| Mark 15.22–24 | Luke 23.33–34 |
| And they brought him to the place of Golgotha which means place of a skull, and they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, he did not take it. And they crucified him and, dividing his clothes, they cast lots for them to decide what each should take. | And when they came to the place which is called ‘Skull’ There they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. And Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing’. They cast lots to divide his garments. |
Figure 3. The Division of Jesus’ Clothing
The way that Mark describes the division of Jesus’ garments and the lot-casting for them by the guards presumes that the clothing is no longer on Jesus. They are described as having divided his clothing already. He is naked, as would have been the custom in the Roman execution method.
Luke, on the other hand, has the guards cast lots in order to divide Jesus’ garments. There is no indication that Jesus is without them or that he is naked. At this moment of the Gospel’s highpoint, Luke synthesizes a Christological portrait of Jesus forgiving his executioners, promising Paradise to a repentant thief, prayerfully offering himself into the hands of God and preserving his dignity in death. The luminous garment from Herod remains. Luke literally covers up Mark’s naked Jesus.
Conclusion
Luke’s Jesus is an authoritative preacher whose ultimately incontestable words place him within the Greek philosophical tradition of wisdom. The Gospel’s portrait intends to appeal to those of elite social status within the Lucan household. This results in a radical modification of Mark’s portrait of an abused, misunderstood and lonely figure. Luke’s Jesus is a more exalted figure appealing to the gentle and refined sensibilities of the Gospel’s primary – though not exclusive – audience.35 He welcomes the most fragile creatures of human society, the brephos. In Luke’s Gospel, the disciples’ response to those who bring them to Jesus is toned down from Mark. Unlike in Mark, the disciples in Luke understand Jesus’ instruction about having the attitude of the child in order to welcome the kingdom. Further, Luke moderates the verbal and physical violence done to Jesus in Mark’s Gospel. Any depiction of the sexual abuse of Luke’s dignified and majestic figure is inappropriate and ‘covered up’.
Luke’s redacted Christology has softened, if not removed, the figure of an abused, lonely and misunderstood Jesus from the contemplative gaze of the Gospel’s audience. Luke clothes Mark’s naked Jesus with a luminous garment given to him by Herod, Rome’s representative. This accompanies him in death, in a scene that converts Mark’s screaming, abandoned, naked figure into one of peaceful, serene and prayerful dignity. No mention is made of the garment’s removal. It appears that it remains on Jesus as he is laid in the tomb and added to by the explicitly mentioned ‘linen’ cloth in which Joseph finally shrouds the body of Jesus (Luke 23.53). The Herodian garment and the linen shroud symbolizing eternity are the residual images in the Gospel’s passion narrative that communicate Luke’s Christology of Jesus’ regal and heavenly status.
Luke’s tendency to ‘cover up’ and dignify Jesus has mixed consequences. On the one hand, the evangelist offers a portrait of Jesus that would appeal to an elite audience far removed from the artisan and peasant world of the historical Jesus. The teachings of the Galilean Jesus offer Luke a way of socially reconstructing the Gospel household in terms of hospitality and friendship. On the other hand, Luke’s ‘cover-up’ also pushes the issue of societal abuse and sexual oppression – dominant in Luke’s world and a mechanism of control, especially within the Greco-Roman domestic scene – into the background.36
Whatever the reason for Luke’s redactional predisposition to ‘cover up’ Mark’s Christological portrait, it reflects a tendency that has continued in the Jesus movement ever since. This is the inclination in ecclesial circles to conceal the truth and camouflage what is embarrassing, unpalatable and scandalous. Luke’s reformulation of Mark’s graphic and confronting portrait of a violated and sexually abused Jesus seeks to screen the Gospel audience from the reality of criminal execution in the Roman world. Rather, a more dignified figure emerges whose agenda is not to scandalize but affirm.
This is not to say that Mark’s Christology is better or more honest than Luke’s. Rather, the exercise of comparing Luke’s Gospel presentation of Jesus with that of Mark highlights the human inclination to paper over what is scandalous and confronting. Whatever the reason for Luke’s alteration of Mark’s portrait of the suffering and dying Jesus – whether to offer a palatable Christology for Luke’s more genteel audience or to reduce any possibility of scandal that Mark’s portrait might produce – the evangelist’s redaction of Mark does give us pause for thought, especially in the light of the present ecclesial situation in Australia. The Gospels are ‘windows’ and ‘mirrors’.37 They offer us a window into the social and cultural world in which they were written. They also reflect back to their readers/listeners insights and a hermeneutic pertinent for the realia of today’s Gospel audience. From the context in which I write, this study invites me to reflect again on the situation which the Australian Catholic Church faces and the scandal caused through the sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults within my ecclesial community. It took the work of a Royal Commission over years to allow the ‘mirror’ to expose what had been happening in the Church and to honour the stories of those who had been abused. The bishops and other faith leaders in the Australian Catholic Church have been called to account for what has happened historically and to put in place systems of transparency and accountability. What Luke has done to Mark – again, for whatever reason – mirrors what this leadership has also done. But in the present situation, we know the reasons for the cover-up: to avoid scandal, to protect the institution, to deflect responsibility, evade accountability and reinforce clericalism. A conspiracy of silence has accompanied this tragic situation within the Church. This ‘cover-up’ has been exposed. Its exposure now invites a move towards a more open, humble and transparent Church that welcomes the child – the Gospel’s theological metaphor for the estranged, abused and hurt.
References
Adamczewski, Bartosz, The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary, European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions, Frankfurt: Peter Lang GmbH, 2016.
Anthony, Peter, ‘What are They Saying about Luke–Acts?’, Scripture Bulletin 40 (2010), pp. 10–21.
Aristotle, Politics, 1, 2; 5, 2; De Anima 2, 1f.
Berry, D. H., and Andrew Erskine, Form and Function in Roman Oratory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Briggs, Richard, Word in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation – Toward a Theory of Self-Involvement, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001.
Brown, Colin, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1975, pp. 280–91.
Brown, Raymond E., An Introduction to the New Testament, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987.
–––, An Introduction to the New Testament: The Abridged Edition, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016.
Brown, Raymond E., and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity, New York: Paulist Press, 1983.
Byrne, Brendan, A Costly