Smoodock's Blog

At this point both Matthew and Mark have Jesus and his disciples singing a hymn and then leaving for Mount Olives, but we know from Luke and John that a lot of things have been left out. John especially uses the meal to tell us what Jesus said to his disciples (see John 13 & 14). Moreover, John also records what Jesus said, while they were getting ready to leave the upper room (see John 15 through 17), for it isn’t until we get to John 18:1 that we find Jesus and his disciples leaving the city and crossing over the brook Kidron to the Mount of Olives.

Some translations, like the NASB, imply Jesus crossed the bridge leading from the city over the Kidron Valley to the mount,[1] but most translations simply tell us he crossed the brook and came to Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives. I believe, if it is logical for Jesus to be cautious, keeping his itinerary secret, because of the desire of the Jewish authorities to arrest him. Therefore, he would have avoided the bridge, which could have been guarded. Instead, he would more likely have taken a less obvious route out of another city gate down to the brook and from there he would have walked to wherever Gethsemane happened to be.

My point in bringing all this out is that both Matthew and Mark have Jesus telling Peter he would deny him after they had sung the hymn and left the upper room (Matthew 26:30-34; Mark 14:26-31). Luke, however, has Jesus telling Peter he would deny him three times (Luke 22:31-34; cp. Mark 14:30) before leaving for Mount Olivet (Luke 22:39). Each Gospel narrator had a story to tell about Jesus, and the narrator had to do so, using the given length of the scroll he had in hand. Therefore, many things had be left out, but, according to the literary method understood and used by ancient writers,[2] each event had to be connected in a manner that didn’t break the flow of the story. In other words, although one thing occurred much later in time, the story flow had to seem as though one vent followed immediately after the other. Therefore, both Matthew and Mark leave out the fact that Jesus began telling his disciples they would abandon him and Peter would deny him, while they were still in the upper room. The thing was so shocking to them that this discussion and their denying they would ever do such a thing continued from the upper room to the time they arrived at Gethsemane. So, throughout their journey Peter and each of the other disciples denied they would ever abandon or deny their Lord (Mark 14:29, 31).

In other words, Jesus’ disciples didn’t believe him! While they believed what he told them about many other things, they simply couldn’t bring themselves to believe they would ever abandon him or deny him, and I really do think this is important for us today to realize. We, who follow Jesus, counting ourselves believers (Christians), can and often do deny him and abandon him. It seems we are willing to believe Peter and the other disciples, who actually saw and spoke with the Lord, could deny Christ, but we could never do such a thing. If this were true, why record these men had ever denied and abandoned Jesus in the first place? Why mention the matter on a scroll with such limited space, if their denying Jesus wasn’t a message, or a warning, if you will, that we, also, would find ourselves in danger of denying him from time to time, and, just as importantly, what might that look like, when it occurs?

Well, I know I denied Jesus, when, as a young man, I was part of a cult. Most would agree that those involved in cults are doing wrong and probably deny Jesus. So, I suppose that’s not a great revelation. Nevertheless, having denied Jesus, I probably know through experience what many deny in theory, and that is that such a thing could happen to the rest of us, even strong believers. I placed too much stock in what a mere man said, and the word of God tells us that, whenever someone follows a man too closely, he becomes that man’s servant (2Peter 2:19).

I believe a good rule of thumb would be, if one is known to be a Lutheran more than he is a Christian, he has denied the Lord. The same would be true of any denomination. While it isn’t wrong to be Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Wesleyan or with being a member of any other denomination, it is be wrong, if one’s Christianity came second to one’s involvement in that denomination. A good rule of thumb would be: question authority. I don’t mean be a rebel, but I do mean recognize and understand who it is you are following. In the same vein, it would also be wrong for anyone’s political leaning to overshadow one’s following Christ. I’ve heard some conclude, if one wasn’t a member of this political party, it would be difficult to believe that person could be Christian.[3] Nevertheless, the one making such a statement has, himself, denied the Lord, and, like Peter, needs to repent.

_________________________________________________________

[1] The NASB says “…He went forth with His disciples over the ravine of the Kidron.” Going over the ravine implies one is using a bridge, and a bridge was built across the valley leading from the eastern gate to the mount.

[2] “For, though all parts must be independently perfected, when the first is complete the second will be brought into essential connection with it, and attached like one link of a chain to another; there must be no possibility of separating them; no mere bundle of parallel threads; the first is not simply to be next to the second, but part of it, their extremities intermingling.” [The Way to Write History 55; Lucian of Samosata; cir. 120 CE to 180 CE (emphasis mine)]. The point is, the Gospel writers were following an ancient rule of recording history, when they left out some things and began writing about events that occurred later, making them seem to occur immediately after the event previously recorded.

[3] My youngest daughter was told this during a Sunday school class. I have been ‘unfriended’ or ‘blocked’ on Facebook for the same reason and for the fact I was willing to challenge those who made their views known to me and others in a political / religious discussion.