I grew up reading the Swedish newspaper. Technically that’s true, but it probably wouldn’t stand up in court, especially if it was a Swedish court. The truth is, I can’t read Swedish, but I can comprehend Swedish cartoons. And honestly, that was the only thing I was interested in reading. See, in every edition on page 4, there was always a spot-the-difference game where there were two almost identical pictures; and we, the readers, were to find ten differences between the two. Now, that sounds easy, but try doing it in Swedish! In any case, it was there that I first developed an eye for differences, but I had no idea that skill would be necessary to read the Gospels, but it absolutely is.
I first saw how necessary this skill was when I purchased a book for my Synoptics class in seminary. The book was aptly named, Synopsis of the Four Gospels (edited by Kurt Aland and published by the German Bible Society Stuttgart—a deal back then, now selling at $165!). Not only is it a treasure of a book, but it is basically a 338-page book of spot-the-differences! But the differences here are not between similar pictures, but of parallel gospel accounts. The layout is in four columns (one for each gospel) so that we can see the parallels between each account in the gospels (if parallels exist). The arrangement also leaves spaces so that we can see the differences in wording and sentence structure. And when there is no parallel, it leaves very visible blank spaces. And while it is not in Swedish, it is captivating.
For example, take the account of the Triumphal Entry. Matthew, Mark and Luke all begin with the account of Jesus sending two disciples off to secure the colt for Jesus to ride into Jerusalem. It was a complicated mission, complete with instructions on what to say if someone questioned what they were doing. In Matthew, Jesus tells the disciples to say, “The Lord has need of them,” because in Matthew the disciples collect a colt and its mother. In Mark and Luke, we read, “The Lord has need of it.” In Matthew and in Mark, we see the disciples promising that the animal(s) will be returned immediately after they have completed their task. Luke, on the other hand, makes no mention of returning the donkey. Meanwhile, John ignores the whole episode and simply says (John 12:14): “Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it.” There is nothing here of any real theological significance, but it is, nonetheless, fun to see how the four gospels relate to each other. We definitely don’t have just one story of Jesus. We have four different perspectives, intended for four different audiences, on the same general story of Jesus. That alone is quite fascinating.
But what we are seeing is more than interesting. It is in the differences between the gospel accounts that we see the author at work. Through the contrasts between the books, we see the author’s themes, his theology, his purpose for writing and even a glimpse of his personality. In short, the differences reveal the presence of an author as he works out his big ideas throughout his work. Sometimes those differences are dramatic (the account of the cleansing of the temple takes place near the end of Matthew, Mark and Luke, but at the beginning of John’s gospel–that’s a rather dramatic difference!). And sometimes those differences are small, yet significant. For instance, Matthew concludes the account of the stilling of the storm with Jesus saying to the disciples, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Meanwhile, Luke ends the same account with Jesus asking the twelve, “Where is your faith?” And Mark concludes the episode with an accusation. Jesus asks the disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?” Those are slight differences, mere words, but they are incredibly significant.
When we look at the account of the Triumphal Entry, we see both small differences and dramatic ones. Let’s start with the small ones.
According to Matthew, Mark and John, as Jesus approached the city, the crowds shouted “Hosanna!” Actually, Matthew has the people calling out, “Hosanna to the Son of David” twice. Mark has the people say, “Hosanna” and “Hosanna in the highest.” John has the crowd say, “Hosanna” one time. Luke, on the other hand, never has the crowds utter the word, “Hosanna” even once. It’s not a major issue and is probably due to Luke adjusting what was said so that his Gentile readers could understand what was happening. Nevertheless, it is interesting and reveals Luke’s missionary concern.
A second difference: Matthew, Mark and John also have the messianic declaration, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” Luke makes a subtle, but significant change and has the people say, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!” Again, this is probably to help his Gentile readership understand the events of Jesus’ coming into the city. To be fair, John adds “even the King of Israel” after his declaration as a kind of middle ground.
A third difference: Luke also omits any mention of the prophecy of Zechariah from chapter 9. Matthew includes it (Mt. 21:5), and John refers to it (Jn. 12:15). Zechariah 9:9 says: “Say to Daughter Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” It is likely that Luke imports the meaning of that prophecy when he gives his messianic proclamation, hence the reason he says “Blessed is the King who comes. . . .”
All that to say, if you look carefully at all the accounts, you will see many differences, differences that are stylistic, small and insignificant, small but significant and dramatic. And yet, we should not forget that there are plenty of items that all the gospel authors include. In the account of Palm Sunday, we see these items in all the gospels. For example, there is a colt, a crowd, palm branches, the humility of Jesus, and the response of the leaders in all four gospels.
But there are two dramatic changes that are unique to Luke’s gospel. The first is rather staggering. Let’s compare the synoptics. In Matthew 21:10, we read, “When Jesus entered Jerusalem. . . .” And in Mark 11:11, we read: “Jesus entered Jerusalem. . . .” Luke, however, has no parallel verse. In Matthew and Mark, we read about a “Triumphal Entry” as Jesus approaches the city and then enters it, but in Luke, the whole episode (see Luke 19) happens outside of the city walls. In Luke 19:11, we see Jesus approaching the city, but at the end of the account (in verse 41), we are told that Jesus is still outside the city. The point is staggering: For Luke, Jesus doesn’t come to claim the Davidic throne; he comes to the site of his rejection. This is in fulfillment of what Jesus said in Luke 13:33: “I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!” For Luke, there is no Triumphal Entry. There is only rejection and death.
The second difference is in the climax to the story. In Matthew, Mark and John, the story ends with Jesus entering the city to the accolades of the crowd, but Luke ends the story with Jesus weeping over the city and offering this lament (vs. 41-44):
“As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, ’If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.’”
The word “Jerusalem” means “City of Peace.” But in a sad irony, we see that the city fails to live up to her name. Had they surrendered to King Jesus, they could have had peace, but they rejected their king; and as a result, war loomed on the horizon. In one final act of revolt, Jerusalem refused the “Prince of Peace” and chose wrath instead.
It is in the differences that everything becomes clear. In the other three gospel accounts, Jesus’ Triumphal Entry is the climax to the story, but in Luke, the climax is found in Jesus’ lament over the city, a lament brought about by the peoples’ failure to recognize their king. For Luke, there is no Triumphal Entry. There is only rejection and death.
Here’s the point: We often see the most powerful theology in the differences. We often mush everything together and believe that is where our theology is found, but today we have seen differently. Our best theology is found in the differences. Luke’s theology of Palm Sunday is not that of triumph and victory, not of Jesus coming to his throne, but of Jesus being rejected and condemned. And Jesus responds to such faithlessness by weeping over the city, wishing it could have been otherwise. But Jesus knows that he did not come to Jerusalem to reign, but to die.
This is Luke’s theology of Palm Sunday. We see it in the differences.
