matthew softens the rudeness of the request by having Mother Zebedee do the asking.) Jesus denied the request, but the other ten became indignant at the sons of Zebedee and this leads to Jesus’ advice (Mk 10:41-45) that the greatest of the disciples must be the servant to all.

Luke dispenses with Mark’s framing story, possibly because it painted James and John in a bad light. Instead, Luke’s frame is the previous announcement of Jesus’ betrayal. Not only did the disciples begin to question who would betray Jesus, but a dispute also arose as to which of them was the greatest. Luke wants us to see that, having been told the depths to which one of them could sink, the natural inclination would be to assert their bona fides as a faithful disciple.

Luke reworks Mark, but also includes some of his own material, such as v. 27: “For who is greater, the one who sits at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.” This echoes the Last Supper scene in the Fourth Gospel (13:3-17) in which Jesus girds himself in a towel and washes the feet of the disciples. It also recalls Lk 12:37 where Jesus blesses the slaves whom the master finds awake on his return: “He will gird himself and have them sit at table, and he will come and serve them.”

Luke also calls upon a saying taken from the Q tradition. Matthew locates this saying (19:28) after his well-known response to the rich young man, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” Jesus tells Peter and the other disciples that although they have left everything to follow him, they will be rewarded in the new kingdom by sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Biblical scholars believe that in choosing twelve disciples to be his inner circle, Jesus was symbolically reconstituting the twelve tribes of Israel, a necessary prerequisite to bring about the Kingdom of God.

Peter’s Denial Predicted

In Matthew and Mark, Jesus predicts Peter’s denial on the walk to the Mount of Olives. Once again, Luke agrees with John in having the prediction made while they are all still at supper.

Luke introduces the prediction by having Jesus announce that Satan demands to sift the disciples like wheat, but he is praying for Simon’s faith not to (permanently) fail. And, when he has recovered, he is to strengthen his brother disciples. With his typical bravado, Peter declares that he is ready to go to prison and death and Jesus replies with the well-known prediction, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day until you have denied three times that you know me.” The use of the name “Simon” at the beginning of the unit and “Peter” at the end is evidence that this unit is a composite from different sources.

A somewhat less reverent version attempts to portray biblical scenes using Lego minifigures.

Purse, Bag and Sword

In the final unit of the post-Supper discourse, Jesus asks his disciples to recall the time he sent them out on a missionary journey without “purse, bag or sandals” (Lk 10:1-12). They did not lack for anything then due to the hospitality they received, but from now on they will experience hostility. So they will need to bring a purse or bag if they have one. And if they lack it, they should sell their cloak to buy a sword because Jesus – and by extension, his disciples – will be counted as outlaws.

The disciples understand the literal sense of his words and say, “Here are two swords.” To which Jesus responds, “Enough!” in the sense of, “Enough of that!” Jesus’ exasperated reaction tells us he was speaking metaphorically. He meant “sword” as a symbol for crisis or discernment. A loose translation of the verse would be “sell your cloak and buy yourself trouble.”

Verse 38 has frequently been understood as Jesus essentially saying, “Yes, two swords are enough for our purposes.” But this interpretation flies in the face of a Lucan Jesus who preached the love of enemies (6:27-36) and lived out that teaching (9:51-56; 23:34).

Luke’s post-Supper discourse is not a grand farewell address as in John’s gospel, but there is a common theme of Jesus preparing his disciples for what is to come (betrayal, Peter’s denial) and giving them final instructions (serve others, be ready for rejection). The remainder of the chapter will see Jesus’ predictions become reality.

The New Passover

All four gospels recall Jesus’ last meal with his disciples as one with special significance. For the synoptic gospels it was a Passover meal and, during it, Jesus intoned a special blessing over the bread and wine. John differs from the synoptics in that his last supper was not a Passover meal and the symbolic act was one of foot washing. I’ll leave a discussion of John’s last supper to a later time. In this article, I will just focus on what the synoptic evangelists have to say about the last supper.

Passover Preparations

After describing how Judas offered to betray Jesus, Mark then proceeds to the preparations for Passover (14:12-17). Matthew (26:17-19) abbreviates the story, but Luke (22:7-13) stays fairly close to Mark. It is Passover eve, or the Preparation Day in which lambs begin to be slaughtered in the Temple court for use at the Passover supper. Upon being asked where they would celebrate the Passover, Jesus provides some odd instructions. 

He sends two disciples – Luke names them Peter and John – into the city where they will follow a man carrying a water jar. The man will lead them to a house with a furnished upper room where the disciples will prepare for the supper. Since it was typically the woman’s job to carry water, perhaps this particular man was part of a community, such as the Essenes, that did not admit women. It seems that Jesus had already made prior arrangements.

Growing up, I think just about every Catholic home had a framed Last Supper print similar to this. No, it's not da Vinci's famous mural, but a painting done in his style by Austrian artist H. Zabateri (1859-1945).

Reinterpreting Passover

As the supper begins in Mark and Matthew (Mk 14:18-21; Mt 26:21-25), Jesus foretells his betrayal before he blesses the bread and wine. In Luke, he does this after the blessing, most likely in order to add it to his lengthy discourse after the meal.

For the supper itself, Mark (14:22-25) and Matthew (26:26-29) describe the blessing and breaking of the bread, followed by Jesus giving thanks and sharing the cup. In Luke (22:15-20), Jesus shares the cup, breaks the bread, and then shares a second cup. Luke’s longer account deviates from Mark in other respects and can be broken down into two parts. 

In the first part (vv. 15-18), Jesus more clearly ties his supper to the Passover meal, twice asserting (“for I tell you”) his belief that the fulfillment of Passover will occur in the messianic banquet (Is 25:6) of the Kingdom of God:

He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;
for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
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.”

In the second part (vv. 19-20), Jesus reinterprets the signature foods of the meal. In a traditional Passover meal, the head of the house would say, “This is the bread of affliction which our fathers had to eat as they came out of Egypt.” Jesus, instead, identifies the bread with himself:

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.”

There is a clear connection between the mentions of Jesus’ imminent suffering and death in the first part of the unit and his body and blood in the second part. His death is salvific because his body is “given for you” and his blood is “poured out for you.” Exodus 24:3-8 described one covenant sealed with blood between God and his people. This will be a “new covenant” confirmed with “my blood.” Being “poured out” is an allusion to the Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 53:12.

In Memory of Me

The Lucan Jesus instructs his disciples to repeat his actions “in remembrance” of him, just like the yearly Passover meal was repeated in order to make present God’s saving act in the past. Jesus’ own body and blood will replace the Passover lamb as the sign for how the Kingdom of God will be realized from now on.

In light of how important Jesus’ words instituting the Lord’s Supper are, there is disagreement over exactly what those words were. Mark/Matthew present one version and Luke/Paul present another. Luke’s wording is very similar to what Paul hands on in 1 Cor 11:24-25:

And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

In contrast, the Marcan Jesus says of the bread, “Take; this is my body.” And, for the cup, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” Mark lacks the explanation that Jesus’ body is “for you” and the command to “do this in remembrance of me.” Mark also misses the allusion to the “new covenant” in Jer 31:31, but does capture that Jesus’ blood is to be “poured out,” something that is missing in Paul. The reference to “many” is another allusion to Is 53:12 where the Suffering Servant “bore the sin of many.” It really means “for all,” not just one or a few.

Matthew slightly alters Mark’s words. The Matthean Jesus doesn’t just tell the disciples to “take” the break but to “take, eat.” Similarly, when it comes to the cup, the Matthean Jesus asks the disciples to “drink of it, all of you.” The cup isn’t simply “poured out” but is poured out “for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew is attempting to explain that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross forgives sins in the way that the blood of sacrificial animals in the OT forgave sins.

When Jesus tells his disciples that the bread is his body (Greek, soma), he is referring to his entire “self.” As biblical scholar Rudoph Bultmann once wrote, “A man does not have a soma; he is soma.” Jesus is not sacrificing his physical human body, but his entire life, everything he is. When Jesus says “do this,” he is not simply urging his disciples to relive the supper. He is asking them to give of their entire being.

The Woman with the Alabaster Jar

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are referred to as the synoptic gospels (from synopsis, “seeing together”) because they present many of the same stories, frequently in the same sequence, and many times with the same words. This is not unexpected since most biblical scholars believe that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of the sources for their gospels. By way of contrast, however, even a casual reader of the NT will notice that the Gospel of John is markedly different. For example, in John’s Gospel there are no narrative parables, no exorcisms and few relatively miracles, and extended discourses instead of proverbial “sound bites.”

General Comments on the Passion Narratives

That said, the Fourth Gospel does start to track more closely with events in the synoptic gospels beginning with the arrest in the garden and continuing to Jesus’ burial. This suggests that a common tradition of Jesus’ passion (from the Greek, “to suffer”) was known separately to both Mark and John. This passion tradition probably was not a full-fledged narrative source, but more likely a collection of individual episodes that Mark and John each shaped to their purposes. A certain sequence – arrest before trial, trial before crucifixion, etc. – is inherent in the events being described and that is why the chronology is the same.

In the Revised Common Lectionary used by many Christian denominations, Passion (Palm) Sunday gospel reading rotates between Matthew, Mark, or Luke in a three-year cycle. The Good Friday gospel reading always comes from John. The reading from John starts with the arrest in the garden, but the readings from the synoptic gospels begin with the Last Supper. This is partly due to the fact that passages from John’s Last Supper are read on Holy Thursday, but also because the Last Supper is a more intrinsic part of the passion narrative in the synoptics than it is in John.

While each evangelist shows Jesus coming into conflict with religious authorities, it is in the days just prior to the Passover festival that a conspiracy to eliminate Jesus develops. According to Mark (14:1-2), the “chief priests and scribes” sought to arrest and execute him “by stealth” to avoid igniting a riot during the festival.

From Head to Toes

At this point, Mark turns to the story (14:3-9) of an unnamed woman anointing the head of Jesus with an alabaster jar of expensive ointment (made from real nard!) at the home of Simon the leper in Bethany. Upon hearing complaints that the money spent on the ointment – 300 denarii, equivalent to 300 days’ wages – could have been given to the poor instead, Jesus admonished them, saying the woman performed a good service in anointing his body prior to burial. (Words in italics are common to more than one version of the story.)

Jesus Anointed at Bethany by contemporary artist Anthony Falbo 

Matthew (26:6-13) also reports the story of the anointing in Bethany, but Luke does not because he already recounted a similar story earlier in his gospel (7:36-50). In Luke’s version, Jesus was at the house of Simon the Pharisee in Galilee, when an unnamed sinful woman washed his feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and then anointed his feet with an alabaster jar of ointment. When the Pharisee complained that the woman was a sinner, Jesus tells a parable of two debtors, compares the reception he received from Simon with that of the woman, and then forgives her sins.

Luke seems to have conflated two separate stories involving Jesus and unnamed women. In one story from his private “L” tradition, a sinful woman washes Jesus’ feet with her tears and dries them with her hair. In the second story from Mark, the unnamed woman anoints Jesus’ head with expensive ointment just prior to his crucifixion.

What’s odd about Luke’s conflation of two stories is that John does the same thing! In his telling of the story (12:1-8), six days before Passover Jesus is at the home of Lazarus in Bethany. While Lazarus’ sister Martha served dinner, his other sister Mary anointed the feet of Jesus with a pound of expensive ointment (made from real nard!) and then wiped it off with her hair. Judas objects to the extravagance saying the perfume could have been sold for 300 denarii and the money given to the poor.

The tendency to blur the stories together continued in Christian preaching. The virtuous Mary of Bethany in John became muddled with the sinful woman of Luke and confused with Mary of Magdala. What is the most likely sin of a woman? Prostitution, of course. And so we end up with a tradition of Mary Magdalene as a reformed prostitute! (For more on what we know from the gospels of Mary of Magdala, check out my later article.)

Enter Judas

Returning to Mark’s chronology (14:10-11), after the anointing in Bethany, Judas approached the chief priests and offers to betray Jesus; they offer him money. Because Luke omitted the anointing scene, Judas’ offer of betrayal is part of the same unit with the plotting of the chief priests (Lk 22:1-6). Some scholars think Mark intentionally inserted the anointing at Bethany to separate this unit since that is his rhetorical style, sometimes referred to as Mark’s “sandwich technique.” He will start an episode, cut away to something else, and then return to conclude the episode.

Mark calls the betrayer “Judas Iscariot” and re-introduces him as “one of the Twelve.” Scholars have debated the meaning of “Iscariot” without any resolution as to whether it refers to a nickname, his place of birth, or something else. We really just don’t know. That he was one of Jesus’ inner circle was truly scandalous to the early Christians.

Mark provides no motive for Judas’ act of betrayal. Matthew said he did it for the money (thirty pieces of silver). In the story of the anointing in Bethany, John tells us (12:6) that Judas was the treasurer and would take from the purse. While Judas was simply greedy in Matthew, in John he was a greedy thief.

Luke provides a different motivation: “Satan entered into Judas.” This is an allusion to the end of the temptation episode (4:13) where the devil “departed from [Jesus] until an opportune time.” Well, he’s back! Curiously, John uses almost the same words in 13:27: “Satan entered into him.” So not only does John provide the mundane motivation of greed, but he also adds the Lucan motivation of demonic possession.

Next week we will continue our journey through the passion narrative with the Last Supper and the institution of the eucharist.

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.