UNPICKING TRINITY

The Last Supper

SYNOPTIC NARRATIVE

Jeremy Ben Royston Boulter

jerboulter@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The focus of the Passover Supper is on its support for the sacrament of Holy Communion. It also provides much
of the ordinance of the Eucharist. If you look up Eucharist, you will learn that it commemorates the self-sacrifice
of Jesus for the redemption of sin in those who believe in him and his self-sacrifice. Christianity has linked its
celebration to the host of supper’s self-sacrifice on the cross the next day. These are foundational to Christian
faith: The Way to eternal joy with Christ in the Father’s House.
For Israelites, among whom was Jesus, Passover, is an opportunity to celebrate another form of redemption – the
passage from slavery and oppression to self-determination and freedom under the pure theocracy of God. Was
the Last Supper a new form of commemoration on a different day, for Christians rather than Jews? Or was it the
traditional Seder before Pesach?
According to the three-Gospel accounts in Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; and Luke 22:14-20, Jesus instituted
the Eucharist on Thursday before, during or just after the Last Supper. They form the institutional narrative which
is constituted below, and critically examined.
Contents

Contents......................................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction {Exodus 12:34-39}...............................................................................................................................3
Preparing the Passover {Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13}.....................................................6
The Meal Underway {Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:17-18; Luke 22:14-16; John 13:2-3}.......................................8
Jesus Washes the Disciples’ Feet {John 13:4-16}................................................................................................10
The Eucharist {Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20}..................................................................13
Feeding Five Thousand and The Bread of Life................................................................................................15
The Ordinance......................................................................................................................................................16
The Covenant........................................................................................................................................................17
The Promise..........................................................................................................................................................19
Entr’acte.................................................................................................................................................................19
Jesus Predicts his Betrayal {Matthew 26:19-25; Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:18-22; John 13:19-26}.................20
Hypocrites.............................................................................................................................................................21
The Disciples Question Jesus on the Identity of the Betrayer.......................................................................22
Judas Leaves the Supper.....................................................................................................................................23
Comment...............................................................................................................................................................24
Jesus tells the Disciples of the Glorification of Son of Man {John 13:31-33}..............................................25
Who is the Greatest? {Luke22:24-30}....................................................................................................................26
Comment...............................................................................................................................................................27
Love One Another {Luke 22:31-32; John 13:20 & 34-35}...................................................................................29
Jesus Predicts His Ascension {John 13:33 & 36}................................................................................................31
Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial {Matthew 26:31-35; Mark 14:27-31; Luke 22:33-34; John 13:37-38}.............32
You Will All Fall Away.......................................................................................................................................32
Jesus Will Ascend.................................................................................................................................................33
I Will Lay Down My Life....................................................................................................................................33
The Prediction of Peter’s Denial........................................................................................................................34
Comment...............................................................................................................................................................35
Two Swords {Luke 22:35-38}.................................................................................................................................36

pg. 1
 Comment...............................................................................................................................................................38
Conspectus...............................................................................................................................................................40
Interlude {Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26; Luke 22:39; John 14:31}.....................................................................42
Outlaws from Society {Isaiah 53:12}....................................................................................................................44
The Context of Isaiah 53:12.................................................................................................................................45
Comment...............................................................................................................................................................46
Continuation.........................................................................................................................................................46
Isaiah 53 – Line by Line.......................................................................................................................................47
Comment...............................................................................................................................................................51
Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives {Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46}.........................52
The Arrest {Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:1-14}................................................55
Comment...............................................................................................................................................................59
Reprise......................................................................................................................................................................60
Bibliography............................................................................................................................................................64

pg. 2
Introduction {Exodus 12:34-39}

The summation of the Last Supper in the Synoptic Gospel is its support for the sacrament of Holy
Communion1. It also provides much of the ordinance of the Eucharist: The ‘Eucharist’ is foundational to
Christian faith in its commemoration of Jesus for those who believe in him and his self-sacrifice for the
redemption of sin. It recalls the enraptured onto the Way to Eternal Joy with Christ in the Father’s
House.
For Israelites, among whom was Jesus, however, Seder Pesach (the Passover Supper) is an opportunity to
celebrate another form of redemption: the passage from slavery and oppression to self-determination
and freedom under the pure theocracy of God. 2 Israel was guided and ruled by His prophets among the
descendants of Jacob and the nation’s priests.
The tradition established was to “take the dough before it was leavened”, {Exodus 12:34} and “bake it
into unleavened loaves” {Exodus 12:39} as if preparing food for a journey. This is done now as a
memorial for the flight of Israel from Egypt at that time in order to become established in the Promised
Land. Just like preparing unleavened bread for the journey from slavery to the free state in the Promised
Land, its ritual repetition and sharing at Seder Pesach is a metaphor for what is required to sustain every
believer’s spiritual journey through his or her human life on mundane ‘Erets (Earth) to the Promised
Dwelling in the Hereafter, Gan Eden (the Everlasting Garden) in Olam Ba-Ha (The World to Come). If
Jesus was indeed hosting the Passover Supper, this was the context of the the meal in the upper room
that he held with his disciples in attendance.
Christianity has linked the celebration of the Eucharist to the self-sacrifice of the supper’s host on the
cross the next day. They point to precursors, such as the acceptable sacrifice offered by Abel {Genesis
4:4}, the ram offered by Abraham to redeem the life of his son {Genesis 22:13} and, in particular, the
offering of bread and wine by the priest of Salem, Melchizedek {Genesis 14:18}. The notions suggested

Eucharist, CHRISTIANITY; Encyclopaedia Britannica

Chabad.org Staff, (2019); Passover 2019 (Pesach); Jewish Holidays; Passover; Jewish Practice.

pg. 3
by the Synoptic account married to these precursors are espoused in passages from 1 Corinthians 11:23-
25 and Hebrews 9:11–12.
According to the three-Gospel account in Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; and Luke 22:14-20, Jesus
instituted the Eucharist on Thursday at the Last Supper. They form the institutional narrative which is
constituted below, and critically examined.
Together, the rituals described symbolically express the Christians spiritual journey through the
sacrament of communion to a promised heaven, but the actual actions and accoutrements used to
perform the Eucharist – eating unleavened bread and drinking watered wine in memory of the
crucifixion – is called the ordinance of the Eucharist.
The Catholic churches practice Holy Communion 3, necessarily a closed sacrament. Among Protestant
churches, some practice open communion, performing the sacrament with non-church members (i.e.
members of other churches as well as their own church members). Others perform closed communion 4,
including only their church members.5
The words in Luke 22:19–20 are interpreted to mean that the bread and wine which is offered to the
congregation becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Thus, Church members, by consuming the
offering, take part in the sacrifice which he made and makes before the Father. It follows, in order to
become one with God, it requires the body and blood of Jesus to be earnestly eaten and drunk, if only
symbolically.
But is that the message meant by the ceremony at ‘The Last Supper’? Below, the Synoptic account of the
event has been combined and reconstructed, adjoined with the parts of the account in John’s Gospel
mentioned in the Synoptic gospels and contextualizing those mentions.

Pohle, J. (1909). The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament. In the Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

Truth or Tradition? the Greek word translated as “communion” is ‘koinonia,’ and it means a full sharing. In English, the word
“communion” denotes ‘union’ or ‘establishing oneness’ with another. ‘What does the Bible say about “Holy Communion”?’

Richard Hollerman (2019); “Communion - Is it Open or Closed?”; True Discipleship, n.d. Web.

pg. 4
The Passover supper in John incorporates the lessons given and prayers said before going to the olive
grove or garden where Jesus was arrested. Many commentators assert that John’s account of the supper
occurs on Wednesday evening6. In consequence, the sermons on union, the prophecies about the
Paraclete and the prayers that finished off the gathering before entering the garden all occurred the
night after the supper and into Thursday. They must have continued that evening and into the early
morning before dawn on Friday if the crucifixion was set for that day. Some of that narrative has been
married into the Synoptic account as deemed relevant or appropriate, but the timing in John has been
discarded due to the conflicts that arise in the narrative if they are not.
Research noted that there is a slight disagreement in the sequence of events, the most glaring of which
concerns the prophecy of betrayal, which comes while sharing the bread and grape juice (or wine) in
Mark and Matthew, but after the sharing them in Luke. Luke’s verses are placed in the same order as
Mark’s, so the difference may not be apparent in the narrative below. Sources, {Matthew}, {Mark},
{Luke} and {John}, are introduced into a paragraph in the most narrative friendly order.
For the Synoptic narrative, when words are repeated in each of two or more Gospels, the majority
wording is annotated with alternative wordings in the footnotes. These may be minor alternatives, such
as a different verb reporting speech (e.g. tell/say/ask) or a pronoun/noun substitution, or passive/active voice
sentences. Alternative content that does not alter the meaning, will simply be added to the text if it can
be accommodated, or written as alternative content in the footnotes. Meaning changing content, unique
to one Gospel only, will be added on, if possible, and labelled as such in the footnotes, or its content will
be footnoted as extra content with reference to the source (if necessary). When words are introduced
into the text by the author for the sake of flow, they are in brackets [words]. After each section will be its
analysis and commentary.

The Death of Jesus

pg. 5
Preparing the Passover {Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13}

Then came the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on which 7 the Passover lamb was to be
sacrificed. [Jesus commanded] his8 disciples: “Go and prepare for us to eat the Passover.”
They came to Jesus and asked him, “Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat it9?”
So, he10 sent two of his disciples, Peter and John, saying 11, “When you enter12 the city, a man
carrying a jug of water will meet you. Follow him to the house 13 he enters, and say to the
owner14of that house that the teacher asks him 15:‘Where is my guest room, where I may eat the

or ‘when’

or ‘the’

or ‘the Passover’

10

or ‘Jesus’

11

in two of the gospels, ‘saying’ is rendered, “and told them / answered”

12

or ‘go into’

13

or ‘and whichever house he enters, tell the owner (of that house)

14

or ‘a certain man’ (of that house)

15

or ‘says’ … ‘my time is near. I will keep the Passover with my disciples at your house!’

pg. 6
 Passover with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper room, furnished already 16.
Make preparations for us there. So, the disciples left and went into the city and did as Jesus had
directed them; and they found everything17 just as Jesus had described18. And they prepared the
Passover.”

The first day of unleavened bread is Thursday, the day the Passover feast is prepared – the day of
preparation for the Passover. This is a singularly Jewish rite, and the preparations Jesus and his disciples
made were typical of travelers. Normally, the Jews ate the Passover supper at home, but those far from
home would hire a local dining hall.
Matthew reports the booking of the room differently from the other two Gospels. Whereas the Synoptic
narrative has them asking: “Where is my guest room?” Matthew adds a prologue: with Jesus
announcing, “my time is here” (see footnote 15). He also states an intention to eat or spend Passover
with his disciples at a selected inn.
The other story present in two Gospels, but not the third, is the story of the water carrier. What is this
story? The man’s actions are unusual as it was women who normally carried water jugs on their heads
in that culture; so, does this symbolize the equality of men and women before God? Or was it simply an
arranged unmistakable sign that the disciples could not possibly miss due to its uniqueness?
Where the man with the jar of water leads them to is also symbolic. It is the house with an upper story,
where teacher and students shared a meal, listened to important sermons, and heard prophecies about
the future of the faith. The room in a house may be a reminder of the place in the hereafter which
Christians would share with Jesus. Even the way it is described as ‘furnished and ready’ and ‘just as
Jesus had described’ infers that other room in the Father’s house described in John 14. Moreover, the jar

16

or ‘and ready’

17

or ‘where they found it’ in the shorter version, replacing ‘and did as Jesus had directed them; and they found everything’

18

or ‘told them’

pg. 7
of water is that which quenches the thirst of the arid and empty. Does the water represent the Gospel;
the jar, its vessel (i.e. Jesus); the man, the owner of both (i.e. God) and of the room that is the destination
Jesus promises to those who obey 19 him (i.e. The Kingdom of God)? The mini narrative is pregnant with
signs.

19

Boulter, J. The Passover Supper- Sermons and Prophesies

pg. 8
The Meal Underway {Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:17-18; Luke 22:14-16; John 13:2-3}

When evening20 came21, Jesus arrived and reclined22 at the table with the twelve disciples23.
And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before my suffering.
For I tell you that I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
[Thus], the evening meal was underway, and the devil had already put into the heart of
Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. [But] Jesus knew that the Father had delivered
all things into his hands. [Moreover, he knew]24 that he had come from God and was returning to
God.

Whereas Matthew, Mark and John restricted their language to suggest the meal got underway that
evening, Luke timed its beginning as “the hour”. Usually, ‘the hour’ is an eschatological reference, so is
Luke using this dramatic term to indicate the whole evening was a presage and a metaphor for the end
of days and the final Judgment? This parallel is repeated in the iterations that the Passover supper
(eagerly awaited) was simply a presage to communion together in the hereafter (also eagerly awaited)
either side of his “suffering”.
What is of significance for Christianity, then, is ‘the suffering,’ as a pivot in the establishment of
communion. John mentions the foreseen betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot, firmly binding the ‘suffering’

20

or ‘the hour’

21

or ‘had come’

22

or ‘was reclining’

23

or ‘his’ instead of ‘the’ … & ‘apostle’ in favor of ‘disciples’

24

substituting ‘and’ in the text

pg. 9
to that event (the ‘betrayal’). John also implies that ‘the suffering’ is unavoidable, fated by the God, part of
the purpose behind Him sending him into the world, and the price that must be paid for the joy of
‘union’ with God in the hereafter. This applies not only to Jesus, himself, but to his apostles.
Luke calls the disciples ‘apostles’. His choice of words emphasizes the role the disciples have in
propagating the religion by proselytization. The difference between a ‘disciple’ and an ‘apostle’, often
considered synonymous terms, is that the disciple is a dedicated student, an apprentice or junior
journeyman, still learning his skill – still seeking surety in his system of belief – his religion. An apostle,
on the other hand, is a graduate, a journeyman or master, and is obligated to pass on his knowledge and
skill, and call others to his system of belief – his religion. Is it significant that the twelve are counted,
here, to emphasize that Judas Iscariot was among them at the start of the evening? Can Judas be called
an apostle? Luke did not number the apostles, perhaps to underline the fact that the communion would
not include the betrayer. Rather, the betrayer’s participation in sharing a sop with Jesus would be the
trigger to the coming events in the early hours of the next morning.

pg. 10
Jesus Washes the Disciples’ Feet {John 13:4-16}

So, he got up from the supper, laid aside His outer garments, and wrapped a towel around His
waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and dry them
with the towel that was around him. He came to Simon Peter, who asked Him, “Lord, are you
going to wash my feet?”
Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”
“Never shall you wash my feet!” Peter told him.
Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”
“Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not only my feet, but my hands and my head as well!”
Jesus told him, “Whoever has already bathed needs only to wash his feet, and he will be
completely clean. And you are clean, though not all of you.”
For he knew who would betray him. That is why he had said, “Not all of you are clean.”
When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place.
[Then he asked],
“Do you know what I have done for you?
[No one ventured to reply]
Now that I, your Lord and teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s
feet. I have set you an example so that you should do as I have done for you. Truly, truly, I tell
you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
If you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.”

This is a singular event described only by John. CliffsNotes calls this story ‘a narrative device’ interpreting
the meaning of Jesus’ earthly career from the perspective of the post-resurrection experiences and beliefs
of the Christian community. There does not seem to be a reason why Jesus suddenly gets up to perform
ablution on his disciples, unless you recognize the story as such a narrative device, presenting the acts of
Jesus as though they anticipated the events that would follow.

pg. 11
In the story above, which precedes the eating of the Passover meal, he performs the work of a servant.
By doing so, Jesus not only shows his disciples how to be humble, but also symbolizes, by using water,
how essential spiritual purification is for those who wished to be his true followers. This symbolic
meaning is what he meant when he tells Peter: “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” Spiritual
cleanliness is akin to piety: seeking purity in the teaching and practice of, and belief in, the religion that
God made clear in his revelations through those upon whom he bestowed sonship 25.
Later, during the sermons reported by John, Jesus refers to the cleanness of the disciples as being due to
receiving, internalizing and being ready to proselytize his message. In other words, submersing oneself
in the true religion is a purifying process the same way as baptism is supposed to be. This is made
explicit in the Quran, where receptive people who know their Bible are described.

“And We have conveyed to them the Quran that they might be reminded. There are those to
whom We gave the Scripture before it who believe in it. And when it is recited to them, they say,
‘We have believed in it; indeed, it is the truth from our Lord. Indeed, [even] before it, we were
Muslims.’
Those will be given their reward twice for what they patiently endured and [because] they avert
evil through good and spend [in charity] from what We have provided them. And when they hear
ill speech, they turn away from it and say, ‘For us are our deeds, and for you are your deeds.
Peace unto you; we seek not the [company of] ignorant [people].’” {Quran 28:51-56}

He does not tell them to do ablution; rather, he takes the task upon himself. Is he humbling himself,
emphasizing his service to them26, his disciples? Is he setting an example? A clue to the answer is his

25

According to Judaism and Christianity. Islam recognises no sonship to God, but only a symbolic filial relationship to the religion God has
consistently sent down.

26

If, linguistically, one attempted to find the discursive reference and denotational links, one would be hard put to establish a common
referent for ‘messenger’ and ‘servant’, ‘master’ and ‘the one who sent the messenger.’ But, as is well known, John has Jesus speak
allegorically, using metaphor to link ideas. Hence, ‘Lord’ and ‘Master’ can be considered synonymic in reference to Jesus and his
relationship to the disciples. Equally, ‘servant’ and ‘messenger’ could be applied to the apostles of Jesus when they were appointed
the task of proselytizing. At another level, ‘servant’ and ‘messenger’ can be applied as descriptors for Jesus himself in relation to God,
‘the One who sent him’. The apostles are not greater than Jesus, and neither is Jesus greater than God. And the one who knows this,

pg. 12
reply to Peter. He does not say, ‘unless I wash your feet,’ but ‘unless I wash you’ meaning ‘purify you’. It
can therefore be understood that the washing of the disciples’ feet symbolizes such purification just as
ablution purifies the worshipper for interaction with God.
The Quran says,

“O believers, when you stand up to pray wash your faces and hands, up to the elbows, and wipe
your heads your feet, up to the ankles; … God does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He
intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful.” {Quran 5:6}

If they are not purified; ‘You will have no part in me.’ Again, symbolically, this means they would fall
away from the religion and lose their chance of union with him in the hereafter.
Then Jesus said, “And you are clean, though not all of you.” The teacher was showing how he
recognized that not all his students had sincerely taken his lessons to heart. The disbelieving hypocrite
amongst them would get no benefit from the Gospel he had heard. Rather, he would betray his teacher,
his religion, and, ultimately, himself before God. Instead of joy in the Afterlife, he would experience
death and oblivion, eternally repeated.

avoids being prideful, and humbles himself, will earn the blessing of God.

pg. 13
The Eucharist {Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20}

The following narrative has been composed reordering Luke’s narrative to fit the sequence Mark and
Matthew agree on. John’s report of Judas eating with Jesus occurs after the washing of feet, and they had
been eating before that. Luke reports the breaking of bread and drinking of the fruit of the vine as
occurring twice: once before supper and once after supper. Matthew and Mark describe them as
occurring once only, during the supper. Hence, Luke’s two events have been pulled into the context of
during the meal and then reversed so that the two narratives more easily match. The message remains
the same, so it is hoped the content of all verses are fairly analyzed.

And while they were eating Jesus27 took bread28, spoke a blessing, gave thanks and broke it29, and
gave it to them30, saying, “Take it and eat; this is my body, given for you 31; do this in
remembrance of me.”

27

or ‘he’

28

or ‘the bread’

29

It is the custom in Judaism for the host to serve his guests from the Seder Plate. The guests should not take it by themselves.

30

or ‘the disciples”

31

Luke is the only one adding words to ‘this is my body’. The phrases ‘given to you’ and ‘in remembrance of me’ are unique to him.

pg. 14
 Then, in the same way, after supper he took the cup 32. After taking the cup, he gave thanks, and
gave it to them, saying33, ‘take this and divide it among yourselves. Drink from it, all of you, [he
continued]’ and they all drank from it.
He said to them, “This cup is my blood of the covenant34 which is poured out for you 35 for the
forgiveness of sins36. For truly, I tell you:37 I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine38 from
now39 until that day I drink it anew with you in the kingdom of God40 when it comes.”

32

There is no mention of what the cup contained – water, blood, fruit juice, spirits or wine - though ‘the liquid might have been from ‘the
fruit of the vine’, if that is what is implied by Jesus after announcing they had participated in a covenant.

33

or ‘and said’

34

or ‘the new covenant in my blood’ This is Luke’s version.

35

or ‘many’. Matthew and Mark say ‘many’.

36

Only Matthew states the act is ‘for the forgiveness of sins.’

37

or ‘that’

38

This is ‘grape juice’ or ‘wine,’ not cognac, brandy or any other kind of spirit which contravenes the rules of what is kosher.

39

or ‘not drink from the fruit of the vine from now on’

40

or ‘my Father’s kingdom’

pg. 15
This, of course, is the key event, which Christians turned into a rite signifying their faith. This part of the
supper had the disciples partaking a share of the broken bread, with Jesus claiming it as ‘my body’
‘given for you’. Christianity posits that participation in the sacrament of communion symbolizes the
sacrifice of the Passover lamb. The sacrifice of the Passover lamb, in turn, symbolizes the self-sacrifice of
God’s ‘only’ Son, in the shape of Jesus at the crucifixion; and his sacrifice of himself symbolizes taking
away the sins of the world, which are bedded in the disobedience of Adam, termed ‘the original sin’41.
Yet, Jesus taught, earlier in his mission, that people can both guide and misguide. In the Sermon on the
mount, he mentions those who are blessed, including the righteous and merciful, the meek and humble,
and those who practice the commandments of God sincerely and guide others to do the same. Their
station will be elevated, and their rank considered great in the hereafter. However, are not “whoever
breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise 42” unblessed, even cursed; will
the mis-guiders not be assigned the lowest rank and station therein?
Moreover, he does not say, ‘I will give my body for you’; rather, he said that the bread shared was “my
body, [already] given for you.” Who gave Jesus in the flesh for the guidance? Who gave him his disciples
and, through them, all the believers? Was it not God (the Father) Who sent him, as Jesus had often told
them? And what did Jesus in the flesh signify? Did he not signify, in his words and actions, proof that
he was the Messiah, the eschatological ‘son of man’? And, if he were to come again, alive, from the
heavens, then is not one compelled to assume he was taken up, alive, when he ascended?
The eating of the bread was a reminder of what bound them together: Something they had to do in
remembrance of him. Perhaps it was a warning to remember his actions and what they meant because
he would not be there to remind them himself, shortly. If they remembered his actions, they would

41

The true bearer of the original sin is Cain (Qabil) on killing his brother, Abel (Abil). Yet his sin effected only himself. It is not all
mankind who inherited his trait of unrepentant sinning. Many repent, turning back to God. Many seek to take care of the environment,
the destitute, the weak. These show mercy and receive Mercy. Those who follow Cain’s example load him up with greater and greater
responsibility for his misguidance of his inheritors into errancy. Adam, however, was forgiven as soon as he asked forgiveness and
repented, and was awarded with the role of guided viceregent and caretaker of the world, and progenitor of his guided successors.

42

Matthew 5:19

pg. 16
know that God would return him to the world at the end of time. He would be the end of time
Messiah, who would unite everyone under one banner and one religion. 43

FEEDING FIVE THOUSAND AND THE BREAD OF LIFE

In John, the eating of the bread at the Passover supper is often linked by commentary to ‘the bread of
life44’, the discussion of which arose from the feeding of the five thousand45 in the same chapter.
According to CliffsNotes, the feeding of the five thousand in the Synoptic Gospels, is presented as
evidence that Jesus is the Messiah because he worked miracles. John, however, had another use for the,
story. It is useful, here, to paraphrase CliffsNotes, the physical amount of food manifested was not the
focus, for John. Rather, it is the spiritual significance of the food that is. The ‘manna’ that God sent to the
Jews did not satisfy them, and they turned away from it – and they were subsequently punished for
their rejection and ingratitude46. Their rejection of God’s guidance for their own hypocritical
interpretations of it saw God punishing them with a second trip into captivity and the diaspora. Thus,
only food that metaphorically feeds the spiritual side of the believer can sustain the quality of living that
characterizes the faith of the true followers of Jesus. The referent of "I am the bread of life", according to
Cliffs Notes, within John’s scripture, is the communion of the Lord's Supper, where Jesus says, " Whoever
eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him."
The spiritual presence of God in mankind is His Word. It is the Spirit of God manifest in His Word
which nourishes the spiritual quality in one’s life. Just as Jesus, by virtue of the Spirit 47, taught “the living

43

According to Saul of Tarsus, the Son of Man would be the one who would greet their resurrected selves, as well as the then living
believers, and oversee their translation into the Kingdom of God. (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

44

John 6:48

45

John 6:1-15

46

Numbers 11:33

pg. 17
water,” inevitably leading to “eternal life”, so the example of his bread, which he bid us remember,
symbolized his fleshly prestation, feeding “the world a new quality of life.”48

THE ORDINANCE

Jesus conventionally broke the bread with a word of blessing 49. He did the same with the cup 50. They
may have passed the same drinking vessel from mouth to mouth round the group to show mutual trust.
Luke is the only one among the Gospel writers to say, ‘divide it among yourselves’, perhaps by ladling it
out from a common vessel into individual goblets.
In Greek or Roman society each person in a group normally drinks from their own goblet after being
served from the same pitcher, and it may be common to Middle Eastern convention, too, when sharing
drink. If the convention of service from the host (from the Seder plate) is followed, then Jesus, himself,
would have ladled the drink out, obviating the need for him to say, ‘divide it among yourselves’. If he
ladled the drink into a common bowl to be shared from mouth to mouth, ‘divide it’ would have been an
admonishment to take only one’s fair share. None of the Gospel writers said the cup contained wine 51; if
God prohibits alcohol consumption, however, it was more probably grape juice. Even the Rabbis admit
it is an acceptable substitute for the wine conventionally drunk at Seder.

47

Jesus describes the Spirit that quickens as “the words I have spoken,” to the disciples and apostles, rather than his flesh, which “profits
nothing.” John 6:53

48

CliffsNotes, Summary and Analysis of The Gospel of John, with adaptions.

49

He ‘spoke a blessing’ and ‘gave thanks’. When serving the drink, he ‘gave thanks’ only. ‘Speaking a blessing’ is not reported.

50

It is customary to drink four times, or drink four cups of grape juice. Grape juice is considered a substitute for wine at Pesach Seder. (The
Four Cups, Eliyahu Kitov, chabad.org)

51

Exodus 12: 15 orders Israel to rid their homes of any leavened products for consumption and all leavening and for the seven days of
Pesach, which includes Seder. Wine is leavened grape juice, so the drink from the fruit of the vine during Pesach should be
unfermented grape juice, not its alcoholic sibling.

pg. 18
Only Luke felt it was necessary to put the command ‘eat it’ into the mouth of Jesus after he had invited
his disciples to take from the bread he broke. In addition to the Synoptic scripts of Matthew and Mark,
Luke also adds, that the bread “given for you” should be eaten “in remembrance of me.” This phrase is
how Eucharist became a sacramental rite in the Catholic Church, and others. One wonders, however, if
that was the intention. Given the analysis so far, could it not mean to remember what Jesus embodied
(the anticipated Messiah), or what he taught them to then proselytize to the many (the Gospel)? And, if
it does mean either, or both, does it make him God? or a messenger from God? Was he the controller? or
the controlled?

THE COVENANT

All three of the Synoptic Gospels had Jesus saying 52 that the sharing of the cup of drink was ‘my blood’
‘of the covenant,’ ‘which is poured out for you.’ Jesus did not announce a covenant before the disciples
had drunk; rather, he did so after they had. In other words, any covenant was a blind one.
Did they agree to the covenant? Were they blindly trusting? Did drinking from the cup mean they had
entered a communion with Jesus and ‘The Father’ by participating in drinking from the cup all together
before the covenant was announced? Were they sharing the drink out of traditional Seder etiquette?
Jesus told his disciples that they were drinking his blood, and doing so was a covenant; well, a covenant
is a solemn agreement between a teacher and his students, a master and his apprentices, a ruler and his
subjects, God and His worshippers. Surely the wording of this one must be symbolic in meaning,
metaphoric in style! Jesus said,

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last
day.” {John 6:54}

The covenant, then is not just for the disciples, but the many whom they teach and pass the message
onto. The symbolic blood is like the light he carries and speaks out so the world may know God, and his
body is the evidence of the Father in him that believers know by his works.

52

only after they had drunk their fill

pg. 19
Jesus taught,

“Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, {John 6:57}

which refers to him being sent as a messenger filled with the message of the Father to his children (God
to his servants),

“so, also, the one who feeds on me will live because of me.” {ibid.}

In other words, he who is filled by Jesus with the message the Father gave him, and teaches it in turn,
will be a living example of Jesus who is a living example of the Father. If we associate spirit with blood,
the blood is the words contained within the vessel, which is the Gospel portrayed in the bodily presence
of the Messenger sent by God, what Jesus is calling to is the religion embodied in him, which he distills
down in John’s Gospel from his being ‘the bread of life’53 to:

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and
they are life. However, there are some of you who do not believe.” {John 6:63-64}

Do his words and actions, which he says are not directed personally, but are by the command of God
the Father54, make him deity? or an instrument of Deity?

53

John 6:48

54

John 3:2; John 3:32-34; John 5:19, John 6:38-40; John 10:38; John 12:49; John 14:20-24

pg. 20
THE PROMISE

The final part of this section of the Last Supper, had Jesus telling them, ‘Truly, I tell you that I will no
longer drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in the
kingdom of God.’
Is this a straightforward statement - that he will never share an evening like this Passover with his
disciples again in this life – a prediction he was going to die very soon? or a more symbolic message that
his message, the one he was sent with, was complete? in that case, he would be saying that - by the end
of the evening - he would have no more from his teaching to share with them from what he had, though,
later, in the afterlife, he would. In John 16:12 - towards the end of the same evening - Jesus says, “I still
have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it,” which amounts to much the same meaning.

ENTR’ACTE

The rest of this treatise is about the events that occurred after Eucharist. They are not strictly related to
the communion. What happens on every occasion involves prediction, and very short-term predictions,
each ‘fulfilling’ prophecies in the Tanakh that Jesus knew. The question I would pose, generally, is
whether they have a commonality. Are they the words of Jesus, or words put into his mouth by the
Gospel writers? Do the prophetic verses really prophesy the details of the events of Jesus life in those
twenty-four hours before the crucifixion? Or are they evidence that what the Gospel writers forgot to
use earlier in the narrative was included to scaffold the Christian interpretations a century or so after he
was gone? These are points to consider, not formal proposals or speculated facts.
Due to the eclectic nature of the different and sometimes unique accounts given in the four gospels, the
following topical verses in the narrative are broken up and interspersed with analysis and commentary,
chapter by chapter. This is to clarify which critique applies to which part of the story.

pg. 21
Jesus Predicts his Betrayal {Matthew 26:19-25; Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:18-22; John 13:19-26}

One of the disciples is not blessed, but the reverse: cursed. Though Jesus does not condemn him in direct
speech, Judas turns traitor, and sells him to the authorities for money. He later commits suicide, which is
as much a sin as murder, making his final abode clear.

“And Jesus said, “when I say, ‘all of you are blessed,’ I am not speaking about all of you; I know
whom I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the Scripture: ‘The one who shares my bread has lifted
up his heel against me.’ I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it comes to pass,
you will believe that I am he.”” {John 13:18-19}

If ‘All of you’ does not mean ‘all of you,’ what did he mean? One (or more) among the disciples was not
blessed. One (or more) of them seeks to ambuscade him and his cause. Which one or ones? “he who
shares his bread”?
So, why cannot the disciples distinguish him later? Could it be because they all share the bread
physically?55 Most of the disciples also shared it metaphorically and symbolically. However, there was
one who shared physically, but did not share in its symbolical, metaphorical meaning. This begs the
question: If all the disciples were chosen by the Father, why did not all of them share the bread
symbolically? Perhaps it was because the scripture foretold one who will ‘lift up his heel’ against belief56.

55

This is not the only non-traditional etiquette Jesus allowed. In one episode earlier on, the pharisees criticised the eating etiquette of the
disciples, who ate their meal without washing their hand before handling their food. In response, Jesus criticised the Pharisees for
introducing into the religion rules about preparing food that were not based in Gods commands. At the dinner, they shared the food
and drink without waiting for the host to serve it, dipping in their hand with their host in the serving bowls, contrary to the rules of
Seder.

56

Even my close friend whom I trusted, the one who shared my bread, has lifted his heel against me. Psalms 41:9

pg. 22
 After Jesus had said this, and while they were reclining [and] eating), he became troubled in
spirit and testified57, “Truly, truly, I tell you, one of you58 eating with me will betray me. Look!
The hand of my betrayer is with mine on the table.”
{Matthew 26:20-21; Mark 14:18-19; Luke 22:21-22; John 13:21}

Yet even this betrayal is anticipated by Jesus’ own prophecy; its fulfilment should be taken as proof that
he was he was – a man sent by God, rather than as a cause to fall away from what he brought - when it
occurred.
In Psalms 41:9, from whence this prophecy is lifted, it describes the traitor as ‘the man of my peace59,’
hence a trusted friend60, ‘who lay in ambush’61 hypocritically ‘seeking to trip up’, that is, make the religion
fall.
Judas was appointed the group’s treasurer and entrusted trusted with their funds. Did holding up the
trust invested in ‘the man of peace’ as evidence not demonstrate the trust placed in Judas?

HYPOCRITES

But was that the kind of ‘trust’ what the scriptures meant? Clearly, he was not a trusted confederate
because Jesus knew who he was and what he was going to do; that is, unless he did not know until that

57

or ‘said to them’

58

or ‘who is’

59

Obadiah 1:7

60

Trusted as loyal to the religion and the messenger

61

‘lifted his heel up’ against his teacher

pg. 23
Passover that Judas was going to betray him. If the prophecy in Psalms 62 is identified with the prediction
Jesus made, does receiving knowledge of it from the Father only just before it happened make its
fulfilment add up on a one on one basis?
In this case, one of the disciples wanted to betray Jesus by causing his downfall, and thus call into
question or overturn the religion he represented. He pretended to be of the religion but was secretly
against it. The Quran describes such people thus:

“Here you are loving them, but they do not love you while you believe in the all the Scripture.
And when they meet you, they say, ‘We believe.’ But when they are alone, they bite their
fingertips at you in rage.” {Quran 2:119}

THE DISCIPLES QUESTION JESUS ON THE IDENTITY OF THE BETRAYER

Even though Jesus had told them the outward signs, they all shared in those signs.

Then they63 began to [speculate] among themselves as to which of them was going to do this 64.
{Luke22:23; John 13:22}
One of his disciples, the one whom Jesus loved, was reclining at his side. So, Simon Peter
motioned to him to ask Jesus which one he was talking about. Leaning back against Jesus, [the
one who Jesus loved] asked, “Lord, who is it?” {John 13:24-25}
They were65 deeply grieved and to ask him one after another, “Surely not I, Lord?”

62

if it referred to events around Jesus in his time

63

or ‘the disciples’

64

or ‘looking at one another, perplexed as to which of them he meant’

65

pg. 24
 Jesus answered, “It is one of the twelve - the one who has dipped his hand 66 into the bowl with
me67 will betray me.”
Then Judas, who would betray him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?”
{Matthew 26:22-25; Mark 14:17-27; Luke 22:21; John 13:26}

Here, the disciples did not know which of them held betrayal in their heart behind the outward façade.
It says that Peter nudged his fellow disciple to drop the question. Matthew and Mark, however, had all
the disciples coming up to ask.
All the Synoptic Gospels describe Judas as holding his bread and dipping it into the bowl at the same
time as Jesus as the way to identify him. Only John has Jesus dipping bread into the bowl and then
giving it to Judas. Even with these descriptions, the disciples remain confused about which one of them
stood condemned.

JUDAS LEAVES THE SUPPER

Only Matthew, among the Synoptic Gospels, has Jesus confirming who the betrayer was. John picks up
the story. He says that Satan possessed Judas as he took bread from his master’s hand.

Jesus answered, “You have said it yourself.”

Then he dipped the piece of bread and gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. And when Judas
had taken the piece of bread, Satan entered 68 him. Then Jesus said to Judas, “What you are about
to do, do quickly.”

or ‘began to be’

66

or ‘is dipping his bread’

67

or ‘to whom I give this piece of bread after I have dipped it’

68

‘entered into’. The word ‘into’ is superfluous when combines with ‘entered’. Perhaps the translation from Greek should be ‘went into’.

pg. 25
 But no one at the table knew why Jesus had said this to him. Since Judas kept the money bag,
some thought that Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the feast, or to give
something to the poor. As soon as he had received the piece of bread, Judas went out into the
night.
{Matthew 26:25; John 13:26-30}

The other disciples were still far from being on the same page. So, when Jesus bid Judas to leave the
supper and do what he had to do, they thought he had sent him on a worldly errand. In fact, Jesus was
sending the betrayer to those who would organize an arrest party to arrest him in the early hours of the
next day – Good Friday.

COMMENT

Although he predicted his betrayal, none of this prediction implies deity. Rather, it shows that he was
informed by God of his foretold doom. What it does do, with its warning, is associate Jesus with ‘the Son
of Man’. This association implies identity with the eschatological Messiah expected by the Israelites,
which, in turn, implies he would be taken up alive, rather than dead.

Indeed, the Son of Man will go just as it has been determined 69 about him, but woe to that man
who betrays him70. It would be better for him if he had not been born.” {The Synoptic Gospels}

All the Gospels except John have Jesus proclaiming that the Son of Man will go just as it is written about
him. Where this singular prophecy ‘is written’ elsewhere in the Tanakh is not clearly indicated by the
commentaries, but they all agree that the Son of Man is synonymic to the Messiah, which is one of the
titles of Jesus. This makes this prophecy like those in John during this same evening. Clearly, those

69

or ‘is written’

70

or ‘by whom he is betrayed’

pg. 26
meant that Jesus would soon be separated from the sheep he guarded either by his death, symbolic as
that may be, or by his more pragmatic ascension into the heavens. What is clear is that whoever betrays
the Messiah is in deep trouble with God. Very likely the betrayer is hell-bound to its depths.

pg. 27
Jesus tells the Disciples of the Glorification of Son of Man {John 13:31-33}

When Judas had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in
him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify the son in himself - and will glorify him at
once. {John 13:31-33}

It seems obvious that the glorification in this statement is connected to the successful outcome of the
Judas betrayal. Christians will immediately suggest this means his crucifixion. But crucifixion is
extremely debasing.

“And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang
him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same
day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is
giving you for an inheritance.”
{Deuteronomy 21:22-23}

So, it could be suggested that his glorification was linked to his ascension. And the glorification of God
would naturally follow if his ascension took place in front of witnesses.

pg. 28
Who is the Greatest? {Luke22:24-30}

“A dispute also arose among the disciples as to which of them would be considered the greatest.
So, Jesus declared, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them
call themselves benefactors.
But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and
the one who leads like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or
the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines? But I am among you as the one who serves.
You are the ones who have stood by me in my trials.
And I bestow on you a kingdom, just as my Father has bestowed one on me, so that you may eat
and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’”

The dispute appears to be a bit of vainglory among the disciples. It probably evolved from each asking
Jesus if he was the prophesied betrayer. Vainglory is expressly prohibited by Jesus, as can be inferred
from his teaching about giving hidden charity and praying in private, to avoid the admiration of others.
The response of Jesus is in a parable concerning the manner that rulers rule. He chides them by holding
up the example of regional kings who lord over their subjects. They are, themselves, lorded over by
governors from the empire (Rome), calling themselves benefactors to king and citizen alike. Does the
ruler consider what they do a prideful right, or a humble service? Jesus suggests that the best ruler is the
latter. The same could be said for anyone to be considered great. One need only return to the teaching of
the sermon on the mount to ascertain this.
The youngest in the family serves his siblings, the servant serves his master and the master’s family.
Both are taken for granted. But also taken for granted is the service of the bread earner, the head of the
family, and the home maker, the mother and wife, who are granted authority over their family due to
their responsibilities and their service to the family. It is assumed that the person who is eating a meal is
greater than the waiter who waits on him. But, does not the one who serves bestow honor on the one
being served. Jesus equates his role to that of waiter, rather than the waited on.
Jesus ten turns to what is admirable among the disciples, exemplifying that which pushes vainglory
aside. He acknowledges that he had always had the disciples’ support through thick and thin, and that

pg. 29
is what he appreciated in them. Later in the evening, he would call them his friends, deserving the
reward the Father had in store for the blessed. If they were not hypocrites, like the betrayer was, then
they were deserving whatever reward was in his power to arrange!

COMMENT

The reward Jesus promised of a share within the Kingdom of God has Christians panting to assign Jesus
deity. Who, but God, can promise the Kingdom of God to those who follow him? I am happy to say
there are people who can make such promises on God’s behalf. The prophets, of course! God speaks
through the prophets.
Jesus wants his disciples to deserve the very best – a kingdom of their own. The kingdom is the place
reserved for Jesus in the Father’s house, which he promised to share with his true disciples. If they were
humble in their service to God, then they would also be granted the right to be the jury in the afterlife, to
be called as witnesses against the hypocritical opponents who had caused Jesus his trials on earth, and
would cause further trials before his death71.

71

or rescue! The account in the apocrypha, the Apocalypse of Peter from the Nag Hamadi Library, translated by James Brashler and Roger
A. Bullard (1990), seems to indicate what the Quran says much more briefly:
Quran 4:171 [The Jews are cursed for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of
God.” And they did not kill, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ
over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Apocalypse of Peter 81:4-32; 82:1-33 When Jesus had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them.
And I said to him, “What do I see, O Lord? Is it that you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one,
glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?”
The Savior said to me, “He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and
feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But
look at him and me.”
But I, when I had looked, said “Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place.”
But he said to me, “… see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put
to shame.”
…
And he said to me, “… he whom they crucified is … the home of demons, … But he who stands near him is the living Savior, the
first in him, whom they seized and released, who stands joyfully looking at those who did him violence, while they are divided among
themselves.”

pg. 30
Love One Another {Luke 22:31-32; John 13:20 & 34-35}

“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you like wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon,
that your faith will not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
“Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me
receives the One Who sent me.”
“A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so also you must love
one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

These verses are grouped together because they seem to support one another. The first verse is Luke’s,
who recalls Satan’s request reported in the Quran,

“Satan said: ‘My Lord! because You have put me in error, I want to make all worldly things
seem attractive and lead humankind into error, except those of Your servants whom You have
singled out for Yourself.’
God said: ‘Here is the path that leads straight to Me. Over My true servants you will be able to
exercise no power; the power I grant you will be confined to the erring ones, those who choose to
follow you. Surely Hell is the promised place for all of them.’” {Quran 15:39-43}

Jesus promises to ask God to make Simon Peter one of the protected true servants. Not only that, but, on
his repentance and return to the straight path, that he becomes a beacon of light to guide the other
disciples into the same protective harbor. In this sense, Simon Peter is one whom Jesus sends, and he
likens this sending of his chosen messengers to God’s sending of himself. Simon Peter’s acceptance of
his guidance by is likened to his acceptance of God’s guidance and thus, by extension, is the acceptance
of God’s guidance by Simon Peter’s brethren.
Jesus deepens his command to Simon Peter to assume leadership among the disciples by commanding
his chosen disciple’s peers to love one another. As has been stated elsewhere, 72 love means obedience to

72

Boulter, J. 2019; The Passover Supper - Sermons and Prophesies, page 18.

pg. 31
the Master and the religion he teaches. It also means the pleasure the master feels when his acolytes
obey him; and the resulting expression of his pleasure is the reward he gives them; and the best reward
is bliss in the hereafter.

pg. 32
Jesus Predicts His Ascension {John 13:33 & 36}

Little children, I am with you only a little while longer. You will look for me; and as I said to the
Jews, so now I say to you: ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.
“Lord, where are you going?” Simon Peter asked.
Jesus answered, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.”

‘Little children’ is a term modern day people would find condescending, and I am not sure why Jesus
used it. The commentaries relate it to the tender feelings of a parent towards his weak and sickly
children. If so, it makes the term even more condescending – as if he does not trust them to keep to his
religion when they were faced with difficulties. Perhaps Jesus felt they had not the strength to carry on
where he was about to leave off.
This is the first indication that he would not be around to guide and care for them soon. He would pass
away or translate out of this worldly life. When he goes, they will seek him, as children seek their
parents when orphaned, but they will not be able follow.
At the time he went, his going would be by ascension, alive. This privilege was reserved for Jesus alone,
and none from his time would be granted ascension, Jews or disciples. However, there are different
reasons for being unable to follow him after death. The hypocritical Jews would be unable to reach
where Jesus was going because of their disbelief in the hereafter. But his disciples would follow him
there later, after death, because they would keep his religion and proselytize it in word and deed, or so
he assumed.

pg. 33
Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial {Matthew 26:31-35; Mark 14:27-31; Luke 22:33-34; John 13:37-38}

The prediction of Peter’s denial differed contextually between the gospels. The key sequence of events in
Luke was quite different than in Matthew and Mark, and John’s narrative was also not properly ordered
either. Some of the gospels were very sketchy about the context of the prediction, whilst others gave a
much fuller, sometimes conflicting, context. For this reason, the verses are again treated piecemeal
below and interspersed with commentary.

YOU WILL ALL FALL AWAY

“Lord,” said Peter, “why can’t I follow you now?

“Then Jesus said to them, “This very night you will all fall away on account of me. For it is
written: ‘I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’””
{Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27; John 13:37}

The second and third lines above are common to Matthew and Mark and the first line is John’s. I have
split this part of John’s reported speech from the rest of what he quoted Jesus as saying to provide a
smooth juncture to what came before. The rest of the speech is grouped with what is similar to it from
the Synoptic narrative. To the narrative of Mark, Matthew added, ‘this very night’, ‘on account of me’ and
‘of the flock’.
There are many contradictions concerning the narrative of the prediction that Peter would deny Jesus.
Matthew and Mark have its timing as just after leaving the dining hall, while they were them in transit
to the Mount of Olives. However, for Luke it happened before they set out to go to the Mount of Olives.
John has it occurring well before they rose from the table, before his sermons concerning his Father’s
House, and his role as the way, the truth and the life, the first two prophecies concerning the coming of
another paraclete and his homily about the significance of Peace. It was only after these events that John
had Jesus saying,

“Get up! Let us go on from here.” {John 14:31}

pg. 34
Taking Mark’s basic narrative, Jesus prophesies that the disciples will fall away on the evidence of an
obscure verse in Zachariah where he warns that the Lord of Hosts will strike ‘the shepherd’ causing his
sheep to scatter. Jesus, perhaps, is indicating he is the shepherd and his disciples are sheep.
Matthew strengthens the prediction to it occurring immediately, ‘this very night,’ and what the cause and
effect would be: ‘because of me.’ If that is true, then the cause is not the crucifixion, as that was to occur
the following day, but the arrest which occurred shortly before morning twilight. Perhaps Matthew was
overzealous in trying to connect the two events – ‘striking the shepherd’ and ‘the crucifixion’. In the
light of these observations, Mark’s narrative appears more sustainable.

JESUS WILL ASCEND

Both Mark and Matthew have him also predicting,

“But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” {Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26}

though neither John, nor Luke have him making this prediction at this point. In fact, Luke, the only one
who marks the ascension among the Synoptic gospels, clearly describes it in Acts 1. According to him, it
occurred in Bethany. John’s ascension narrative matches the prophesy of Matthew and Mark, placing it
on the shores of Lake Tiberius in Galilee, a hundred and twenty kilometers from Jerusalem. This event is
not confirmed in the Acts of the Apostles.

I WILL LAY DOWN MY LIFE

“Lord,” said Peter, “I am ready to go with you even to prison and to death.” [Then he]
declared73, “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will. I will lay down my life for
you.”
{Matthew 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 22:33; John 13:37}

73

or ‘said to him ‘

pg. 35
The common narrative has Peter promising not to ever fall away, that is, abandon the religion, but Luke
and John have him go further – being willing to die with him or for his sake. Many of the apostles were
put to death for preaching what he taught, and others, Saul the persecutor and John the Presbyter
included, were imprisoned for their versions of the gospel.

“Will you lay down your life for me?” Jesus replied. {John 13:38}

This question appears to be both rhetorical and ironic; perhaps even sarcastic, as he follows it up
immediately with the prediction Peter will deny him three times before the night was out. When push
came to shove, Peter would be out to save his own skin and would feel his association with Jesus may
lead to sharing his fate. That, he would assiduously want to avoid.

THE PREDICTION OF PETER’S DENIAL

“Truly, Truly I tell you,” Jesus declared74, “this very night75 before the rooster crows76, 77 you
will deny me three times78.”
{Matthew 26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34; John 13:38}

74

or ‘replied’

75

or ‘today’

76

according to Mark, - before it crows ‘twice’

77

or ‘the rooster will not crow’

78

or ‘until you have denied three times that you know me’

pg. 36
The most singular disagreement concerning this prediction is Mark’s assertion that the rooster’s crow
will be heard twice before Peter’s third denial. All the other gospels say all three denials will come
before the first cockcrow. Roosters rarely call before dawn establishes itself – invariably, like other birds,
they sing at the beginning of twilight. The pattern is so reliable that villagers mark the time to pray the
morning prayer by it if the chapel, mosque or synagogue is too far away for the call to prayer to be
heard. Traditionally, Jews prepare to pray Shacharit (the morning prayer) at this time, Muslims perform
Fajr (dawn prayer) and Christians recite Lauds (before sunrise). The other mistake in the text, if you can
call it that, is Luke calling ‘this very night’ ‘today’.

COMMENT

But Peter kept insisting79, “even if I have to die with you, I will never deny you.” And all the
others80 said the same thing.
{Matthew 26:35; Mark 14:31}

Is it not clear that Peter did not like being doubted and distrusted?

79

or ‘replied’

80

or ‘other disciples’

pg. 37
Two Swords {Luke 22:35-38}

In Islam, every sermon begins with a pithy statement about introducing innovations into religion. These
two hadiths are the basis of the statement:

“The best of the speech is embodied in the Book of Allah… And the evilest affair is their
(misguided) innovations; and every innovation is error.” {Muslim:867}
“The worst of things (in religion) are newly invented; every newly invented thing is an
innovation and every innovation is straying, and everything astray is in the Fire.” {An-
Nas’ai:1578}

Even well-meaning invented metaphors put into pious mouths can cause many to stray. The following
commentary has this awareness in mind. It does not say the words of Jesus are wrong, in any way. But
what about the writings of a man who did not witness, personally, what he writes? Would he be
tempted to present things in a way that makes sense to him, explaining conflicts in what he heard.
Luke begins his Gospel by saying:

Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to
me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the
certainty of the things you have been taught. {Luke 1:1-4}

He also said,

In my first book, O Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach, until the
day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles
he had chosen.

pg. 38
 After his suffering, he presented himself to them with many convincing proofs that he was alive.
He appeared to them over a span of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. {Acts 1:1-3}

Cliffs Notes gives a Summary of the Gospel of Luke. In it, he describes Luke as a companion of Paul
wanting to make

“an effective reply to those who claimed that Jesus was a revolutionist and hence an enemy.”

With these points in mind, the analysis of Luke’s narrative can proceed.

Immediately following Jesus’ prediction that Peter would deny him, Luke places in the narrative two
swords. Each Gospel reports that a sword would be used to cut the ear of a member of the squad who
had come to arrest him. Since there was no evidence in the gospels beforehand that Jesus or his
followers used arms, Luke must have felt it necessary to give a reason for the sword’s presence at the
last. He begins the justification of their presence by affirming the peaceful nature of his program of
proselytization.

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you out without purse or bag or sandals, did you lack
anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.

Naturally not. They were but harmless, gentle proponents of peace. So, how to rally them for war; the
war in his defense that the scripture had prophesied?

“Now, however,” he told them, “the one with a purse should take it, and likewise a bag; and the
one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be

pg. 39
 fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ 81 For, what is written about me is
reaching its fulfillment.”

Although there was no time for the disciples to go out and buy swords, let alone sell the clothes off their
backs to get the wherewithal to pay for one, he instructed them to do so. Did Jesus mistake the time they
would come for him, and so thought the disciples had time to follow his instructions? Or were the
instructions rhetorical – requiring affirmation that some of his followers had the sword which made
them a gang: the transgressors that the scripture required?
The response confirms the latter hypothesis.

So, they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That is enough,” He answered.

Enough! Enough to make him and his disciples ‘transgressors’; outlaws from society.

COMMENT

It is curious that the Synoptic gospels do not pick out who the swordsman was. “One of Jesus’
companions”, “one of them”, “a bystander”; how neutral can you get?
How come one of the companions had a sword, though? It had had to be explained. And Mark provided
the lead into Luke’s explanation: Jesus accusing the priests’ posse, or gang, of chasing him down as if he
was an outlaw with a bounty on his head.
John, however, goes full on with the defining moment; Simon Peter, himself, was the staunch sword
wielder; Matchus, later defined as the servant of Caiaphas, the high priest, was the victim. The three
Synoptic gospels agreed that the victim was “the servant of the high priest” without giving his name or
offering evidence.

81

Isaiah 53:12; Therefore, I will allot him a portion with the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he has poured out
his life unto death, and he was numbered with the transgressors. Yet he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the
transgressors.

pg. 40
pg. 41
Conspectus

Up until this point, an attempt has been made to splice the account of the events during the preparation
and consumption of the last Passover supper Jesus had with his disciples from all four Gospels.
However, there are slight discrepancies in location of events after the supper. Four places are
mentioned: The Mount of Olives, the Garden of Gethsemane, The Garden across the Valley of Kidron,
and ‘the place’. It may be that the garden across the Valley of Kidron and ‘the place’ are the same location
as the Garden of Gethsemane in Mark and Matthew, and John’s account of events in his chapters 15, 16
and 17 all took place between leaving the supper room and going to the garden. Indeed, Mark and
Matthew mention that he goes with his disciples to the Mount of Olives. After they reach the Mount of
Olives (Mount Olivet), the disciples follow him to the Garden of Gethsemane, where he goes off and
prays on his own. While he did so, he set two of the disciples as guards.
John does not tell the story of Jesus’ night vigil. But he does tell the tale of his arrest in the garden across
the Kidron Valley, which is a similar tale in all four gospels.
CliffsNotes explain that John left out parts of the other Gospels deliberately.

“[He hoped to write a narrative gospel] that was not only true but that offered a presentation of
the Christian faith which would overcome the objections of its critics and gain the respect of the
educated and cultured people of his day.
This objective helps us to understand many of the unique characteristics of John's gospel,
especially the ones that sharply contrast the Synoptic Gospels.
It explains the omission in the Gospel of John of many items found in the earlier accounts, and it
also explains, at least in part, the different attitude about Jews, the allegorical interpretations of
certain miracle stories, the absence of apocalypticism with reference to the second coming, the
subordinate role of John the Baptist, and a new concept of the Messiah.”82

82

CliffsNotes; Summary and Analysis of the Gospel of John

pg. 42
John also put in his own ideas. In describing the prayer of Jesus in Chapter 17, for instance, CliffsNotes
explains:

“In a long and remarkable83 prayer that John attributes to Jesus, the meaning and significance of
Jesus' entire career are neatly summarized. We may be sure that the language used is that of
John rather than of Jesus, for it contains the same type of statements used throughout the
Gospels.”

According to Mark and Matthew, the Garden is called Gethsemane (Gan Gat Shmaním). However, Luke
makes no separate mention of a place across the Kidron Valley (Nahal Qidron) called Gat Shmaním, and
the events in his narrative, including Jesus’ arrest, occur at the Mount of Olives (Har ha-Zeitim).
However, since Gan Gat Shmaním is a garden at the foot of Har ha-Zeitim, which lies across Nahal Qidron
from Yerushalayim84, he may well be referring to the same place without an intermediate stop.

83

CliffsNotes; Summary and Analysis of the Gospel of John

84

Modern Jerusalem or ancient Uru-Shalim

pg. 43
Interlude {Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26; Luke 22:39; John 14:31}

When Matthew and Mark write,

“And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives,”
{Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26}

you would expect

“Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him” {Luke 22:39}

to be referring to the same point in the narrative. Luke, however, has this event occurring after the
prediction of Peter’s denial, just as he had the prediction of Judas’s betrayal after sharing the bread and
the cup.
Similarly, when Jesus said in the dining hall,

“Get up! Let us go on from here.” {John 14:31}

you would expect it was also just before the singing of a hymn and before the prediction of Peter’s
denial. However, not only was the prediction well before suggesting rising from the table, but Jesus also
gave several sermons and two related prophecies before he said it.
The timing between the gospels is out by a long way, and virtually irreconcilable. For the sake of
tidiness in the narrative, some of what Luke and John said was ‘before moving out’ will be treated as if it
were ‘after’. Furthermore, let it be assumed that what took place in transit occurred in a place other than
Gethsemane85, and only the events just before Jesus was arrested took place there. This fits better to
John’s assertion that,

85

the foot of the Mount of Olives bordering the Valley of Kidron, perhaps

pg. 44
 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron Valley, and
entered a garden… {John 18:1-2}

considering the massive sermon and prophecy session after saying “Get up! Let us go on from here!”
earlier.
Putting all the indicators together as to where Jesus went for his ultimate arrest, the narrative says:

When Jesus had spoken these words, he went out as usual, and his disciples followed him. [He led
them] across the Kidron Valley to the Mount of Olives. Then they came to a place called
Gethsemane, where they entered a garden. Now Judas, his betrayer, also knew the place, because
Jesus had often met there with his disciples.
{Matthew 26:36 Mark 14:32 Luke 22:39; John 18:1-2}

And thus, host and guests of the Last Supper came to the place of the Jesus’ eleventh-hour appeal and
his final arrest.

pg. 45
Outlaws from Society {Isaiah 53:12}

Before moving on to the arrest of Jesus, the fulfilment of being numbered among the transgressors
should be examined from another point of view. Was the statement,

this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’

put into the mouth of Jesus by the Gospel writer, or was the Gospel writer faithfully reporting the words
Jesus said? There are alternative readings of Isaiah 53:12 which do not agree with the Christian
interpretation. The modern commentary of Roth, Marshall (2011); Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant
certainly suggests they may not have been his own words. He cites the 20th century Christian New
English Bible – Oxford Study Edition (annotation on Isaiah 52:13-53:12) which clearly identifies the
‘Suffering Servant’ as the nation of Israel which “has suffered as a humiliated individual."
If the context of Isaiah 53 so clearly refers to the Jewish people, how could so many Christian leaders
have mistranslated the Bible? History shows that – for whatever motivation – many did so knowingly:

 Lucius Coelius Firmianes Lactantius, 3rd century Church leader: “Among those who seek
power and gain from their religion, there will never be wanting an inclination to forge and lie for
it.”
 St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nazianzus: “A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose
on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors have
often said not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity dictated.”
 Dr Herbert Marsh, 19th century English Bishop: “It is a certain fact that several readings in
our common printed text are nothing more than alterations made by Origen...”
 Walter Brueggemann Ph.D., an ordained minister and author of 60 books on the Bible,
writes: “Although it is clear that this poetry does not have Jesus in any first instance on its
horizon, it is equally clear that the church, from the outset, has found the poetry a poignant and
generative way to consider Jesus, wherein humiliation equals crucifixion and exaltation equals
resurrection and ascension.”

pg. 46
Not only do these statements indicate that words have been inserted into the texts of the Gospels by
later editors or copyists, but some of these may be the references to prophecies in the Tanakh the scribes
decided could most usefully be interpreted to support their ideological standpoint. The following is a
modern abbreviated Jewish commentary from Aish HaTorah:  

THE CONTEXT OF ISAIAH 53:12

The Jewish commentaries identify Isaiah 53 is the fourth of four “Servant Songs” in the Book of Isaiah.
The others are found in Isaiah 42; 49 & 50. Though the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified –
these verses merely refer to “My servant” {Isaiah 52:13; 53:11} – the “servant” in each of the previous
Servant Songs, according to the commentaries, is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation.
“You are My servant, O Israel” {Isaiah 41:8}
“You are My servant, Israel” {Isaiah 49:3}
The Bible is filled with other references to the Nation of Israel, the descendants of Jacob, as God’s
“servant”; In Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20 it is plainly seen, and in other books of the Tanakh, such
as Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. Why should the “servant” in Isaiah 53 suddenly reference
someone other than Israel.
One Christian response is to ask, How can the “Suffering Servant,” which the verses refer to
grammatically in the singular, be equated with the entire Jewish nation? The standard Rabbinical
answer is to point out that ‘the Children of Israel,’ the Jewish people, are frequently referred to with the
singular pronoun.
For example, at Mount Sinai, all of the Ten Commandments are addressed to the second person
singular entity {Exodus 20:1-14} This is because the Israel is considered one unit; brethren who are
bound together with a shared national destiny as in Exodus 4:22 and the whole of Deuteronomy 32.
This singular reference is even more common in biblical verses referring to the Messianic era, when the
Jewish people will be fully united under the banner of God as Hosea 14:6-7, Jeremiah 50:19 describes.
For many reasons, therefore the servant in Isaiah 53 surely does not refer to Jesus. Did even the disciples
consider the Suffering Servant as synonymic to Jesus? The verses below indicated that, at least at first,
they had no idea.

pg. 47
COMMENT

At this point, the commentator merely referenced the applicable verses. In order to clarify what he was
referring to, the reference has been expanded to the script of the verses. Since two references were
almost identical in content, those denoted contents have been combined.

From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer
many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and
on the third day be raised to life. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from
You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” {Matthew 16:21-22}

In these next verses, Mark and Luke’s versions have been woven together.

While everyone was marvelling at all that Jesus was doing, he said to his disciples, “Let these
words sink into your ears: The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill
him, and after three days he will rise.” But they did not understand this statement. It was veiled
from them so that they could not comprehend it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.
{Mark 9:31-32; Luke 9:43-45}

CONTINUATION

Promoters of Christianity, in rewriting how the Law should be interpreted, retroactively looked into the
Bible and, through mistranslation and distortion of context, made certain biblical prophecies refer to
Jesus, rather than the nation of Israel and their Messianic vision.

“There is no self-evident blueprint in the Hebrew Bible which can be said to unambiguously
point to Jesus,” 86

86

Yehoshua Ben David, Olive Press 1995, p.155

pg. 48
admitted one Christian apologist, the Reverend Walter Riggans. In fact, he stated that only after one
embraces the belief that Jesus was the Christ, and a meek Messiah at that, can Christians construct and
impose their own messianic interpretation on the old Testament.

ISAIAH 53 – LINE BY LINE

Early in the Book of Isaiah, God predicts the long and difficult exile of the Jewish people. Chapter 53
occurs in the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation," which tell of the restoration of Israel to
prominence as God's chosen people.
The key to understanding this chapter lies in correctly identifying who is speaking. Though the book
was written by Isaiah, verses 53:1-10 are told from the perspective of world leaders. Following in the
footsteps of the previous chapter {Isaiah 52:15 – “the kings will shut their mouths in amazement”}, these
verses describe how world leaders will be shocked with disbelief when God’s Servant Israel – despite all
contrary expectations – will be vindicated and blossom in the Messianic age.

{Isaiah 53:1} Who would believe what we have heard! For whom has the arm of God been
revealed!

In this opening verse, world leaders are shocked at the incredible news concerning “the arm of God.”
Throughout the Jewish Bible, God's “arm” (‫ )זרוע‬always denotes a redemption of the Jewish people from
physical persecution. For example, God took the Jews out of Egypt “with a strong hand and an outstretched
arm” {Deut. 26:8}.

{Isaiah 53:2} He formerly grew like a sapling or a root from dry ground; he had neither form nor
beauty. We saw him, but without a desirable appearance

This imagery of a tree struggling to grow in dry earth is a metaphor for the Jewish struggle in exile.
Isaiah describes Israel’s miraculous return from exile, like a sapling that sprouts from this dry ground.

pg. 49
 {Isaiah 53:3} He was despised and rejected of men, a man of pains and accustomed to sickness.
As one from whom we would hide our faces, he was despised, and we had no regard for him.

This verse describes the Servant as universally despised and rejected. This has been a historical theme
for the Jewish people.87

{Isaiah 53:4} Indeed, he bore our illnesses and carried our pains – but we regarded him as
diseased, stricken by God and afflicted.

In these verses, until the end of the chapter, the nations confess how they used the Jewish people as
scapegoats88, persecuting the Jews as a distraction from the world’s corrupt regimes:

{Isaiah 53:5} He was wounded as a result of our transgressions and crushed as a result of our
iniquities. The chastisement upon him was for our benefit; and through his wounds we were
healed.

This verse describes how the humbled world leaders confess that Jewish suffering occurred as a direct
result of “our iniquities” – i.e., depraved Jew-hatred, rather than, as previously claimed, the stubborn
blindness of the Jews.89

87

Can this description be reconciled with the popularity of Jesus, who entertained “large crowds” from far and wide, "praised by all"?
{Matthew 4:25; Mark 3:7-9; Luke 2:52; 4:14-15}. “Despised and rejected” does not resonate except vis-à-vis the hypocritical
Pharisees. Although Jesus died a criminal's death, Isaiah is describing someone for whom rejection has spanned the ages –not
someone who suffered rejection for only a few hours.

88

Throughout the centuries of Israel’s exile, many nations persecuted the Jews on the pretense that it was God’s way of “punishing” the
“accursed” Jews for having stubbornly rejected the new religions [of Christianity and Islam].

89

Indeed, the Christian idea directly contradicts the basic Jewish teaching that God promises forgiveness to all who sincerely return to Him;
thus there is no need for the Messiah to atone for others {Isaiah 55:6-7; Jeremiah 36:3; Ezekiel 18 & 33; Hoseah 14:1-3; Jonah
3:6-10; Proverbs 16:6; Daniel 4:27; 2-Chronicles 7:14}.

pg. 50
 {Isaiah 53:6} We have all strayed like sheep, each of us turning his own way, and God inflicted
upon him [Israel] the iniquity of us all.

 The nations realize that their lack of proper leadership caused them to treat the Jews with disdain. They
further acknowledge how punishments that should have befallen the nations were averted through
Israel’s suffering.

{Isaiah 53:7} He was persecuted and afflicted, but he did not open his mouth. Like a sheep being
led to the slaughter or a lamb that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth.

In various contexts, the Bible uses the imagery of “sheep led to the slaughter” specifically in reference to
the Jewish people. For example: "You give us as sheep to be eaten and have scattered us among the
nations... we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered" {Psalms 44:12, 23}.

{Isaiah 53:8} He was released from captivity and judgment; who could have imagined such a
generation? For he was removed from the land of the living; because of my people's sin they were
afflicted.

The phrase, "land of the living” (Eretz HaChaim) refers specifically to the Land of Israel. Thus, this verse,
“He  was removed from the land of the living,” does not mean that the servant was killed, but rather was
exiled from the Land of Israel. This verse again describes the world’s surprise at witnessing the Jewish
return to the Promised Land. Who could have imagined that the nation the world tortured now
prospers? The text makes absolutely clear that the oppressed Servant is a collective people, not a single
person by the use of the Hebrew word for “they were” (lamoh – ‫)לָמֹו‬, which always refers to a group,
never to an individual.

pg. 51
 {Isaiah 53:9-10} He submitted his grave to evil people; and the wealthy submitted to his
executions, for committing no crime90, and with no deceit in his mouth. God desired to oppress
him, and He afflicted him. If his soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live
long days, and God’s purpose would succeed in his hand.

"God desired to oppress” the Jewish people91, in order to inspire them to return to Torah observance. If the
Jews would only "acknowledge guilt," they would see their "offspring92 and live long days." This refers to
the Messianic era when all Jews will return to Torah observance.

{Isaiah 53:11} He would see the purpose and be satisfied with his soul's distress. With his
knowledge My servant will cause the masses to be righteous; and he will bear their sins93.

What is being proposed is that the Jewish mission is to serve as a "light to the nations," leading the world
to righteousness through knowledge of the one true God.

90

Missionaries cite this verse as a claim that Jesus lived a sinless life and was thus the Messiah. This is contradicted, however, by the
Gospels themselves, who record that Jesus sinned by violating the Sabbath {John 9:16}

91

The verse says that the Servant will have a long life and many children. This verse could not possibly refer to Jesus who, according to the
New Testament, died young and childless. Missionaries may claim that the “offspring” refers to spiritual descendants, but this is
based on a distortion and mistranslation.

92

The Hebrew word for "offspring" used here (zera - ‫ )ז ֶַרע‬always refers to physical descendants {Genesis 12:7, 15:2-4, 15:13, 46:6;
Exodus 28:43}. A different word, banim (‫)בנים‬, generally translated as "sons," is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see
Deuteronomy 14:1).

93

Missionaries cite this verse to claim that Jesus died for our sins. The Christian idea of one’s sins being forgiven through the suffering of
another person goes against the basic biblical teaching that each individual has to atone for his own sins by repenting. {Exodus 32:32-
33, Deut. 24:16, Ezekiel 18:1-4}

pg. 52
 {Isaiah 53:12} Therefore, I will assign him a portion in public and he will divide the mighty as
spoils – in return for having poured out his soul for death and being counted among the wicked,
for he bore the sin of the many, and prayed for the wicked.

This verse speaks of how the Jews always pray for the welfare of the nations they are exiled into
{Jeremiah 29:7}.

COMMENT

By no means does the author ascribe to the details of this commentary, but it is clear from it that Judaism
and Islam both interpret verses according to their preconceived ideas, and so does Christianity. This
thesis seeks to uncover the ambiguous, reveal contradictions and highlight what is clear. One clear
notion is that the quotation of a line from Isaiah 53:12, placed in Jesus’ mouth, was designed to give
credence to the proposal that his arrest was as a criminal and transgressor from those prophesied
therein.

pg. 53
Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives {Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46}

John does not report the prayers Jesus ordered his disciples to make, nor the prayers he made at
Gethsemane. In the narrative below, verses from all three Synoptic gospels have been knitted together to
create an inclusive full story from them. The original words are used extensively, but some conjunctions
and pronouns are added or taken away, and some reporting verbs substituted to make the narrative
smoother.

When they came to the place called Gethsemane, Jesus [instructed]. his disciples, “Pray that you
will not enter into temptation.”
[Then] he told them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.”
He took with him Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John. And [he] began to be
sorrowful and deeply troubled and distressed. Then he said to them, “my soul is consumed with
sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”
And going a little farther, he withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, where he knelt down.
[Then he] fell to the ground facedown and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour would pass
from him,
“Abba, my Father,” he [supplicated] “All things are possible for You; if You are willing, let this
cup pass. [So,] take it from me. Yet not my will but Your will be done.”
Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And in his anguish, he
prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground.
Then, when Jesus rose from prayer and returned to the disciples, he and found them asleep
exhausted from sorrow. “Simon, are you asleep?” he asked Peter
“Why are you sleeping?” he [remonstrated], “Were you not able to keep watch with me for one
hour? Get up, watch and pray so that you will not enter into temptation. For the spirit is
willing, but the body is weak.”
A second time, he went away and prayed again, [asking] the same thing; [then he repeated,] “my
Father, if this cup cannot pass unless I drink it, may Your will be done,.”

pg. 54
 And again, Jesus returned and found them sleeping - for their eyes were heavy. And they did not
know what to answer him.
So, he left them and went away once more and prayed [again], saying the same thing.

Jesus requested the disciples pray. Perhaps most of the disciples used the ‘Pater Nostra’ to pray “and
lead us not into temptation…” or perhaps they succumbed to the temptation to sleep straight away –
because of the lateness of the hour… God alone, knows. As for Jesus, when he set two disciples to keep
watch a little further off, it appears he was sincere and desperate in his supplication. He did not want to
go through the affliction in store for him.
Luke mentioned an angel responding to the plea of Jesus, supporting him. If he was as close to God as a
son is to his father, would not God be compassionate and relieve him of the ordeal? It appeared He
would with the descent of His angel; had it brought him the good news he was excused, or had he
simply come to strengthen his resolve to go through with the thing? Meanwhile, Matthew and Mark
report that Jesus withdrew to pray twice more. Luke did not.

When he returned to the disciples the third time, he said, “are you still sleeping and resting?
That is enough!”

If he went to pray again what he had prayed the first time, then it is clear the angel did not strengthen
his resolve. So perhaps he was answered. He said that he had prayed enough.
Or perhaps he was commenting on the attraction the pillow had for his lookouts. One thing was clear.
Although he had admonished them to pray they would not fall into temptation, they singularly failed
not to do so. When he found them asleep the second time, he gave up on them. So, it is clear he expected
them to succumb to temptation and fall away after he had gone. But, perhaps his fate could be avoided
if he roused them from sleep quick enough! He raised the alarm.

[Then he warned them,] “Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands
of sinners. Rise! Let us go! See, my betrayer is approaching.

pg. 55
But, as is reported in the next chapter, they were too late.
Again, ‘the hour’ is referenced. Is he alluding to the second coming – the hour the eschatological Son of
Man returns? Or, more prosaically, the hour he will be arrested, tried and sentenced to death? Or
perhaps both? He had said that he needed to leave the world in order to return. Did he mean ascend
alive to return alive? It is interesting that he thought he would be ‘placed into the hands of sinners’ rather
than be counted as one of a band of sinners, as the suffering servant prophesy he had quoted implied.
But what if God fulfilled what Jesus wished with the descent of the angel? Would not that lend credence
to the Quranic account? This possibility will be considered in the reprise.

pg. 56
The Arrest {Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:1-14}

It was exceptionally difficult to piece the narrative below together as each account had substantial
differences. John had a different sequence of events around the arrest that involved no kiss of betrayal,
whilst the manner or sequence of events before the kiss were also not in agreement between the writers
of the Synoptic gospels. Furthermore, the constitution of the band that had come to arrest him was
different for John, too. Whereas two of the gospels said they were servants sent by the Jews, scribes, high
priests, Pharisees, etc. Luke had all these dignitaries as constituting the vigilante group coming to make
the arrest, and John described them as a cohort of soldiers or police accompanied by servants of the
temple. All four gospels disagreed about who did the striking of a man’s ear, but all agreed who the
victim was (a servant of a high priest). Only John, however, among them all, gave the servant a name.

While Jesus was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, brought 94, a large crowd armed with
swords and clubs carrying lanterns, and torches. [They were] band of soldiers and officers [with]
weapons sent from the chief priests, Pharisees, scribes, and elders of the people. Now the betrayer
had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away
securely.”

John’s Gospel makes no mention of a pre-arranged signal, and the arresting band came with the people
who had commissioned them. Matthew, Mark and Luke had the commissioners waiting for the arrest to
take place while they were hidden away in the temple. The band was well armed and numerous; bigger
than needed. Perhaps to emphasize that they were coming to deal with outlaws?

Jesus, knowing all that was coming upon him, stepped forward and asked them, “Whom are you
seeking?”
“Jesus of Nazareth,” they answered.

94

or ‘arrived, accompanied by…’ {synoptic gospels}

pg. 57
 Jesus said, “I am he.”

This version of the encounter is John’s alone. However, John was not satisfied with this story as it left
unsaid an important detail, the chance to demonstrate a fulfilment of a prophecy.

Judas, his betrayer, was standing there with them. He approached Jesus 95 [with the intention] to
[mark] him [out], [but] when Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.
So, he asked them again, “Whom are you seeking?”
“Jesus of Nazareth,” they answered.
“I told you that I am he,” Jesus replied. “So, if you are looking for me, let these men go.”
This was to fulfill the word he had spoken: “I have not lost one of those You have given me.”

Added in, here, is Luke’s report that Judas came forward to kiss Jesus and thus mark him as the one to
be arrested. It is placed here so as to make the narrative smoother and the sequence easier to follow.
John repeated the sequence of question and answer so as to put in ‘if you are looking for me, let these
men go.’ This sentence is supposed to fulfill a prophetic statement during his prayers that he made
earlier in the evening. The statement, of course, could not prevent the executors of the Law from
arresting whom they pleased. In fact, according to Mark, they did attempt to take another person
alongside Jesus who managed to escape them. He added an incident not even hinted at by the other
gospels – the near arrest of a young man following Jesus, who escaped the grasp of the vigilantes by
slipping out of his clothes and running away naked.

“Greetings, Rabbi!” Judas said.

“Do what you came for,” [he] replied, and Judas kissed him.
[Then] Jesus asked him, “Friend [will] you [betray] the Son of Man with a kiss?”
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him.

95

or ‘Going directly to Jesus … he’

pg. 58
These verses detailed the betrayal ‘with a kiss’. Some versions are shorter than others, but these include
every viewpoint in the Synoptic gospels. Matthew expands the details to show that Jesus knew full well
what was about to happen due to the kiss. It shows Jesus aware of what was planned for him. Mark, on
the other hand, was brief.96

Those around Jesus saw what was about to happen and said, “Lord, should we strike with our
swords?”

Only Luke has the disciples asking Jesus if they should fight the arresting band off. But he followed that
with one of them striking the first blow without waiting for permission. John identifies the person
striking the servant of the high priest as Simon Peter.

Then one of the bystanders97 drew his sword and struck Malchus, the servant of the high priest,
cutting off his right ear.
But, Jesus admonished, “No more of this! Put your sword back in its sheath 98! for all who draw
the sword will die by the sword.”

Jesus nipped the incipient break for freedom in the bud. He had an appointment with fate that he did
not want to see obstructed or disturbed. Moreover, he wanted to emphasize the peaceful nature of his
mission, His was the religion of peace, and he had made sure his followers were armed only to fulfill
another prophecy which had made of him an outlaw. But in reality, he wanted to demonstrate he was
anything other than that.

96

‘Greetings, Rabbi, he said. And Judas kissed him.’ And the men arrested him.

97

or one of Jesus’ companions or one of them or Simon Peter

98

or ‘place’

pg. 59
 Then Jesus said to him99, “are you not aware that I can call on my Father, and He will at once
put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? but how, then, would the Scriptures be
fulfilled that say it must happen this way?”
And, touching the man’s ear, he healed him. “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given
me?” [he continued.]

This claim somewhat contradicts the support sent to him with an angel reported by Luke ‘strengthening
him’. If the Father would immediately support him at his request, we can assume that he had already
had the support of God and was aware of what he was granted. Going through the motions of the arrest
and trial and execution ‘to fulfil the writings of the prophets’ would be what was shown on the surface of
events. But what would have God arranged on the underside?
As for healing the man, this event is mentioned only in one gospel. But its inclusion demonstrates the
peaceful nature of Jesus and his disciples, and compensates the injured person by reversing his injury,
leaving no room for retribution.

At that [point of] time Jesus asked 100 the crowd [of] chief priests, temple officers, and elders who
had come for him, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as you would against
an outlaw? Every day I sat101 with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand
on me to arrest me. But this hour belongs to you and to the power of darkness [and it] has
happened that the writings of the prophets102 would be fulfilled.”

99

or ‘to Peter’

100

or ‘said to’

101

or ‘was’

102

pg. 60
Again, Jesus reminds his persecutors had no case against him. They had no grounds to brand him or his
followers criminals, and they were only able to do so with the permission of God. It is God who allowed
‘the powers of darkness’ ascendancy because it was written in the scriptures; something that God had
ordained to occur.

Then the band of soldiers, with its commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and
bound him, so all the disciples 103 deserted him and fled. [But,] one young man who had been
following Jesus was wearing a linen cloth around his body, [so] they caught hold of him.
However, he pulled free of the linen cloth and ran away naked.

Once Jesus was arrested, affirming the power of the local authorities over him, the disciples, except one
brave man, ran away to avoid arrest alongside him. Even the one bold person who attempted to stand
by him, fled, after slipping the men who intended to arrest him. The imagery is vivid; the men grasped
hold of the linen sheet he was clothed in, and he squirmed out of his clothing, escaping in the raw.

COMMENT

One aspect of this part of the narrative is often neglected. Jesus openly acknowledge he had no power to
change anything personally. He said that if he asked God, God would give him permission to command
angels. He said that whatever was in store for him was given by God. He had no influence over events.
The prophecies all concern the identification of the messiah, not the second persona in a Deity described
as Trinity.

or ‘scriptures’

103

or ‘everyone’

pg. 61
Reprise

Here ends the evening and pre-dawn morning of the preparation of the Passover. The next event would
belong to the day of the trial and execution of the sentence passed on Jesus. Let us, then, review what
passed.
The preparation for the Pesach Seder is pregnant with portents. From the unusual story of the male
water carrier to the booking of the upper room, the story reminds us of the promised kingdom and the
means by which to arrive there. In John, it was through love, where love means (for the lower hand)
obedience, and (for the upper hand) pleasure in the obedience of one’s subjects couple with reward for
that obedience. In the Synoptic gospels, it is through belief and faith. Faith in what Jesus brought (the
Gospel) and belief that he is the Christ. Jesus requires that they worship God and obey his commands on
the one hand, and, more extremely, to give up the material in favor of the spiritual. The Eucharist is
presented as something that is done in memory of him, which is the first hint that he expects to pass on
to the next world very soon. Sharing the bread of the Seder and the drink from the fruit of the vine in
memory of him, rather than the escape from the Pharaoh, is a break from tradition. A break from
tradition signaled by the story of the male water carrier. Too often, the Jews had added ceremonial
addendums to God’s commandments, that these addendums had assumed a preemptive importance
over God’s basic Law. The Quran confirms that Jesus came

“confirming to what is between my hands from the Torah and to permit for you some of what
was forbidden on you, and I came to you with evidence 104 from your Lord, so fear and obey God
and obey me.” {3:50}

Related to this is the Quranic observation that

All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel had forbidden to himself
before the Torah was revealed. {3.93}

104

the Gospel, his words and deeds, his miracles (with God’s permission) and curative ministries, his knowledge and inspiration.

pg. 62
Thus, his Gospel, which had been brought to correct that fault, was meant to be remembered as faith in
spirit, superseding what had become faith by rote.
One of the pre-Seder themes was the duties of Jesus’ disciples. As disciples, they followed him and
learned from him, but their discipleship was in preparation for a more important role as apostles when
he was gone. He taught them the right attitude of a journeyman or master proselytizer, to serve rather
than rule, to be humble rather than proud. Such attitudes purify the soul and prepare the ground for
sincere faith and worship, a process like ablution or baptism, but spiritual rather than physical.
During the Seder, he offers the bread and grape juice (or wine) as substitutes for his body and blood.
However, his introduction to the ceremony puts into doubt that it was aimed at recalling what would
happen the next day. He said that the bread representing his body was [already] given for them. If you
recall. ‘the Word’ incarnated Jesus, and if you further identify ‘the Word’ as ‘the Gospel’ he brought and
physically represented, then what was given was their completed apprenticeships. What was looked
forward to, was his eschatological Messiahship. The Son of Man was due to return, and if he were to
come again, alive, from the heavens, then one must assume he would be taken up, alive, like Enoch or
Elijah, when he ascended.
As a side note, here, the Christians will say that no man has ascended to Heaven, but he that came down from
Heaven {John 3:13} Enoch, they say was translated, but not to the same place as Jesus. And Elijah was
seemingly assisted by angels in a conveyance into the heavens, but Jesus ascended to Heaven under his
own power.
However, the commentators forget the time bound nature of the statement. No-one has ascended yet
except those who have come from heaven – Adam and Eve are two prime examples of those who
physically descended. At the same time, Adam is the only created being taken from his place of creation
(the earth) and placed in Eden. His wife was created in Eden from his rib. Thus, he descended after
ascending, but Eve descended without ever ascending. Jesus, himself, had not ascended at the time of
this saying, but would follow in Adam’s footsteps. He would ascend to heaven (in the future) before
returning alive (further in the future) to earth. The ending of the verse cited above confirms this link:
[even] the [eschatological] Son of Man {John 3:13}. What Jesus is implying, here, is his similarity to Adam.
The Quran confirms that,

pg. 63
 “Indeed, the likeness of Jesus to God is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust; then
He said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” {3:59}

The theme of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas links strongly to both the ascension, and the prospect of the
apostles joining him where he would be in the hereafter. For Christians, the link is only partly about
ascension. To them, there is a more crucial stage that comes before ascension. However, Jesus hints not
at his suffering, which is invoked by some of the evidential verses from the Isaiah 53, but at his future
absence from his disciple’s affairs. He both expresses confidence in their continuation of his teachings
through their very selves – and therefore their reunion in the afterlife - and his fear that they will “ all fall
away”. Even the stalwart, Peter, is doubted, and he predicts his consequent denials. Yet he believes Peter
will repent and hold fast to the religion. That he will be rock from whence the church would be built.
That Saul turned out to be the guiding light instead of Peter was beyond his control, and one of the
fallacious predictions concerning him.
The final part of the day saw the fulfilment of his prediction that he would be taken from his followers.
But, before he was arrested and taken away, he had the occasion to pray desperately and feelingly that
God take away the cruel fate in store for him. There are strong indications his supplications were
awarded with support from an angel, and one wonders what the angel reassured him with. Would he
stand aside laughing while a likeness of him was crucified, as Peter’s Acts would have it? Would that
other substituted victim be Simon of Cyrene, who had the cross foisted on him when Jesus collapsed
under its weight? Was the Son of the Father freed and the King of the Jews impaled, or the other way
around? None of these questions are addressed or hinted at in these pre-Sabbath shenanigans. But Jesus
himself said, on another occasion of desperate prayer when he raised Lazarus,

“Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me.” {John 11:4}

He had confidence that God had heard him because He always did, and had arranged the right
response. The disciples witnessed his living presence for forty days after the crucifixion took place, as
well as his ascension into the heavens alive, in Bethany, at the same place he had raised Lazarus. The
Quran says,

pg. 64
 And for their (the Jews’) saying, ‘We killed the Messiah Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of
God’; – but they killed him not by crucifixion, but so it was made to appear to them; and those
who differ therein are full of doubts, with no real knowledge, and only conjecture to follow. But
for of a surety, they killed him not. Rather, God raised him to Himself. And God is ever Exalted
in Might and Wise. {4:157-8}

The narrative of the last supper does not explicitly or implicitly support the deity of Jesus, but does
explicitly connect his being with that of the eschatological Son of Man. It also implies that the disciples
needed to follow in his footsteps proselytizing the word he came with and enacting the power of God
through their faith; such would bring them to union with him and God in the afterlife. Not doing so
would cause them to fall away from the true religion, attracting condemnation rather than salvation.
Jesus was, by this account, God’s messenger sent into the world by Him, not a second persona sharing
the being of Deity with two other personae. Thus, the cumulative effect of this narrative has been
unpicking him from the false imputation of equality with God.

pg. 65
Bibliography

Al-Munajjid, M. S. (2006); Muharram and Ashura; Islam House, Riyadh

</islamhouse.com/en/books/1343>
BibleHub (2004); Berean Study Bible; Bible Hub </biblehub.com/bsb>
Boulter, J. (2019); The Passover Supper – Sermons and Prophesies; Academia Edu
</mihe.academia.edu/JeremyBoulter/UNPICKING-TRINITY>
Brashler, J. & Bullard R. A. [translators] (1990); The Apocalypse of Peter; the Nag Hamadi Library.
</gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html>
Chabad.org Staff, (2019); Passover; Jewish Holidays; Jewish Practice.
</chabad.org/holidays/passover/default_cdo/aid/109747/jewish/Passover.htm>
Duignan, B. (2008): Eucharist, CHRISTIANITY; Encyclopaedia Britannica.
</britannica.com/topic/Eucharist>
Dukes, K. (2009); Quran, English Translation; Quran Arabic Corpus
</corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp>
Hollerman, R. (2019); “Communion - Is it Open or Closed?”; True Discipleship
</truediscipleship.com/communion-is-it-open-or-closed>
Kitov, E. (1979); The Four Cups; The Book of Our Heritage; Feldheim Publications.
</chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/1709/jewish/The-Four-Cups.htm>
Patterson, C. H. (2019) CliffsNotes on New Testament of the Bible.
</literature/n/new-testament-of-the-bible/about-the-new-testament-of-the-bible>.
Pohle, J. (1909). The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament. In the Catholic Encyclopedia. New Advent (2017).
</newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm>
Pope Benedict XVI. (2011); The dating of the Last Supper; Ignatius Press;
</catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-dating-of-the-last-supper.html>
Riggans, W. (1995); Yeshua Ben David, Why Do the Jewish People Reject Jesus as their Messiah; MARC.
</abebooks.com/9781854242877/Yeshua-Ben-David-Why-Jewish-1854242873/plp>
Roth, M. (2011); Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant; Aish HaTorah,
</aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant> 

pg. 66
Spirit & Truth Fellowship (2019); What does the Bible say about “Holy Communion”?; TRUTH OR
TRADITION? </truthortradition.com/articles/what-does-the-bible-say-about-holy-communion>
Sunnah.Com (2011); The Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad ‫ ﷺ‬at your fingertips; Archives.
</sunnah.com>

pg. 67