Jewish and Christian Passover Celebration in Luke 22.

Notes on Luke 22, 1–2:

Luke starts the Passion narrative by recalling that Israel prepares for the celebration of the Passover (Luke 22,1. The New Jerusalem Bible), and informs that “the chief priests and the scribes” wanted to kill Jesus (Luke 22, 2).. I am conscious of the fact that the method of the scriptural exegesis of the Mekhilta that was established by the Rabbis, dates later than the Gospel of Luke. Nevertheless, for Jews the Passover Festival not only concerns the commemorating of the deliverance from the bondage in Egypt (Plietzsch, Susanne. 2005. Kontexte der Freiheit. Konzepte der Befreiung bei Paulus und im rabbinischen Judentum. 56. Verlag W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart). Commemorating the salvation from Egypt inspires and prefigures the hopes for salvation at the end of times (ibid.). Israel’s celebration of the Exodus as the liberation of creation, creates a state of equilibrium between the beginning and the end of times. The equilibrium is about the certainty of Go’d’s saving agency in the presence that helps Israel cope with existence (ibid.).

There is no alternative to the confession of the Exodus for Israel because this confession ensures that each member of this confessing community accepts her or his obligation to live and live a life with the responsibility for freedom and social choices (ibid.: 59). I do not know if the Jews celebrating the Passover at the time of Jesus were thanking for Go’d’s presence and saving agency concerning the social choices that would empower them to cope with existence. It is up to the historians to paint that picture. It is not improbable that some of the Jews, who were eagerly listening to Jesus’ teaching in the Temple, celebrated the Passover not only as the beginning of their creation as Israel but also in view of the end of times that will reveal Go’d’s saving justice and mercy. The Jews, who on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem united with their families to celebrate the Passover festival, created a kind of religious euphoria in the town that inspired Jews of different religious traditions not only to celebrate the Exodus but also the coming salvation (Bovon, Francois. 2009. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Lk 19,28–24,53. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament III/4. 214. Neukirchen-Vluyin: Neukirchener Verlag). In this explosive atmosphere, the authorities were eager to calm the masses and maintain calm and order in the city (ibid.).

During his last days, Jesus was teaching in the Temple “all day long” and then “would spend the night in the open on the hill called the Mount of Olives” (Luke 21, 37–38). In the following chapter Luke continues to tell of the preparation of the Passover in Jerusalem (Luke 22, 1). The Exodus exegesis of the Rabbis helps to understand the Passion narrative. Jesus prepares for a new kind of Passover celebration. The chief priests and the scribes “were looking for some way of doing away with” Jesus, “because they were afraid of the people” (Luke 22, 2). They were not getting ready to confess the Exodus of Israel from Egypt. On the contrary, they were obsessed by making Jesus, whom the people liked, their prisoner. Already earlier they had wanted to kill Jesus but since “the whole people hung on his words” they “could not find a way to carry this out” (Luke 19, 48). In Luke 20, 19 we read again, “the scribes and their chief priests would have liked to lay hand on him that very moment” that Jesus would compare them in his parable to “the wicked tenants”, “but they were afraid of the people” (Luke 20, 19). The religious leaders in Jerusalem are very conscious of and concerned with their fundamental differences with the interests of the people. The people wanted to listen to the teaching of Jesus, they were attracted to the way of Jesus.

The way that the religious leaders were searching for was a way to do away with Jesus. They do not listen to the teachings of Jesus and do not solidarize with the people to realize the Exodus once again in a very difficult social, political, and religious situation of Israel. Instead, they plot to exclude the Jew Jesus from their community and kill him. For the moment Jesus is not present. The chief priests and the scribes perverted the celebration of liberation from Egypt by collaborating with the Romans who made of Israel their house of slaves as the Egyptians had done before them. The religious leaders take a social choice to seek their salvation in collaboration with their suppressors and against the hope in the Lord of creation that is Go’d and Her saving agency and power.

Notes on Luke 22, 3–6:

At the beginning of Luke 4, Satan confronts Jesus, Satan takes the initiative. Jesus is filled with the Holy Spirit and the Spirit led him into the desert. Satan has 40 days to test Jesus. From Luke 4, 14 onward, Jesus takes the initiative, and he will confront Satan again in his Passion. All his way up from Galilee to Jerusalem Jesus teaches the Good News, liberation and justice, mercy and reconciliation and heals the sick. In Luke 22, 3 Satan again takes over. He will realize his destructions all along the Passion narrative until the burial of Jesus (Luke 23, 50 - 56a). The last word on Jesus’ destruction speaks the Father, who makes him rise from the dead. The ascension to the father, constitutes the last verses of the final part of Luke’s narrations of the Resurrection (Luke 23, 56b – 24, 53).

At the beginning of the Passion narrative, there is a serious problem with one of Jesus’ Apostles: Judas, one of the Twelve starts collaborating with the Jewish authorities to hand them over Jesus. Not only the religious authorities in Jerusalem realize a social choice against the creator of life and freedom, but Judas also realizes a social choice against the life of a man from Israel, who was once his master and model that is Jesus of Nazareth. In Luke 6, 12–16 we learn that Judas Iscariot had been chosen at the hand of Jesus as one of the Twelve. Jesus had been praying in the nights on the mountain to Go`d; then “he summoned his disciples and picked out twelve of them; he called them ‘apostles’” (Luke 6, 13). We imagine Judas following Jesus of Nazareth on his way from Galilee through Juda to Jerusalem. Jesus interacted with Judas, he related to him, he taught him the Gospel, and Judas related to Jesus, listened, followed, and lived his life in solidarity as a disciple and even as an apostle. We suppose empathy, trust and mutual respect between Jesus and Judas.

Judas takes the social choice to walk away from Jesus and the Twelve. He left his master and went away from his peer group, the disciples, to take up relations with the religious authorities that wanted to kill Jesus. What were the possible motives of Judas to give away his master Jesus to the chief priests and the police officers of the Temple guard? We do not know. Was Judas disappointed that Jesus was not able or did not want to realize the Reign of Go’d on this earth (Bovon 2009, 212)? Was Judas incapable of coping with the pressure of the mounting resistance to Jesus on the part of the powerful? Was Judas frightened by the teachings and deeds of Jesus? Were they not compatible with the orthodox practice of Jewish faith and did Judas fear of losing his integrity by following this new path? We do not know. Was Judas seeking some comfort, protection and security from an authority that was safe and secure, powerful, and well off? Was he seeking recognition or was he convinced that with Jesus he was following the wrong path? We do not know. The high priests and the officers of the Temple guard were delighted not because of the religious, political or social theories of Judas but because he was instrumental for their aim of killing Jesus. Did Judas recognize that he was not welcomed because of himself but because he was an instrument for killing Jesus? Judas made the social choice to accept money; he took responsibility for giving them Jesus. According to the Franciscan theologian, General Master and later Cardenal Bonaventure (1221-1274 CE) there are three ways to understand this “handing over” of Jesus. Firstly, Judas handed Jesus over, he betrayed Jesus (Matthew 26, 23). Secondly, the father “did not spare his own Son but delivered him up” - gave him up - “for the sake of all of us” (Romans 8, 32), and thirdly, the son loved the church and gave himself up for it (Ephesians 5, 25) (ibid.: 217). Bovon observes that Luke uses the expression “handing over” for his narration of the treason of Judas, but also when informing Theophilus that he will tell him the story of Jesus from the beginning, as these events were “handed down” by the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (ibid.: 216).

All Catholic women, men and queer are called to assess, document and protest discrimination in the Roman Catholic Church. Bishops, cardinals, and popes of the Roman Catholic Church are not handing over the liberating and reconciling Gospel of the Lord, the sign of Jonah for our time, but they hand over the faithful women, men and queer to discrimination. By doing so, the hierarchy preserves the powers and secures the privileged social positions in the Catholic Church. Go’d calls all women, men and queer to love each other and offers reconciliation and salvation.

There is not much peace meditating on the efforts to kill Jesus and the social choice of Judas to join the destruction of this life. The meditation just gives me chest pains and saddens me. Go’d’s will to save all women, men and queer, even the religious elites of the religions of the world, their blind followers and those without any faith in Go’d, remains my hope.

Notes on Luke 22, 7–14:

Jesus organizes the celebration of the Passover in Jerusalem. He chooses the location and, without saying anything, prepares for the eating of the lamb to remember the start of the Exodus from Egypt that according to the order of Yahweh has to be remembered annually by all generations of Israel (Exodus 12, 14). Luke makes Jesus celebrate the Passover with the Twelve. Jesus is fine with celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem. It is comforting for Jesus that there is a nice location and a friendly host, and that there are his disciples with him for celebrating Passover according to the liturgy of the first night of Passover. The Jews had developed a very elaborate ceremony in celebration of the first night (Zeitlin, Solomon. 1948. “The Liturgy of the First Night of Passover (Continued)”. The Jewish Quarterly Review 38(4): 431–460. 431. doi:10.2307/1453158). The celebration was at home and not in the synagogue as was the case with other festivals. The eating of the paschal lamb was to be a family feast (ibid.: 432). Invited friends, neighbors and the family were to stay in one place throughout the night and they spent the time relating the history of the Exodus and the wonders that Yahweh had performed for his people Israel throughout history (ibid.: 433). Zeitlin uses rabbinic texts describing the Passover ceremonies, but rabbinic texts do not describe historical facts at the time of Jesus. Before the destruction of the Temple, Passover was a Jewish pilgrimage festival and the Israelites were expected to travel to Jerusalem to sacrifice a Passover lamb, a lamb of atonement, at the Temple.

Meditation on Luke 22, 7-4:

I am meditating that Jesus felt at ease being a Jew. Eating food is good. Jesus prepares for eating, for getting calories and company. That is good. Why did Luke not mention any women participating at the ceremony?

After meditation:

Is it because the Twelve were men - as Bovon suspects - that there are no women mentioned by Luke in this chapter?

Notes on Luke 22, 15:

Luke 22, 15: “I have ardently longed to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”

Bovon is right insisting that Luke’s intention consists in communicating his conviction that the death of Jesus was necessary. The expression suffering (Greek: paschein) we find also in Hebrew 9, 23; 13, 12; 1 Peter 2, 21 – 23; 3, 18. The expression “I have ardently longed” or “with desire (Greek: epithuemia) I have desired” (Greek: epithuemein) doubles the desire. Luke often got criticized for not narrating feelings of Jesus. In this verse, Jesus does express his deepest wish and desire as a rare exception (Bovon 2009, 242).

Concerning Luke 22, 15, Tertullian (150-220 CE) insists against the Christian gnostic theologian Markion (92-160 CE) that Jesus wants to celebrate the Pascha and writes about Jesus: O Jesus, destroyer of the law, who even wanted to preserve the Pascha (in Latin: O legis destructorem, qui concupierat etiam pascha servare. See: Adv Mark IV, 40,1 (Bovon 2009, 249).

Meditation on Luke 22, 15–23:

Preparing for meditation, I asked my body to give me my integrity and thankfully I assessed that I am ok. I meditate with the consciousness of believing and having faith and trust in Jesus Christ resuscitated. It is also clear that Luke writes with the consciousness of the resuscitated Jesus Christ whom he confesses. There are really many states of consciousness, the subconscious is one of them, dreams another and my vague but sustained feeling and a trust that withstands shakings to its foundations is another. Consciousness is a predicate that can be used with many experiences. For example, experiences of clear, coherent, and concrete feelings or emotions, of secure comfort and embraced existence, but also with the experience of life-threatening angst and distress.

My meditation of Jesus eating with his Twelve as narrated by Luke rests on the real but text absent presence of Go’d having rescued Jesus Christ from death. My meditation of the text contradicts a historic reading of the text as something like the Last Supper.

 Notes on Luke 22, 16-23:

The verses Luke 22, 16–18 and the parallels in Mark 14, 25 and Matthew 26, 29 testify that the Eucharist of the first Christians was a happy anticipation of the end and not only a meal to remember Jesus’ death (ibid.: 244). Luke 22, 15–18 accentuate the eschatological character of the Eucharist; Luke 22, 19–20 insist on the function of remembering (ibid.).

The longer, or traditional text of cup-bread-cup is read by almost all Greek manuscripts and “by most of the ancient versions and Fathers” (Metzger, Bruce M. 1994. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 148. Stuttgart: German Bible Society). The shorter or Western text omits Luke 22, 19b-20 (ibid.). Luke 22, 19b “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me” and Luke 22, 20 “He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood poured for you” are taken by Luke from 1 Corinthians 11, 24-25 (ibid.). We know from Paul that the Christian communities celebrated the Eucharist. 1 Corinthians 10, 16–17: “The blessing-cup, which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ; and the loaf of bread which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? And as there is one loaf, so we, although there are many of us, are one single body, for we all share in the one loaf”. Paul had to defend the Eucharist from the accusation of being a sacrificial feast of idolatry. The term “blessing” (Greek: eulogía) is a prayer of thanks to Go’d that there is “a sharing” or a “communion” (Greek: koinonía) with the resuscitated and risen Jesus Christ among the celebrating Christians.

Tertullian interprets Luke 22, 19b “this is my body” as “this is the picture of my body”, according to Tertullian Jesus had wanted to realize the picture of salvation - that is the Pascal lamb and its blood - with his body and blood that was to bring salvation (Bovon 2009, 249). In the Eucharist this picture is true bread and a true cup because bread and cup relate to a true body and true blood. This true body and true blood of Jesus is no bodyless illusion. Markion had claimed that Jesus was a divine god of some sort, but not a human being (ibid.).

Luke 22, 21–23 narrates that Jesus knows that he will be handed over by Judas to the hands that will kill him. A hand that is a responsible, free willing person can save but also bring death. I am reminded of John 6, 55-56, where Jesus preaches in the synagogue at Capernaum “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person” and where already “many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?’” (John 6, 59). Again, believing in Jesus Christ and confessing Jesus Christ is equivalent to receiving the Holy Spirit: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The word I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (John 6, 63). Having a saving hand or having a hand that destructs and kills are options for anybody, anywhere, at any time, but especially for Christians celebrating the Eucharist.

Notes on Luke 22, 24-27:

Bovon is right, Luke focuses in Luke 22 on the disciples and not yet on a community of believers (Bovon 2009, 258). The future offers to the disciples authority that is based on service (Luke 22, 24–27) and stands on the opposite side of power. Luke insists on narrating the serving as an activity, an active service and Jesus as the serving agent. The activity is grammatically expressed by the participle present “serving”. Luke makes Jesus the first serving servant “I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22, 27). In Luke 12, 45–46 we saw servants that were inactively idle and incapable (Bovon 2009, 268).

Luke repeatedly and with insistence defends the Christological foundation of any service in the church (Luke 12, 35-40. 41-48; 17, 7–10) (ibid.). Christ stays as the serving servant with the Christians. Throughout his Gospel and not only here or in Luke 9, 46–48, Luke confronts us with the chronic problem of the disciples’ false ideas of greatness, rivalry over rank and power. The rivalry over position among the disciples will only be resolved when Jesus realizes by his death that he is the one who serves and, “as the risen Messiah, opens the disciples’ minds to God’s ways” (Tannehill, Robert C. 1991. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts. A Literary Interpretation. Volume one: The Gospel according to Luke. 254-55. Philadelphia: Fortress Press). We must understand this assessment of Tannehill from the perspective of Luke and not from the perspective of a narration sequence. The perspective of Luke is clear from the beginning, he gives “an ordered account” so that Theophilus may become a believer (Luke 1, 1–4). Luke writes as a believer in Jesus Christ, that is the resurrected Jesus who had been crucified.

Luke writes from the Christian faith perspective, or a worldview of faith. He is a testimony to that faith; he confesses Jesus Christ.

Meditation of Luke 22, 24–27:

Preparing for meditation, I practiced the yoga sequence of the sun salutation. I remained in the heel seat for less than a minute to speak to my body and ask him to produce my integrity-consciousness. After the sun salutation, I did not yet feel completely ok. I read the verses Luke 22, 24–27 in Greek, I concentrated on getting into meditation; and peace came to me and there was no more stress thinking about imagined rivalries with my colleagues at the faculty.

Notes on Luke 22, 28-30:

The serving imperative is followed by the eschatological promise to be invited to the banquet of the reign, the eating and drinking again with Jesus (Luke 22, 28–30). Luke often describes the eschatological reign with the picture of a feast and banquet. Luke describes the anticipation of this banquet by narrating the meals of Jesus with his disciples or with sinners (Luke 5, 29–32; 7, 34–35; 15, 2; 19, 5–7; 22, 14) (Bovon 2009, 269). We must know the desire for a position and prominence also appears at these dinner parties (Luke 11, 43; 12, 1; 14, 7–14; 20, 46) (Tannehill 1991, 255).

In Luke 22, 21, we find the expression “here with me on the table” in the company of the traitor, and in Luke 22, 30 Jesus uses the expression “at my table” describing the eschatological banquet in “in my kingdom”, eating and drinking with his disciples.

Notes on Luke 22, 31-34:

It is very important for Peter that he will be able to believe because of the prayer of Jesus for him (Bovon 2009, 273). When Peter will have turned to faith (Greek: participle aorist active “epistrepsas”), he will have to empower his brethren. It is true that Peter is the interlocutor of Jesus in this dialogue. It is Peter and not any of the other disciples. From this does not follow that Peter is constituted as of head of community but that he is responsible for the community (ibid.: 274).

We took notice some instants ago that Luke at this point does not present Jesus as speaking to a community but to disciples. There is no talk about structure, roles, or offices but it is clear for Luke that the Christian community needs responsible faithful (ibid.). Peter will be able to empower his brethren to stay firm in the faith he himself struggled desperately to be granted after having failed and being pardoned (Luke 22, 33-34). The responsible faithful will appear with offices after the communities had been formed, they organize not according to a hierarchy but take and sustain their authority from their service to the community (Luke 22, 26–27), that is love (ibid.). Medieval papal primacy is a later fact.

Notes on Luke 22, 35 – 38:

The wording “I tell you … by the time the cock crows today, you will have denied three times that you know of me” we find in Luke 22, 34 and almost identical in John 13, 38. In Mark 14, 30 we read: “In truth I tell you, this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will have denied me three times”. All four Gospels insist on the treason of Peter and the fact that Jesus told him of his treason in advance. Luke and John have Jesus saying this sad fact at the table in the room where the Twelve celebrate the Pascha. Immediately before this scene at the table John narrates that Jesus confides to his disciples - John does not speak of the Twelve - the new commandment of love. In John 13, 38 it becomes clear that the love of Jesus gets betrayed and denied by Peter. When Peter recovers, he will be able to “strengthen his brethren” that is realizing love.

John takes three chapters to narrate the farewell discourses of Jesus to his disciples before he narrates the scene on the Mount of Olives. For John it is important to prepare the disciples for the loss of Jesus, the loss of Jesus, their master and center of life is a catastrophe as is any loss of a beloved one. When a partner dies, a mother or father, a child or a close friend, the ones that are left sometimes reproach the one that has left them back and alone. Why did he or she left us back alone? Since most of the people who die really have not chosen to die but had to leave life, the reproach for having abandoned somebody close by one’s death really is not fair. There is no responsibility on the side of the dying. On the side of the mourning there is suffering a loss. What about Jesus? Do the three chapters of farewell discourses defend Jesus from the reproach of abandoning his disciples? Does Luke 22, 35-38 express a similar concern? Does Luke Jesus make prepare the disciples for the loss of his life, so that they will know what to do and how to go on when he is taken away from them?

Luke 22, 35–38 show that the disciples do not yet understand how to realize Jesus’ mission to proclaim the word and realize healing. Lukes makes Jesus cite the Prophet Isaiah where Go’d restores the glory of the servant at the end of the fourth song of the servant who gave his life and interceded for rebellious but was counted himself unto the rebellious (Isaiah 52, 12). Jesus speaks of a sword that is necessary now before his arrest. Why speaking of a sword? The use of a sword is the opposite of healing, it is wounding and destructing. The Twelve give Jesus two swords, he just says “That is enough” (Luke 22, 38). We may understand the two swords as a refusal to accept reality, the reality of the imminent catastrophe of their way with Jesus.

Bovon understands the whole narrative of Luke 22, 21–38 as a last dialogue of Jesus with his disciples and not as a farewell discourse. For the reformer Calvin (1509 – 1564) the aim of this dialogue is not Christology; it is ecclesiology that is the Christian community of the disciples (Bovon 2009, 289). I do not agree with this interpretation of Luke 22, 21–38 in the tradition of Calvin (ibid.: 288). Jesus does not prepare his disciples to accept reality. He prepares them to cope with failing so that when they fail in their mission, they will not start building a hierarchy, an army or turn to some other poor compensation instead of trusting again in Go’d. Luke 22, 21-38 is on the eschatological hope and promise that everything will end all right in the hands of Go’d.

Notes on Luke 22, 39-46:

Jesus leaves the “large upper room furnished with couches” (Luke 22, 12) “to make his way as usual to the Mount of Olives” (Luke 22, 39). The Jews celebrated the Passover at home and not in the synagogue as was the case with other festivals. The eating of the paschal lamb was to be a family feast in a special room, the “upper room” (Greek: anágaion. See also Mark 14, 15). The “upper room” is a very private place for family feasts, an intimate family room. Jesus leaves this private and secure room and goes into the public sphere. He does not try to escape the possible arrest, condemnation, and death. Mount of Olives is a public place. Luke and Matthew had made Jesus start his entry into Jerusalem near the Mount of Olives (Luke 19, 29; Matthew 21, 1). In the days after Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem Jesus spent the night at the Mount of Olives after having been teaching all day long to a mass of people in the Temple (Luke 21, 37–38). The tradition of testimonies is large in the four Gospels (Mark 11, 15; 19; 27 parallel Matthew 21, 12.17.23; John 8, 1–2). In one of those evenings, Mark makes Jesus starting his so-called eschatological discourse (Mark 13, 3).

Luke narrates in Acts that the risen Jesus “showed himself” to the Apostles “for forty days” and then they experienced his ascension at the Mount of Olives (Acts 1, 3-12). At that time the Apostles were not ready going into the public space to announce the Good News, they returned to Jerusalem to “the upper room”. There the Apostles stayed “together with some women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (Acts 1, 13-14). The first faithful, women and men, stayed in the private sphere.

According to Jewish tradition Jesus celebrated with the Apostles the Passover in the private sphere of “the upper room”.

“After the psalms had been sung” (Matthew 26, 30) Jesus and the Twelve left for the Mount of Olives (Luke 22, 39). At the Mount of Olives Jesus prayed to the Father and made his apostles pray (Luke 22, 40-46).

Hebrews 5, 7 dramatizes the prayer and tears of Jesus. Does obedience mean trust, complete trust? Does “learning obedience through suffering” (Hebrews 5, 8) mean that Jesus learned to trust and trusted whilst experiencing the sad series of losses: the loss of his disciple Judas, to the loss of faith of the eleven, to the loss of his movement, to the loss of his life? Is it possible to understand obedience as acceptance of reality? Does obedience mean opting for hope and hope in Go’d even when being caught in the most destructive situation? Obedience is the social choice of accepting Go’d as Go’d, as the Go’d of life.

Does meditating Jesus at the Mount of Olives mean meditating on the possibility of one’s complete failure in life, the acceptance of this complete failure and the hope that this failure is not the last word?

If I had to set up an empirical design to prove the hypothesis that ”x is happening with me” and “x is a gift and not the result of my performance”, I would have to show that I am really powerless to contribute anything to the realization of x, incapacitated to do anything about making x happen. I would have to demonstrate that I am experiencing the complete breakdown of all my projects and plans for realizing x. If I realize and confess that I am done and if I accept that something like help or rescue for me would have to come from somebody else and if then rescue comes, then I would have reason to claim that my hypothesis has come true, that “x is happening to me”. If it were the task of the Messiah Jesus Christ to demonstrate that all saving power and initiative comes from Go’d, then the task of the Messiah is to make Go’d known and not himself. Jesus takes the social choice to go the way that reveals the saving power of Go’d.

I do not think that the prayer of Jesus and the sleeping Apostles the Mount of Olives some short hours before his arrest are about a failure of the disciples to stay awake or something like that. The temptation for Jesus at the Mount of Olives is about not to continue and persevere on his way. The temptation for the disciples will be about persevering or not to persevere in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. This temptation will come. The experts do suggest “omit verses Luke 22, 43–44”, because “the passage is a later addition to the text”; nevertheless, the textual evidence for these verses is very old and its “importance in the textual tradition” is manifest (Metzger 1994, 151). Verse 44 speaks of the angst of Jesus. I do not think that the expression is about Jesus’ agony or fear of death. The expression “agony” in Hellenistic Greek means for example the angst of the athlete right before entering the contest. In my view, the expression “agony” in this situation at the Mount of Olives says that Jesus is conscientious of the fact that he now is entering the decisive path of his way and mission and therefore trembles. He is conscientious of the fact that he is alone on his way, and it is up to him to continue or to fail on his mission fail. Yes, anxiety is described by psychologists as “caused by disorganization of attachment” (Aichhorn, Wolfgang, and Helmut Kronberger. 2012. “The Nature of Emotions. A Psychological Perspective.” In Yearbook 2011. Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley, 515–25. 522. Berlin: De Gruyter). Finding myself alone causes anxiety until I find resources to attach to myself and experience my integrity feeling ok.

Preparation for the mediation of Luke 22, 47-53:

Jesus still is in charge and heals the ear of the high priest’s servant who got struck by one of the followers of Jesus, that is one of the Twelve (Luke 22, 49-51). Jesus tells his Apostles “let it be” (Luke 22, 51) and now gives way to his enemies “this is your hour” (Luke 22, 53). Jesus accepts that the “power of darkness” takes over (Luke 22, 53). I do not agree with Bovon that Luke makes it clear that also Go’d retreats from Jesus. Who would know about Go’d? Nobody! Especially at this crucial and most difficult moment of treason and the nightly illegal arrest of Jesus, speculation that Go’d would have left him are of no help. Jesus got separated from his Twelve, but who would be able to separate him from Go’d? Jesus stayed with his faith and trust and relation to Go’d, he pursued his way even as a prisoner. Already Origen of Alexandria (185-253 CE) told the philosopher Celsus, who had written the first treatise against the Christians, that Jesus did not try to hide, nor did he flee or avoid or try to escape martyrdom (Bovon 2009, 334). I hope that Origen never claimed that Jesus Christ had been abandoned by Go’d. Jesus was left to the hands of “the chief priests and captains of the Temple guard” (Luke 22, 52), it is their hour and the hour of some persons who cooperate in killing Jesus illegally. It is the hour of the social choice of some men - but not of Go’d - to do away with Jesus by treason and to capture him by force at night. Ephraim the Syrian and others underline Jesus’ rejection of any violence, Jesus does not need the sword of violence, and he has at his disposition a sword of sentences (Bovon 2009, 336).

Other than Mark, Luke does not say that the Twelve were fleeing the scene abandoning Jesus (Bovon 2009, 325). The historic fact of the arrest of Jesus had already been testified by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, 23: “Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed” (ibid.: 326).

Meditation of Luke 22, 47-53:

I am meditating my own failures. First, the failure to relate to my colleagues at the faculty, to my colleagues in the national and international theological associations, to the bishops in Austria. Concerning my plans of ending gender discrimination in the Roman Catholic Church there is no way to relate. There is also the failure to become a better person. With all these failures, I feel secure and rescued. I am giving thanks to Jesus Christ the resurrected and to Go’d who had risen him from the dead. Birth and death of Jesus are facts of history. Incarnation is not a fact of history; it rather tells of the faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ that had been passed on to me by believers who had suffered in their lives and were rescued by Go’d. This chain of believers and lives lived with the confessed faith in Jesus Christ are a fact of history again, their faith is a fact. The meditation of the Passion of Jesus Christ according to Luke meditates on the faith narration of Luke who believed in Jesus Christ resurrected and, in his message, and deeds. The faith in Jesus Christ has changed and changes the world. I am not able to describe the Passion experience of Jesus Christ because this experience was his. Jesus Christ was able to live this experience, his treason and arrest, his faith in Go’d the Father and the Holy Spirit, his experience of having gotten risen by Go’d.

Preparation for meditating Luke 22, 52-62:

The New Testament, testimony of the first generations of Christians, carefully cultured the Church’s tender perseverance and gentile insistence on the bedrock betrayal of Jesus and Peter’s tears. Peter is a precious model of the facts that make up a lived biography of a life that seeks faith in Christ. The liturgical practice kept Peter’s cowardice and panicking angst present when confronting the recognition of a servant-girl and two other men. His failure must be preserved as a precious reminder of our own human condition and failures. Calvin underlines this point together with Go’d’s mercy for our weaknesses (Bovon 2009, 358). Peter’s denials become a healing source of consolation for our own faults, wounds, and distortions because in the Gospel Jesus turns to us and makes us weep our pains, difficulties, and wounds. Recognizing the pain, the suffering and shortcomings, already makes part of the healing process. True love is only there where one can overcome suffering and pain, where one starts to stop making others suffer and stops causing them pain and accepts the source of love within oneself that surprisingly is there as a factor of my integrity. Integrity is a function of my body founding the equal dignity, liberty and freedom of all women, men and queer. The failing of Peter is part of his dignity.

In Mark 8, 31 Jesus began to teach that “the Son of man was destined to suffer grievously” and Mark presents Jesus as the most important teacher, as a teacher like Moses had been. Jesus teaches that he will suffer a lot. The son of man will suffer from women, men and queer and the son of man was destined to “be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribe, and to be put to death, and after three days to rise again” (Mark 8, 31). Jesus was able to communicate about his life and death. Peter was not ready to listen. In Mark 9, 30 we hear again of Jesus and his women and men followers wandering through Galilee. Jesus starts teaching his disciples. In Mark 9, 31 Jesus announces that men, women and queer will kill him and after three days he will rise again.

In Mark 10, 32, Jesus walks ahead of the disciples up to Jerusalem. The people were astonished and amazed at Jesus. The women, men and queer who were following him got anxious for fear of what was going on. Jesus therefore took aside the Twelve to tell them what was going to happen to him—and thereby trying to calm their fears. We do not hear from Mark about any reaction on their part. The Gospel of Mark is a faith narrative as all the New Testament. Mark narrates the Gospel of “Jesus Christ, the son of God” (Mark 1, 1). Mark writes with his faith, that is his belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ who had lived and proclaimed the Good News of the reign of Go’d, who was healing and who died on the cross. It is right, three times Mark makes Jesus speak of his suffering. Does Mark prepare his readers for the suffering of the Messiah, the son of Go’d? Does Jesus prepare his disciples for their coming suffering? We could answer both questions with yes without producing a contradiction. Luke makes Jesus tell about his suffering and death as part of his eschatological message and hope that in the end everything will be all right.

Peter receives the look of Jesus and walks away crying bitterly. These tears express repentance, and certainly crying often is a reaction of despair but psychologists say that crying represents a state of not taking responsibility. All four Gospels give testimony of the denials of Peter. They accepted to keep the memory of the denial and not to make it forgotten. Generations of Christians remembered Peter together with his denials to illustrate the Christian conviction that repentance at the example of Peter always is a possibility for women, men and queer. The Christians speaking in Hebrews 6, 1–8 held a very different view on the possibility to repent a second time (Bovon 2009, 346-47). Notwithstanding Hebrews, Peter’s denials entered the collective memory of the Christians. The reliefs of Christian sarcophaguses of the fourth century characterize Peter with the cock (ibid. 347).

At the same time, it is also clear for Luke that the “metanoia”, that is conversion, has to be considered as an offer by Go’d. In Acts 11,18 the Apostles and the brothers in Judaea assessed Peter’s justification of baptizing the uncircumcised: “Go’d has clearly granted metanoia that leads to life also to the Gentiles.” We must bear in mind, that metanoia for the Hebrew not only concerns the mind but also turns around the whole life. Abraham turns on his voyage, Israel turns home from Egypt. Jesus invites his listeners at his first public proclamation to turn on the way of his Gospel (Mark 1, 15b). His disciples will then join him on his way through Galilee and Judea up to Jerusalem. We may understand this tiring caravan as the long procession and arduous process of their becoming believers in Jesus Christ the Messiah who was crucified and has risen. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word “schuf” as “metanoiein”. The Greek concept of metanoia thus entered Christian teaching and thereby restricts the scope of turning around one’s way of life on the path following Christ, to moral repenting of a morally wrong choice (Schnackenburg, Rudolf. 1986. Die sittliche Botschaft des neuen Testaments. Band 1: Von Jesus zur Urkirche. 43. Freiburg: Herder).

Meditation of Luke 22, 52-62:

In this hour of destruction, the Umwelt of Jesus and Peter, the house of the high priest, are hostile to the Son of man and to his disciple Peter. The house of the high priest was a palace with a court (Bovon 2009, 347) and the enemy’s camp of darkness. In this terrible situation of exposure to a killing strategy, Go’d’s mercy is not absent. Jesus turns his head to look at Peter. Peter is not lost in this terrible situation after he had negated any relation with Jesus. He is not left alone, and he starts crying. This is important for his integrity; he can mourn his failure and shows empathy with Jesus. Jesus had turned his head to him and looked at him and Peter relates to Jesus again crying. I meditate a sad and peaceful encounter and experience comfort from meditating this scene.

Preparation for meditating Luke 22, 63-65:

Jesus patiently endures his suffering. Matthew, Mark and John have the mocking by the guards in the context of the trial before Pilate that is in a Roman context. The torturers of Jesus reproach and mock him as a false prophet (Bovon 2009, 355). Jesus is not the first prophet who gets mocked, ridiculed, dehumanized, persecuted, and killed. Jesus is not the first prophet who gets accused because he fights the false prophets (ibid. 356). The guards cannot relate in a positive way to Jesus. They are broken persons. The scene shows how necessary healing is on this earth. To heal is bringing together the broken pieces of an individual person. The different aspects of a broken individual that is the physical and psychic, the social and spiritual, etc., are not united to secure the integrity of the person and the broken individual cannot say “I feel well, I am ok”. If the different aspects of integrity fall apart and are thrown to pieces, integrity is broken—the Greek expression for “falling apart”, or “getting split” is diaballein. We think of the devil, the diabolos. If integrity disintegrates, the person disintegrates and cannot live a healthy life for herself or himself and for others. There is certainly not the place for psychological interpretations of the guards; mobbing is a sad fact of contemporary working conditions. Jeering and derision often ward off “a person’s own feelings of shame” (Aichhorn and Kronberger 2012, 521). Often previously admired persons are now projected with contempt “for accommodation of shameful parts of one’s self-representation” (ibid.).

There follows no anger or resentment on the side of Jesus. The Greeks and Romans venerated wise men and philosophers who were ready to suffer for values and ideals other than power and strength (Bovon 2009, 357).

Meditation of Luke 22, 63-65:

I assessed my integrity while practicing the sun salutation. Feeling comfort, ease, and peace, I was meditating on Jesus sitting in the middle of the palace court. My calm and security come from my faith experience of Jesus who was risen from the dead by Go’d. The faith-sentence of the resurrection of Jesus is my bedrock feeling that makes me feel calm and at peace looking at Jesus chained and bound. He is not ashamed of himself, of his message and life.

Preparation for meditating Luke 22, 66-71:

The reign of darkness (Luke 22, 53) perseveres. Already in Luke 6, 11 the scribes and the Pharisees had started discussing “the best way of dealing with Jesus”. Now the reign of darkness is able realizing the strategy to kill Jesus (Luke 22, 1–6). The plot is being executed with Jesus’ arrest at the Mount of Olives (Luke 22, 47–53). The reign of darkness continuous and Jesus passes the night in the house of the high priest (Luke 22, 54). In the morning Jesus was led to an official meeting of the religious and political authority of the Jews, the Sanhedrin. The crucial section of the passion narrative, indeed of the whole Gospel of Luke, is the final confrontation of Jesus with Israel (Bovon 2009, 363). The authority, the Sanhedrin will not reach a judgement, verdict, or sentence. Two understandings of the Messiah confront each other. None of the disciples were present at the process and there are no false testimonies as we read in Mark 14, 53-65. Luke reconstructs according to his sources; he does not take up Mark at this point, he does not mention the term Sanhedrin (ibid. 366). The Sanhedrin consists of three parties. Luke speaks of “the elders of the people, the chief priests and scribes” (Luke 22, 66). We do not know about the range of jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin. We know that this official council handed Jesus over to Pilate to accuse him (ibid. 366). The Sanhedrin turns from judging to accusing. The judges become prosecutors (ibid. 363). Luke does not name the Sanhedrin, he speaks of a “council of the elders” (in Greek: presbutérion) and of two other groups whose very active opposition to Jesus was notorious, the high priests and the scribes (ibid.: 365). Luke is one of the first Christians to use the expression presbutérion. In Acts 22, 5 he will use the expression again. In the first letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 4, 14) we find the first use of the term presbutérion describing the group of “elders” or “presbyters” of a Christian community (ibid.).

From the title on the cross we know that Pilate sentenced Jesus for political reasons, his interest was to maintain public order and to assure Roman supremacy (ibid. 367). From the Jewish perspective, the claim to be the Messiah does not constitute a crime. The claim would be investigated for validity, the unmasking of false prophets was important but there was no reason for killing them (ibid. 368). Jesus does not answer the question of the Sanhedrin whether he was the Messiah because they do not believe. For the believers, who in this moment believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and resurrected, Jesus proclaims that the Son of man “will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22, 69) as Psalm 110, 1 had prophesized. The Son of man is in the words of Jesus a man like all women, men and queer who “has come eating and drinking” and was called therefore a “glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 7, 34).

The Jewish enemies of Jesus were thinking of a political Messiah who will lead the revolt of Israel against the Romans (ibid. 171). It is Luke’s very interest to clarify his concept of the Messiah as the Son of man who “sits at the right hand of the power of God” and not on a throne in a palace near the Temple in Jerusalem (ibid.). Luke’s interest is the Christological narrative. According to the angel the Son of man in Luke 1, 30–33, is the Davidic Messiah who is “Son of God” (Luke 1, 35) and not king of Israel. The sentence ‘Jesus sits at the right hand of the power of God’ is a faith-sentence (Acts 2, 33) that includes the hope for final salvation (Acts 3, 19–21) and assesses Stephen as the first martyr confessing this faith in Jesus (Acts 7, 55–56). At this moment of Stephan’s confession, Paul is still an enemy of Jesus, he assists the killing of Stephan and marches on to Damascus for more persecution and killings of Christians. In Acts Luke will describe more of this confrontation of the Jewish faith in a Messiah with the Christian faith in Jesus Christ sitting at the right hand of the power of the Father. Jews and Christians interpret Daniel 7,13 according to their differing understandings. “I was gazing into the visions of the night, when I saw, coming on the clouds of heaven, as it were a son of man. He came to the One most venerable and was led into his presence” (Daniel 7, 13).

Meditation of Luke 22, 66-71:

I assessed my integrity while practicing the sun salutation. I am thankful for having experienced peace and comfort so many times and the feeling of being safe and secure. I am thankful for the many uncountable gifts of love I have received from women, men and queer in my life.

I am thankful for Luke writing his faith-sentences on Jesus Christ before the presbyters, high priests and biblical scholars of the Sanhedrin. I am thankful for Luke’s narration of Jesus claiming with calm and his sense of reality that he will sit at the right hand of the Father.

Follow-up of the meditation:

Jesus perseveres in his claim that he is the Son of man, the Messiah that will bring peace, justice, mercy, and love to all women, men and queer on this earth.

I imagine myself sitting before the presbyters of the diocese of Innsbruck claiming the equal dignity, freedom and rights for all women, men and queer in the Roman Catholic Church. The authorities would hand my case over to the Congregation for the propagation of the faith. I would not be invited to present my case. There would be no attorney to defend my case, I would not even know that there is a trial on my behalf. I would receive a sentence to correct my error and stop demanding the end of gender discrimination that is the discrimination of women, men and queer in the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus Christ loved all and invited all to follow him in building the reign of light, the reign of Go’d, the reign of love, peace and justice. I would not correct my claim and would cite Paul “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female—for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3, 28).

I would point at the Christian values for the community as we read in Romans 14, 19: “So then, let us be always seeking the ways which lead to peace and the ways in which we can support one another”. I would point with Susan Mathew at the righteous man of Psalm 34, 14 and at Galatians 5, 22 where the community of sisters and brothers are shown the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and trustfulness (Mathew, Susan. 2013. Women in the Greetings of Romans 16.1–16. A Study of Mutuality and Women’s Ministry in the Letter to the Romans. 153. London: Bloomsbury). I would then be sentenced and lose my permission to teach the faith and doctrine of the Catholic Church at Innsbruck State University. This would create a conflict between the University and the Catholic authorities. I am not provoking this conflict because I have not yet finished my theologizing. In the past thirty years, many Catholic theologians were persecuted and removed from their university chairs. The Congregation of the propagation of the Faith of the Vatican condemned them for less conflicting claims than the claim of equal dignity of all in the Catholic Church.

Two thousand years after Christ was sitting before the Sanhedrin, the Roman Catholic Church operates a similar office and bureaucracy to watch over orthodoxy and obedience to the sovereign power of the pope. On October 3, 1750, the sixteen-year-old woman Maria Pauerin was the last person to be executed as a witch by the authority of the prince archbishop of Salzburg (“16jährige Hexe Maria Pauerin hingerichtet.” 2004. Der Standard, June 1. https://derstandard.at/1679877/16jaehrige-Hexe-Maria-Pauerin-hingerichtet). Thanks to Go’d, the Catholic Church lost her secular power outside Rome at the beginning of the nineteenth century. When will the Vatican’s bureaucrats convert to Jesus’ way of peace and justice proclaiming the reign of Go’d and the equal dignity of all women, men and queer?

We know about the Jewish celebration of the Passover that for Jews the Passover Festival not only concerns the commemorating of the deliverance from the bondage in Egypt (Plietzsch 2005, 56). Commemorating the salvation from Egypt inspires and prefigures the hopes for salvation at the end of times (ibid.). What is the difference to the Christian celebration of the Passover festival according to the Gospels? Eschatological hope for salvation at the end of times inspires the Passion narrative of the Gospels too (See my Post: Salvation, redemption and liberation in the Christian and Jewish traditions)! The difference between the celebration of the Passover Festival of the Sanhedrin and the celebration of the Passover Festival of Jesus consists in the non-compliance and compliance with an obligation for the individual Jew who celebrates the Passover Festival. There is no alternative to the confession of the Exodus for Israel at the celebration of the Passover, because this confession ensures that each member of the confessing community accepts her or his obligation to live and live a life with the responsibility for freedom and social choices (Plietzsch 2005, 59). The Sanhedrin does not take a decision for salvation and liberation.

Jesus takes a decision for redemption, liberation, and salvation. According to the Gospels Christians are allowed to say that Jesus realized the celebration of the Passover, because he gave his life to celebrate the Exodus. Go’d makes him rise from the dead, that is Go’d operates the Exodus of Jesus from the dead, as Go’d had operated the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt. Christians believe in Jesus Christ. The Exodus from Egypt was first. Christians must not forget the salvation of Israel! Paul compares Israel to an olive tree with “a holy root and holy branches” admonishing the Roman Greek Non-Jewish Christians “not to consider yourself superior to the other branches; and if you start feeling proud, think: it is not you that sustain the root, but the root that sustains you” (Romans 11, 16–18).