Harmony on Section 21

1. Mark doesn't merely quote Isaiah, but also alludes to Malachi. Thus a textual variant in the KJV has "prophets" in the introductory formula, not merely "Isaiah." Luke quotes more of the Isaiah text so he can get to the part where "all mankind may see God's salvation." Luke also is more geographically accurate than Matthew and Mark, yet less interested in John's "costume," which is a literary device from a Hebraic background showing his prophetic status. Luke twice mentions "baptism for repentance for the forgiveness of sins." This is critical for him since he will use the exact phrase in Acts 2:38. Thus, for Luke, this scene is somewhat prophetic of things to come.

2. This is the opening scene for Mark. He jumps right into the action in his gospel with a quote from the O.T. (and an additional allusion). By the way, this is the only direct quote of the O.T. by Mark in his gospel. For Luke and Matthew, however, Jesus and John have already been introduced through the birth narratives. Thus we are already prepared for John's prophetic role as well as Jesus' baptism and inauguration into ministry.

Section 162

 1.            In this passage both Matthew and Mark write very similar accounts; there is little discrepancy between the two. However, the differences that do exist may help shed light on the intended readership of the respective authors. For example, Matthew assumes that his readers know what the Praetorium is, whereas Mark had to explain what it was. This is because Matthew’s Jewish audience would have most likely been familiar with the city of Jerusalem and even passed by this building on a number of occasions. On the other hand, Mark’s original audience was probably not familiar with the city and was therefore in need of clarification. Matthew indicates that the soldiers placed a staff in Jesus’ hand, Mark leaves this out and only says that he was beat with a staff. In the ancient Near East, holding a staff was common imagery in the portrayal of kings. Therefore, it is likely that Matthew included this event that was originally intended to humiliate Jesus in order to signify his exalted status as king, which is a major theme in his gospel.

 2.            Both Matthew and Mark use this passage very intentionally in their gospels. They both place this section of scripture directly after Pilate handed Jesus over to be flogged and crucified in his final trial and directly before the account of his actual crucifixion. Their stories are nearly identical, meaning that it may be likely that Matthew used Mark as his source (or vise versa).  They both use this section to transition between Jesus’ trail and his crucifixion. John most likely does not mention this event because he has a propensity to portray Jesus as powerful and in control. Thus, the reason for his omission of this section is linked to his theological theme and his reluctance to paint this picture of Jesus being humiliated in this way.

Harmony 167 (With color Coding) 

1. John is the only Gospel writer to record the fact that the soldiers were going to break Jesus’ legs but then decided to pierce his side. John wanted to bring in both the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12; Psalm 34:20) and prepare the setting for the piercing of Jesus’ side (Zechariah 12:10). When this piercing took place, blood and water flowed out. These two elements are extremely important in Johanine literature and therefore the reasoning behind his inclusion of this event is clear. All four of the Gospel accounts mention Joseph of Arimathea. One reason why they may all have all included him is because there is a good chance that all of these writers could have personally known this man and also because the ascribing of a name to this man makes the story more believable and more verifiable. Both Mark and Luke record that his man “was waiting on the Kingdom of God.” This is a type of ‘theological shorthand’ that indicates they were followers of Jesus. It is interesting that waiting for ‘the Kingdom’ is equated with faith. This displays the kingdom as one of the foundational tenants of Jesus’ message, even at his crucifixion. This ‘Kingdom of God” is also a major theme in Luke’s writings and he extends it on to the Book of Acts. Mark is the only gospel to mention the Centurion in this section. The reason for Mark’s inclusion of this character is because he was writing to a Roman audience who would have been well acquainted with Roman soldiers and believed them and their testimony to be credible.  John is the only one to mention Nicodemus. This is very important because he was the one who came to Jesus in John 3 and was told how God ultimately expressed his love for the world by the sending of his son. The final expression of that love was the cross, and we see Nicodemus there again. Jesus truly had demonstrated since that encounter the full extent of his love (and the Father’s love) for the world. John is also the only author to record that Jesus was buried according to Jewish burial customs, but since he has made it a point in this section to talk about Jewish days and ordinances, his inclusion of this information is consistent with the surrounding context. He is also the only one to mention the practical aspect of Jesus burial in Joseph’s tomb…because it was near by.

2. The context of these four accounts in nearly identical. The only difference is found in John because he recorded the actions of the soldiers and the piercing of Jesus’ side. Despite this one difference, all four accounts directly follow the account of the crucifixion of Jesus and directly precede the account of Jesus’ resurrection. The only exceptions to this are the mentioning of certain women who were present (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and of the posting of the guard (Matthew).