26:14-27:66 Kerygma of the Suffering Jesus: Passion Narrative
Mark 8:31 Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed,
Mark 9:31 “The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him,.”
Mark 10:33-4 “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him;”
I Cor 11:22-6, What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you!
23-26 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for[g] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
I Cor 15:3-4
Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried
Phil 2:7-8
emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.
Acts 2:23
this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.
Acts 3:13-14
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him. But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you, and you killed the Author of life
Acts 10:39
They put him to death by hanging him on a tree
Acts 13:26-30
My brothers, you descendants of Abraham’s family, and others who fear God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent. Because the residents of Jerusalem and their leaders did not recognize him or understand the words of the prophets that are read every sabbath, they fulfilled those words by condemning him. Even though they found no cause for a sentence of death, they asked Pilate to have him killed. When they had carried out everything that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.
Matthew 26:14-27:66 is part of the Matthew version of the passion narrative that began in 26:1.
The church year for most Christians throughout the world includes the observation of Palm/Passion Sunday. For many Christian traditions, the account by Matthew, Mark, and Luke of the passion of Jesus during the last hours of his life constitute the Gospel lesson. The remembrance of this story year after year is a matter of re-visiting a painful event.
What does repetition mean in our lives? For those with cable television, for example, you will find The Shawshank Redemption somewhere. This brutal but uplifting story of an innocent man beating the cruelty and evil of a mid-20th-century prison and escaping to freedom is a story many of us do not repeating. It did not win the best picture of 1995, which went to Forrest Gump. Repeating movies is not a favorite pastime of mine, so once is normally enough. I like to watch Groundhog Day in February. Déjà vu is another movie I like to watch occasionally. Star Wars is a series of movies I like to watch for its overarching myth of good battling evil. Some old movies, such as An Affair to Remember, I will enjoy again.
I have read and re-read some books. Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg has kept me coming back to read and re-read. Part of Karl Barth Church Dogmatics keeps returning to me. Something about Friedrich Schleiermacher keeps me coming back. Some philosophers, especially Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Whitehead, and Charles Taylor, I tend to keep close and keep finding new insights. I read Nietzsche more than once, but mostly because he gets things wrong in such an interesting way. Some books I would like to read more often I do, such as Lord of the Rings. If we expand our consideration of repetition to music, I am sure most of us have artists and individual songs to which we keep coming back for a variety of reasons.[1]
Our culture seems to value the new. Why do we spend so much time with stories we already know? Soren Kierkegaard authored a book on repetition. He said that which one repeats has been, otherwise one could not repeat. The fact that it has been makes the repetition into something new. Frankly, this is a difficult book. For most of us, if we were going to understand it, it would be through reading it repeatedly. Yet, if we receive new insights in each reading and gain in our understanding, have we repeated? Has not the book become something new to us?
Think of why we repeat many things in our lives. Here are the traditional categories.
We may develop habits, such as running or other exercise for a physical discipline. We do not need to think about them, and that is their value.
We may repeat because of an addiction, which is like a habit on evil steroids.
We may develop a ritual, such as what to do on Thanksgiving, Christmas, or New Year. They are ritual, and not habit or addiction, because they are symbolic and expressive. The ritual does not rule us. Rather, we choose ritual because of the symbolic meaning the ritual has to us. Private moments of meditation and corporate worship for spiritual discipline, can become ritual in that sense.
Status quo bias is an interesting reason for repetition as well. People tend to stick with previous decisions because of the cost of coming to a new decision is mentally exhausting. “I do not love this job, but whatever. I do not want to look for a new one.” We grow accustomed to certain political views we no longer question or to certain stores at which we also shop.
The research of Cristel Antonia Russell and Sidney Levy discusses the notion of repetition under dissimilar categories than the ones I just mentioned.
One reason we repeat is not complicated. We simply like it. They call it “reconstructive consumption.” In this case, repetition breeds affection, the contrast to the notion that familiarity breeds contempt. One might say that repetition can make one feel like one has come home. Their scientific term is “mere exposure effect." This scientific expression explains why we watch repeatedly Tim Robbins' character Andy Dufresne burst through that disgusting sewer pipe during his escape from Shawshank. It is the theory that we like something simply because a previous experience exposed us to it. Familiarity may breed contempt, as the old saying goes, but it can also turn a film into a cult classic.
They identify a second reason for repetition as nostalgia. It can be nice to remember the past merely because it is past. Clay Routledge refers to the historical dimension of nostalgia and the autobiographical dimension of nostalgia. We may have a fondness of the way things were. However, on the personal side exposure to songs we liked in our youth makes us feel loved and worthy. It simply makes us feel good.
A third reason is therapeutic. One can take a journey now because one took a similar journey earlier in one’s life. If one has been a pastor in a certain area for 40 years, for example, the pastor may want to make sure to visit each of the churches at some point near retirement. It can be a therapeutic journey. One can re-read a book or re-see a movie, not just because of repetition, but also because of a need to reconcile oneself with one’s past. It becomes a pilgrimage or sentimental journey. Applied to movies and books, repetition means they cannot surprise us. We know how they end. We know how we will feel when they end. Something new may be exciting in its discovery, but it may also prove to be a waste of time and disappoint us.
Their fourth reason for repetition is existential. Russell and Levy put it this way.
The dynamic linkages between one’s past, present, and future experiences through the re-consumption of an object allow existential understanding. Reengaging with the same object, even just once, allows a reworking of experiences as consumers consider their own particular enjoyments and understandings of choices they have made.
This is not mere nostalgia or therapy. It is pop culture as palimpsest—an old memory, overlaid with new perspective.
On the other side of this, however, are the films that are really, good but so difficult to watch that most of us will only want to see them once. The brutal first sequence of Saving Private Ryan with its realistic portrayal of D-Day, or the senseless violence and inhumanity of Schindler's List, for example, are hard to watch once, let alone multiple times. The viewer does not want to go through that emotional pain again -- even if both films are cinematic masterpieces. We tend to see Saving Private Ryan on TV only during Memorial and Veterans days and Schindler's List rarely because programmers seem to realize that they are difficult to revisit. (Some other films that fall into this category are the post-apocalyptic father-son drama The Road, Nicolas Cage drinking himself to death in Leaving Las Vegas or the haunting fight over a home in House of Sand and Fog. Kate Winslet may be the queen of "one and done" films, with movies like Revolutionary Road, Little Children, and The Reader to her credit.) You will not see any of these flicks very often on TV or in your local DVD vending machine, either, even though critics acclaim them as among the best.
The most difficult of these "once is enough" films, however, is Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Time magazine made it the number 1 ridiculously violent film, although looking at the rest of the list, this judgment seems politically or anti-Christian motivated. The film portrays the brutality of Jesus’ crucifixion with so much blood and pain that critic Roger Ebert, who might have seen more movies than any person has ever seen, called it the most violent film he had ever watched. Slate critic David Edelstein reviewed it as "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre." It is arguably one of the most difficult films to watch in the history of cinema, and yet, not only did it gross more than $370 million during its theater run, it also sold 4.1 million copies of the DVD on its release date. Some movies may be difficult to watch more than once. Yet, they may also remind us of some important truths that we are afraid to confront.
Repetition is an interesting phenomenon. Yet, combined with that, why is once enough for other experiences? What might we be trying to avoid?
The passion narrative in all four gospels is a difficult read. Yet, I have done it every year since the mid-1970s. The story reveals truths about God and humanity that I find difficult to face.
The need to have a connected narrative of the last hours of the life of Jesus seems clear. How could the Jewish Messiah die? The four gospels have a closeness in presentation not present elsewhere in their accounts. This shows that the basic “word of the cross” (I Corinthians 1:18) was a story known well in the early church. The point is to make it clear that Jesus did nothing to deserve death. We again see the limits of Jesus, as even his disciples abandon him. No one in power seems willing to defend him.
The struggle of Jesus during the passion narrative was for us. It was for us that he risked this journey to Jerusalem. It was for us that he ate that last meal with the disciples. It was for us that he agonized in prayer. It was for us that he suffered upon a cross. Let us learn this story well. We will see our sin. We will see our own struggles in a new way.
As we move through the narrative, what has struck me this time is the silence of God. Most of us have had times in our lives when we would have liked God to speak or to act. God left us to our struggles. If you have had such an experience and you still follow Jesus, you have had your way dealing with the silence of God. The cross is not unique, however, in being a deafening expression of the silence of God.
The cross is a tragic event in the long and tragic history of humanity. I am not sure how we can look at that history and not long for God to do something to end the suffering. Yet, God remains silent. In the passion narrative, we hear about violence, betrayal, sin, and death. Will Rogers said, “You can’t say civilization don’t advance. In every war they kill you a new way.” We have learned the truth of that statement in this century. General Try Sutrisno of Indonesia justified the killing of dozens of civilian protesters in November 13, 1991 by saying, “In the end, they had to be shot. These ill-bred people have to be shot . . . and we will shoot them.” Yes, the violence we see in this story is all too familiar to us.
We see violence in this story, as Jewish and Roman leaders condemn a just man to his death. You would think that we would have progressed beyond such violence. A look at the headlines of newspapers and magazines will tell you that is not the case.
The terrible events behind this week ask each of us: Are we prepared to follow God through all the events of our lives, or just the events that meet with our approval? This is a story of betrayal, injustice, cruelty, and death. We shall be tackling tough issues such as the violence within Holy Scripture, the dark side of human nature, and what a loving God does with our unloving ways.
An innocent man is about to be murdered here. In the New Testament, God is preparing another only son for a cross. How could a loving God do such a thing? Dare we speak of such horrifying reality in church? These are terrible texts. We may read them and want the story to stop. These texts remind us of our helplessness. It would be nice if we could embrace the story of Jesus but skip this part and read of Easter. Yet, we dare not do so. This part of the story tells us far too much about God and about us. A religion is no good if it will only speak on bright, sunny days, but has nothing to say for the late-night sweats, the 3:00 am nightmares. A faith that is relevant only for the orderly and calm moments of our lives is little faith at all. Fairy tales help us to see our worst fears acted out, to name our unnamed terrors. They do more than that. When it comes to the fairy tale, the timidity of the child in response to the world is reasonable, for the world is alarm, so the child is alarmed; it is an awful idea to be alone; the unknown is fearful. All this is reasonable because the world has in it fearful, evil, beasts, and darkness. What the fair tale does is provide the child with a St. George to kill the beast. Thus, what appears to be limitless terror has a limit, that the shapeless enemy has an enemy in the knight of God, so that there is something in the world larger than darkness and stronger than fear.[2] Oddly, this is redemptive. More than just accurately describing our terrors, the Bible depicts a God who embraces our misbegotten cruelty. The terrible events behind this week ask each of us: Are we prepared to follow God through all the events of our lives, or just the events that meet with our approval? The demon death stalks Jesus every step of his way. His very acts of life marked him for death. Nevertheless, the good news is that he did not flinch from the murderous mob. He did not sidestep the terror. He came among us. He marched with us up to death -- the Place of the Skull. He embraced the terror, all the terrible, horrifying, painful ambiguity of human existence, and said, "Brothers and Sisters, I love you still."
Further, these weak, sinful disciples would become leaders of the church. What is astounding is that God has purposefully chosen the struggling, sinful, all too weak church of today to proclaim the gospel to the world.
One important conversation had taken place before this passage. Jesus picked twelve men—twelve ordinary, imperfect, unimpressive men—and bet his life upon them. They were fearful, envious, forgetful, rash, doubtful, arrogant, self-seeking, and slow to understand. They were young and uneducated. They were not wealthy, nor were they from prominent families. They had little to offer. He was not surprised when one betrayed him. He was not surprised when everyone deserted him in his greatest hour of need. He went to his death before even one understood his purpose, and no one stood by his side.
Jesus knew his disciples’ weaknesses all too well. However, he did not see their defects as roadblocks to success. Instead, he chose those men to be the ones to complete the work he came to accomplish. He gave them a great responsibility. He let them carry on the message for which he gave his life. Nevertheless, he did not leave them unprepared, unequipped, or uninspired. He clearly communicated that he viewed them as people of value and purpose, and he poured himself fully into loving them and serving them in such a way that eleven of the twelve would end up giving their own lives to serve others and spread his message.
In classic Roman and Greek literature, ordinary folk were almost invisible, unfit subjects for drama, ordinary people appearing in Greek tragedies only as baboons. However, the New Testament has a richer depiction of what it means to be a person. The story takes place entirely among everyday men and women of the common people; anything of the sort could be thought in antique terms only as farce or comedy. Yet why is it neither of these? Why does it arouse in us the most serious and most significant sympathy? Because it portrays something which neither the poets nor the historian of antiquity set out to portray: the birth of a spiritual movement in the depths of the common people. All this applies not only to Peter's denial but also to every other occurrence which is related in the New Testament. Every one of them is concerned with the same question, the same conflict with which every human being is basically confronted, and which therefore remains infinite and eternally pending.[3]
The Lord's Prayer contains this phrase: "Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil." Why should we pray this prayer? The story of the last week of Jesus' life gives some insight into the answer. Our capacity for sin is obvious. We have no right to sit in judgment of others. Testing in life can come in many ways. There are no guarantees what will happen as that testing comes. Will you preserve yourself through the test? Will you fall?
Everything depends on what you do to keep yourself from falling. Jesus warned the disciples of the coming test. They fall asleep. As readers, we have no right to excuse this behavior due to the meal they ate, the wine they drank, or the lateness of the hour. Because of their failure to pray, they failed the test. They desert Jesus in this hour of greatest need. Peter especially failed the test. He followed the soldiers who were taking Jesus at a distance. When they bring Jesus inside the high priest's house, Peter waits outside. In that time, he denies Jesus three times. He had failed the test. Yet, there is hope. He is a forgiven man. No matter how good we think we are such failure can happen to any of us. The good news is that even our failure does not have the last word! Rather, God is the one who has the last word. The story of Peter and the disciples does not end in defeat, but in victory. They did not become wonderful. They received forgiveness.
G. K. Chesterton's Father Brown says that people are not any good until they realize how bad they are or might be. They need to recognize how little right they have to all their snobbery, sneering, and talking about criminals as if they were apes in a forest thousands of miles away. They need to squeeze out of their souls every drop of the oil of the Pharisee. Brown states fact. When people tap into the fathomless wells of rage and hatred in the normal human heart, the results are fearful. "There but for the grace of God go I." Only restraining and renewing grace enables anyone to keep the sixth commandment.
At the end of Albert Camus' The Plague, at the end of the terrible, devastating plague in Algiers, the city slowly begins to recover. It looks as if the plague is over, and the world is at last getting back to normal. In the last moment of the book, a rat scurries into a gutter. I have always thought it meant that this brush with evil is over. Nevertheless, always, just below the surface of things, evil awaits its time. The plague can begin again at any time.
In his last days, Jesus became an isolated man. He was in Galilee, with crowds of people around him. Many wanted to follow him. He sat down with tax collectors and sinners and ate with them. People invited him to parties. People liked to have him around. Yet, he disagreed with some important people. He disagreed with the Pharisees and Scribes about the role of the Law. They believed it revealed the will of God. He simply disregarded it. The Law was not even important enough to debate, as far as Jesus was concerned. In addition, some people believed politics was everything. They wanted to overthrow the Roman government. They believed the Messiah must help them gain political liberation. However, what they considered so important, Jesus disregarded. Jesus had a way of disturbing people. He did unexpected things.
One of the most unexpected things Jesus did was to go to Jerusalem. When he arrived, he went to the Temple. He performed what many people consider a prophetic act to destroy the temple. He at least wanted a radical reform of what happened there. Now, even those who believed in the importance of Temple sacrifice were against him.
The earliest passion narrative is short and to the point in describing the arrest of Jesus and the involvement of the betrayer in that arrest, the meeting with the religious authorities in Jerusalem, the signs of him receiving beatings, the journey to Pilate for his judgment upon Jesus as a political figure, the way of the cross, the crucifixion, with the cry of God-forsakenness upon his lips as he dies. Later, the Romans would nail Jews to the cross in the Jewish wars of the 60s and allow the bodies to linger for several days as their lives gradually ebbed away in agony. Jesus was so weakened by the scourging and mockery that his death came after a few hours. He uttered one last cry and expired.[4] Thus, the Passion Narrative is not an organic unity. Other episodes are isolated elements of the tradition inserted into the earliest narrative. These insertions show enrichment by reflection on the Old Testament, having devotional, novelistic, and apologetic interest. The include a strong Christological theme that clarifies for readers that the Messiah, Lord, and Son of God whom they worship died because of who he was, an identity religious leaders found offensive, and Romans could not comprehend. It contains teaching moments for the community of the latter decades of the first century. However, very early, in the 40s and 50s, the Passion Narrative had a coherent form based upon the kerygma. Before then, there was an early narrative that told briefly of the arrest, condemnation, by the Sanhedrin and Pilate, the journey to the cross, and the crucifixion and death, a narrative that is still not an organic unity.[5]
We receive an insight into the earliest Jewish-Christian communities and Hellenistic communities as the tradition fills in the blanks with biblical and Christological reflection. Throughout the passion narrative is a careful consideration of the horror of the last hous of the life of Jesus.
By Thursday night, the Passover meal, Jesus knew his time on earth was at a close. He shared a final meal with his disciples. Let us look at what happens.
Jesus was so isolated that one of his own disciples would betray him for reasons difficult to verify or understand, but it might include greed. He betrayed him in a personal way, arriving in the Garden with overwhelming force and identifying by embracing him and kissing him on the cheek.
Jesus was so isolated that his disciples argued over which of them were the greatest.
Jesus was so isolated that his closest associates deserted him through cowardice, especially Peter. We need to remember that it is easier to forgive an enemy than to forgive a friend (William Blake).
Yet each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard
Some do it with a bitter look
Some with a flattering word
The coward does it with a kiss
The brave man with a sword![6]
The Roman Governor Pilate would betray his office by preferring political expedience to discharging the duty he had to dispense justice.
At least, however, we see our own sinfulness. We are too much like them. We become so petty, even as we seek to follow Jesus. We can allow our own little desires and wishes to get in the way of what is most important in life.
So, why do we betray Jesus? It may be for reasons displayed on this night. We may develop our unique reason. Is betrayal in our blood? The story of Holy Week is one upon which he need to give some time for meditation and reflection on how, while life will always bring its tests, we can remain faithful and true witnesses.
Jesus prayed alone in Gethsemane. My suspicion is that Jesus faced his impending death with some fear. He shared with his disciples the message of the coming rule of God. He proclaimed that message in story and action with the people of his day. Now, as he neared the end of his life, he knew he had so much more to say. Few of his people responded to him. His work was not finished.
The guards from religious leaders arrested him, with the help of the one who betrayed him. He went before the religious and political leaders. They judged him worthy of death. His disciples abandoned him. They brought him to Pilate, who easily chose political expediency over justice.
The sacrifice of Jesus begins this night. He offered himself to his followers and to the world as the savior. That death opened a relationship with God that has spread throughout every generation and every culture. Our sins do not have to separate us forever from God. In fact, we know that God is not gleefully rejecting us because of our sins. This sacrifice gives us the most vital information we need concerning God. Yet, we become accustomed to it, that we assume the truth of it. God wants us to have a friendship with God.
The work of Jesus has not finished. We can join him in completing the work he set out to do. When we gather at the table of the Lord, we do so knowing our own sin and need for forgiveness. We are not here because we are perfect. We are here because we need the grace God offers here. We need the relationship with God that Jesus has made possible.
The whole community loved a priest in the Philippines as a man of God. Yet, he carried the weight of a secret sin he had committed many years before. He had repented, but still had no peace. He had no sense of the forgiveness of God. In his parish was a woman who claimed to have visions in which she spoke to Christ and Christ spoke to her. The priest was skeptical. To test her, he said, "The next time you speak with Christ, I want you to ask him what sin your priest committed while he was in seminary." The woman agreed. A few days later, the priest asked, "Well, did Christ visit you in your dreams?" Yes, Christ did," she replied. "And did you ask what sin I committed in seminary?" he asked. "Yes,” Well, what did Christ say?" She responded, "I don't remember."
Betrayal and Last Supper
26:14-16 Biographical story of betrayal (Mk)
Matthew 26:14-16 (Mark 14.10-11; Lk 22.3-6) is the story of Judas agreeing to betray Jesus.[7] One of the disciples aligns himself with the religious leaders in his failure to recognize who Jesus is. His failure contrasts sharply with that of Jesus, who knows who he is and faithfully suffers and dies, and with that of the woman who has recognized Jesus as a faithful messenger of God in her anointing of Jesus. One of the twelve, Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and asked them What they will give him if he betrayed Jesus to them. Matthew has the additional information that they paid him thirty pieces of silver, inferring this from prophesy (Exod 21:28-30 and Zech 11:12, the price of a slave). Judas is viewed as greedy, the same as in Jn. 12:6. From that moment he began to look for an opportunity to betray him. As the story stands, the betrayal seems personal. He will arrive in the Garden with overwhelming force, and he will identify Jesus to the soldiers with an embrace and kiss. The betrayal was stunning in its conception and diabolical in its execution.
Who are the most notorious traitors in history? It’s a long list, but we don’t need to look far beyond our own experiences to find one.
Philadelphia, July 4, 1776. The setting is Independence Hall where the Second Continental Congress is meeting. The Declaration of Independence is adopted, and in so doing, the 13 American colonies sever their political connections to Great Britain, an act that Britain considers the ultimate betrayal. To put it bluntly, it is treason.
Later, when the delegates got around to signing the Declaration, Benjamin Franklin realized the enormity of the situation. Putting aside his quill, he said to the assembly, “We must all hang together or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” He didn’t hang, but very soon thereafter, a 21-year-old kid did. His name was Nathan Hale, and his last words reportedly were: “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” He was hanged by the British in New York City as a small crowd gathered to observe near the southern end of where Central Park stands today.
What is less well-known is that some colonists were executed by Washington or other officers of the Continental Army for being traitors — David Farnsworth, for example, who was caught producing counterfeit money, creating a threat to the economy. Or Moses Dunbar, a loyalist executed for attempting to recruit for the British Army.
Any discussion of “man’s inhumanity to man” would certainly include acts that led to violence and death. In Virgil’s circles or rings of hell, the villains include murderers, thieves and bullies motivated by every ignoble instinct in the demented hearts of evildoers.
The category that pops up in today’s lengthy text, however, is betrayal, and this leads to some thinking about infamous traitors and backstabbers. Many of these are political spies, and in the United States, this list includes Benedict Arnold, Aldrich Ames, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Robert Hanssen and others.
In history, the betrayal of Julius Caesar by his friend Brutus is still shocking to students of history. Other infamous names emerge more recently, such as Alfred Redl, an Austrian military officer who, during World War I, sold sensitive information about the Austrian army to Czarist Russia. Or, Harold Cole, a British soldier who betrayed the French resistance and is considered one of the worst traitors of World War II.
Since the theme of betrayal is such a human one, it is not surprising that literature is replete with classic betrayers. One of the dirtiest double-crossers is Iago from Othello. In The Count of Monte Cristo, Fernand Mondego falsely accuses his best friend Edmond of treason before having him imprisoned for 14 years. He also steals Edmond’s fiancée, Mercédès, and marries her. Then, there’s Peter Pettigrew, a.k.a. Wormtail, of the Harry Potter books. In The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, Edmund, the youngest Pevensie brother, betrays his siblings and all of Narnia for a bag of Turkish Delight. And what was Fredo thinking when he betrayed his brother, Michael Corleone, almost getting him killed?
This litany of villains, backstabbers and betrayers could continue, ad infinitum, but to this short list, we add Judas, Peter and Pilate, the three that are mentioned in Matthew’s gospel, the text for Passion Sunday. What can we learn from these three characters?
Matthew displays exceptional care to develop the Passover/Passion connection, making deliverance a common theme that ties these events together. Matthew sees the passion events as the second phase of God’s deliverance plan. Jesus is being delivered up to the authorities. Matthew’s strong connection with the Passover makes the role of Judas more understandable. Without the hardened heart of the Pharaoh, there would never have been the solidifying of the Hebrew people and their deliverance. Without Judas’ unexplained, underhanded actions, Jesus’ arrest and the ensuing Passion, events would not have reflected the fulfillment of OT prophecies so completely, a point Matthew has Jesus himself affirm at this arrest. Matthew’s refusal to explain whatever personal ambitions may have motivated Judas have not stopped scholars from speculating. In 26:49-50, Jesus’ words and actions are those of forgiveness. In 10:17-20, Matthew recorded the words of Jesus to be concerned with those who hand over the followers of Jesus to courts to be persecuted. The woman who anoints Jesus is the only one who understands what is taking place. The contrast between her actions and those of Judas and the authorities is further heightened. The words of Jesus are not judgmental, but they do force Judas to take responsibility for his actions. Then, Judas is seen testifying to the innocence of Jesus, as well as bringing judgment upon the religious leaders. By taking his own life, Judas concurs with Jesus’ own statement that it would be better for the betrayer to have never been born. Judas acts as his own judge and jury. In 27:6, the religious leaders recognize their own guilt in that money is considered blood money.
Karl Barth has an extensive discussion of the determination of the rejected human being. He will use Judas as an example.[8] Rejected individuals are those who isolate themselves from God by resisting their election as it has taken place in Jesus Christ. God is for them. They are against God. God is gracious to them. They are ungrateful to God. God receives them. They withdraw from God. God forgives them their sins. They repeat them as though God had not forgiven them. God releases them from the guilt and punishment of their defection. However, they go on living as the prisoner of Satan. God determines them for blessedness and for the service of God. They choose the joylessness of an existence that accords with their own pride and aims at their own honor. Rejected people exist in their own way alongside the elect. We do not fully understand the answer to the question concerning the determination of the elect if we refuse to consider the situation of these others, the rejected. What is the will of God for them? What is the purpose, the goal and content, the planned outworking and fulfillment, the meaning and order of their existence as itself an object of the divine predetermination? The rejection of humanity is the rejection borne eternally and by Jesus Christ in the power of divine self-giving. God rejects the rejection. Because this is so, the rejected human being is other than the elect. Only as such do they share as rejected people in the grace of creation and providence. They also stand in the sphere of the eternal covenant of divine grace. The election and kingdom of Jesus Christ surround them, and as such the superiority of the love of God confronts them. This love may burn and consume them as rejected people, as is fitting, but even so, it is still to them the Almighty, holy and compassionate love of God. This very love debars them from any independent life of their own alongside or apart from the life of the elect. There they stand, people who are hostile to God, ungrateful to God, withdrawing from God, repeating sins already forgiven, and therefore enslaved and cursed. We can take their existence seriously only as God takes it seriously. We do not take it seriously if we understand it other than as a shadow that yields, dissolves, and dissipates. The shadow is itself sinister, threatening, dangerous, and deadly enough. Yet, it is this within the limit set for it by God. It is more important, urgent and serious to see its divinely imposed limit than the horror that is peculiar to it within this limit. This is its divinely imposed limit, and therefore its shadow-quality, that rejected people exist in the person of Jesus Christ only in such a way that Christ assumes them into the being of Christ as the elect and beloved of God. Only in such sort that as they are accepted and received by God, they are transformed, being put to death as the rejected and raised to their proper life as the elect, holy, justified, and blessed. Because Jesus Christ takes their place, He takes from them the right and possibility of their own independent being and He gives them their own being. With Jesus Christ, the rejected can be such only in the past. They cannot be rejected any more. Between them and an independent existence of their own as rejected, there stands the death that Jesus Christ has suffered in their place, and the resurrection by which Jesus Christ has opened up for them their own place as elect. Their distinctive determination is rooted in their distinctive nature. They do not have it apart from or alongside, but with that of the elect. It indicates the meaning and purpose of the determination of the elect. It is the necessary reverse side of this determination, which we must not overlook or forget. In its ultimate range, it points to the very spot at which the proper and positive determination of the elect begins.
First, in the reality of the existence peculiar to them, it is the determination of the rejected to manifest the recipients of the Gospel whose proclamation is the determination of the elect. The rejected has not simply vanished or been destroyed. Thanks to the divine wisdom and patience, they can take differed forms within the appointed limit. In this capacity, they represent the world and the individual as far as they are in need of the divine election.
Second, in the distinctive character of their existence, the rejected has the determination constantly to manifest that which is denied and overcome by the Gospel. The rejected are the people whose only witness is to themselves and their false choice as those isolated over against God, the people who at the deepest level and in the deepest sense has nothing at all to say. They are the ones who live in a false service as well as in a false liberty. They are the people who are deceived because they deceive themselves.
Third, the rejected have the determination, in the distinctive limitation of their existence, to manifest the purpose of the Gospel. The rejected have no future. As those who will to be their own master, they can only achieve their own destruction. However, the purpose of the divine election of grace is to grant to those who have no future, a future in covenant with God. It is with this in view that the Gospel speaks. It is with this purpose that God turns to humanity, and that God addresses the Word of God to humanity.
Judas Iscariot is the supreme example in the New Testament of the rejected portion of humanity. The savage and sinful handing over of Jesus by Judas, in itself without justification, corresponds objectively to the handing over of Jesus into the hands of humanity that is the meaning and content of the apostolic ministry, by which the Church on earth is established and maintained. The latter handing over rectifies the mischief done by the former. Jesus is glorified as He was once blasphemed. Yet, the New Testament does not speak only of a wrathful delivery of Jesus. It also speaks of a divine handing over. Everything positive that Christ does for humanity, so that it is a reality for humanity in Christ, and effective by faith in Christ, is rooted and grounded in the fact that Christ first gave Himself for humanity, or as in Romans 8, God handed him over for humanity. This was for us. Paul strongly emphasized this. This handing over is the eternal will of God. It did not happen by chance. It has nothing whatever to do with human tragedy or the like. It had to happen, as the will of God, and not the will of fate. From this position, which Paul so strongly advocates, we will now look back to the observations that we made regarding the other use of handing over. To begin with, it is obvious that no worse fate overtakes the Jews and Gentiles handed over by God in the wrath of God, or those Christians whose delivery to Satan is occasionally mentioned, than that which God caused to the divine self in the handing over of the Son. However, the more profoundly and comprehensively we attempt to formulate the sin and guilt of Judas, the more his will and deed approach what neither he himself willed and did, nor the people of Israel, nor the Gentiles at whose head he finally appears. Rather, the more his will and deed approach what God willed and did in this matter as the divine handing over that here took place. In the divine handing over, we find the humiliation to which God willed to give the divine self, intervening for humanity and against the rule of Satan in the world of humanity, to cleanse them from the sin against Christ of which they are guilty. We now see Judas who, at their head, incurs the guilt. The paradox in the figure of Judas is that, although his action as the executor of the New Testament is so sinful, yet as such, in all its sinfulness, it is still the action of that executor. The divine and human handing over cannot be distinguished in what Judas did, as in the genuine apostolic tradition, where the human is related to the divine handing over as to its content and subject. In the case of Judas, the apostle who perverted his apostleship and served Satan, the two coincide. As the human handing over takes place, the divine takes place directly, and the divine takes place directly as the human takes place. In Judas, live again all the great rejected of the Old Testament who already had to testify that this elect people are in truth rejected. Israel is elect in and from its rejection. Israel is elect only in the form of the divine promise given to it in the beginning and never taken away. Israel is elect finally only in the person of the One for whose sake this people could and must have its special existence. It declares that Jesus Christ died also for rejected Israel. What the result will be is in the hand of God. If we cannot answer this question, we have still to maintain that even rejected Israel is always in the open and at the same time so very unequally determined situation of the proclamation, and that the question of its future can never be put except in the situation. However, to say this is to say all that we need to say about the general question of the divine will and intention for the rejected, the non-elect. The answer can only be as follows. God wills that they too should hear the Gospel, and with it the promise of their election. God wills that the elect should proclaim this Gospel to them. God wills that they should appropriate and live by the hope that the Gospel gives them. God wills that the rejected should believe, and that as a believer they should become a rejected humanity elected. The rejected as such has no independent existence in the presence of God. God does not determine them merely as rejected. They are determined to hear and say that they are a rejected humanity elected, from their rejection, people in whom Judas lived, but was also slain, as in the case of Paul. They are rejected who as such are summoned to faith. They are rejected who based on the election of Jesus Christ, and looking to the fact that Christ delivered Himself up for them, believe in their election.
26:17-19 Preparation for the Passover (Mk)
Matthew 26:17-19 (Mark 14.12-21; Lk 22.7-13, a variant of the entry into Jerusalem)[9] is the Passover (Exod 12:15-20) preparation. This story is part of the larger passion narrative. On the first day of Unleavened Bread, usually 15thof Nisan, or Friday in that year, but Jesus and his disciples celebrate their Passover meal the day before Passover, the disciples came to Jesus, asking where he wants to make the preparations for him to eat the Passover. He said, in verse 18, Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher (Ὁ διδάσκαλος) says, in a phrase found only in Matthew, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples. The disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover meal.
26:20-25 prophecy of betrayal by Jesus (Mk)
Matthew 26:20-25 (Mark 14:17-21, Luke 22:14, 21-23, John 13:21-30) is the prophetic saying and its accompanying story of identifying the betrayer.[10] In the evening, Jesus takes his place with the twelve, and while eating, he said in verse 21, Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me. They were distressed, each asking Jesus “Surely not I Lord (κύριε)?” Jesus responded in verse 23-24, 23The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. This presupposes a common dish, which, since each participant of the Passover has their own dish, indicates this was not a Passover meal.[11] The idea that Jesus could have known the mind of Judas is plausible. If so, the words would have burned themselves deeply into the oral tradition. His words give the betrayer time to reflect.[12] As Psalm 41:9 puts it, also referred to in John 13:18, even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted the heel against me. The Son of Man (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, a man like himself) goes to his death as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born. The main point is the sovereign foreknowledge of Jesus. it was a grievous offence to the community that one of the twelve betrayed Jesus. It combines the authority of Jesus with the authority of scripture. The sovereignty of the one delivered is of the one who forgives sins. By this authority, the opposition of this generation is endured. Here is the sovereignty that enters the restrictions of an existence on earth that is denoted by the title. We might imagine Jesus given an ironic glance at the disciples, who are also in a dangerous situation. Jesus is not the only one whose life is at risk.[13] This authority is differentiated from the soon-coming Son of Man.[14] Unique to Matthew, Judas, who was the one who betrayed him, asked, “Surely not I, Rabbi (ῥαββί)? The other disciples addressed Jesus as lord or master, but Judas as rabbi. Jesus replied in verse 25, You have said so. In Bach's "Saint Matthew Passion" Judas asks the question, "Is it I?" In the traditional music, Judas asks this question alone. In Bach's version, it is whole chorus, representing all of us, who asks, "Is it I."
26:26-30 Institution of the Last Supper (Mk)
Matthew 26:26-30 (Mark 14.22-26; Lk 22.14-23; 1 Cor 11.23-26) is the biographical story of the institution of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist. The story was an independent unity, given the diversity of wording and its presence in I Corinthians, but it has been properly included in the Passion narrative. The intent is to attest that this same Lord is present now in the community. The context in the Passion Narrative provides the meaning. Much scholarly discussions revolves around whether this is a Passover meal, but the result is inconclusive. The point is communion with this Jesus each time the community celebrates with these words.[15] The purpose of the story is to relate what Jesus said and did in the interests of faith and worship in these last hours.[16] The idea that Jesus anticipated sharing a meal with his friends in the heavenly kingdom is quite likely.[17] The story lets the example of Jesus speak for itself. Remarkably, the Lord, who experienced betrayal this night, provided for others when he gave his disciples bread and cup, in the context of a prayer of thanksgiving. This meal was for others. Thus, while they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it, the Christian theology of prayer retaining the stress on thanksgiving as the starting point and motif of prayer for this reason,[18] he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, in verse 26, “Take, eat; this is my body.” The Aramaic usage here suggests the self or person, as if to say: this, the bread, I am myself. When the disciples repeat the meal without his physical presence, he will still be with them, the bread becoming the pledge of his personal presence in their fellowship. As certainly as they eat the bread which he hands them, so will he be truly present at the meal. Until the future eschatological meal, their table fellowship with Jesus will not cease. The bread is a guarantee of that presence.[19]Therefore, the bread is no longer simply what it was before.[20] Yet debatable: to symbolize, represent, is like, conveys, means the same as, is the same as, is identical with, and so on.
In I Corinthians 11:23-4, “took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you.” The tradition behind the statement in Paul emphasizes even more that the sacrifice of the life of the Jesus was for others. Mark and Matthew have no reference to a command from Jesus to the continuation of this act in remembrance of Jesus.
27 Then, after supper in Paul and Luke, he took a cup, and after giving thanks (the Christian theology of prayer has retained the stress on thanksgiving as the starting point and motif of prayer for this reason[21]) he gave it to them, sayingin verse 27-9 Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the (note he does not have “new” here) covenant, (and establishes a new people of God,[22] separating them from the rest of the Jewish people by their confession of Jesus[23])which is poured out for many (Aramaic having no word for “all,” but Paul has that word here)[24], with Matthew having, different from Mark and Luke, for the forgiveness of sins. As at Sinai, the blood of victims sealed the covenant between the Lord and the people whom the Lord had chosen (Ex 24:4-8). As certainly as the disciples drink the cup whose wine represents the blood of Jesus, so certainly they share in the new divine order that is brought into being by the death of Jesus. The cup is a pledge that their Lord who is going to his death is present with the fullness of salvation accomplished by his death.[25] The blood of Jesus is about to seal the covenant that envisions a community that will fulfill the purposes of God.
In Corinthians 11:25 reads, “In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, and “This cup is the new (note the emphasis by Paul upon newness) covenant in my blood.” The text links the cup with Jesus’ death, as in Matthew 20:23=Mark 10:39.
29 I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom, this coming of the rule of God must be soon, referring to the eschatological banquet, the feast of salvation, in which Jesus will recline at table in the rule of God. In the rule of God, creation and redemption are completed, in which the end time community will worship God without end and the glorification of God is made perfect. [26] The story explains Jesus’ body is the bread, the disciples participate in Jesus’ death, and the cup is the climax of the last supper because it represents Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice and anticipates the eschatological banquet. Each occasion of the Supper of the Lord is the eschatological banquet of the revealed reign of God, the fullest form of the fellowship of Christians with the Lord now revealed to them, and an anticipation of final revelation inaugurated in the resurrection.[27] The promise of the bread is that Jesus will be present, revealing the gift of salvation Jesus gives to his followers by his personal presence. The promise of the cup is that Jesus will be there as Savior who establishes the covenant by his death, stressing the unique significance of the gift he offers. Jesus is present as one who offers his life, thereby fulfilling the will of God in anew relationship between himself and humanity. Bread and wine of table fellowship become a sign of his personal presence that have its fulfillment in the eschatological banquet.[28] The gathering of the community as the family of God appears in table-fellowship, which is an anticipation of the meal of salvation at the consummation.[29] This eschatological orientation of this supper is a gathering with Jesus at table, an actualization of the time of salvation, which then provides the meaning of the supper. Jesus linked an announcement and interpretation of his violent end with the familiar rite of grace before and after the meal.[30]
When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives, the site of God’s eschatological victory (Zech 14).
Understanding the death of Jesus within the framework of the Near Eastern sacrificial system, which usually involved only animals, played a basic role in the Christian theological interpretation of Christ’s death. Eating and drinking, which the disciples did at this time with Jesus, is turned into a saying of Jesus in which the disciples eat and drink at the command of Jesus. Matthew looks upon the death of Jesus as the basis for the forgiveness of sins, albeit in such a way that the community exercises the forgiveness and that only the man who forgives others can receive forgiveness. Matthew sees Jesus going to his death as a pioneer, who opens the way of a new life to those who follow him. Matthew emphasizes the table fellowship between Jesus and his disciples at the end of time. Jesus stresses that he will not drink again until he enters the kingdom. Each occasion is the Messianic banquet of the revealed rule of God, the fullest form of the fellowship of Christians with the Lord now revealed to them, and an anticipation of final revelation of the inaugurated in the resurrection.[31]
In Jewish practice, the host of a meal gave thanks and broke bread as a way of opening the meal. This tradition, stemming from the evening before the death of Jesus, forms the basis of the Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper and therefore of Christian worship in general. In this sense, “institution” by Jesus himself is basic to the celebration. We can no longer reconstruct with certainty the historical nature and course of the last meal that Jesus took with his disciples before his arrest on passion. The problem, comparing I Corinthians 11:23-25 with Mark 14:22-24 and Matthew 26:26-28, is divergence in crucial details. The wording is different. One cannot even be certain it was a Passover meal. Yet, when we look at the meals of Jesus in the gospels, when we particularly note the miraculous feeding in Mark 8:1-10=Matthew 15:32-39, and note his reference in parables to the banquet, we can see the importance of the eschatological fellowship of the reign of God. We have in these meals the central symbolical action of Jesus in which he focuses and depicts the message of the nearness of the reign of God and its salvation. Not least of all, Jesus gives symbolical expression to the forgiveness of sins that he links to the acceptance of his message and granted by it, since the table fellowship that Jesus practiced removes everything that separates from God. The primary issue in table fellowship as a depiction of the salvation of the rule of God is fellowship with God and the mutual fellowship of all who share in the meal.[32]
Arrest at Gethsemane and the walk on the way
26:31-35 Prophesy of denial by Peter (Mk)
Matthew 26:31-35 (Mark 14.27-31; Lk 22.31-34; Jn 13.36-38) is the biographical story of the prediction of the denial by Peter. It prepares the way for the arrest and denial.[33] Then Jesus said to them, in verse 31-2, You will all become deserters (σκανδαλισθήσεσθε) because of me this night, predicting a severe crisis for his disciples;[34] for it is written in Zech 13:7, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ In its original textual setting, “the shepherd” is evil, “worthless” and the one “who deserts the flock” (Zech 11:17a). Indeed, the ancient prophet is so wholly repelled by “the shepherd” that he declares, “May the sword strike his arm and his right eye! / Let his arm be completely withered, / his right eye utterly blinded!” (Zech 11:17b). Based on his unmitigated abhorrence of “the shepherd,” it makes sense for the prophet to call for the shepherd’s slaughter in his subsequent repudiation: “‘Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, / against the man who is my associate,’ says the LORD of hosts. / Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; / I will turn my hand against the little ones’” (Zech 13:7). In Zechariah, “the shepherd” is a villain who deserves condemnation, but in this text, Jesus, the righteous one, is “the [good] shepherd.” Despite being innocent, he will be treated as a criminal and condemned to death, and when this injustice takes place, the disciples flee. However, if the prophetic word from Zechariah about the shepherd is fulfilled, then it seems reasonable to expect that the entire prophecy will be realized, “And I will … refine them as one refines silver, / and test them as gold as tested. / They will call on my name, / and I will answer them. / I will say, ‘They are my people’; / and they will say, ‘The LORD is our God’” (Zech 13:9). In sum, Zechariah’s prophecy not only foreshadows the disciples’ flight but also offers a credible word of redemption and hope. But after I am raised up, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.” The text does not provide any explicit explanation for Jesus’ remark. It is simply an enigmatic reference. However, there are hints in the gospel that illuminate Jesus’ directive regarding the reunion in Galilee. For instance, until 19:1, most of the recorded events occur in and around Galilee. Other than Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, the familial exile in Egypt, his temptation in the wilderness and an occasional excursion to surrounding territories, Jesus’ ministry takes place in Galilee. Moreover, Galilee is where Jesus calls his first four disciples (cf. 4:18-22), and it seems probable that many, if not most, of the remaining eight apostles are also Galileans. Finally, after they desert Jesus at his arrest and watch the Romans crucify him, it is understandable they would return to Galilee. For what better salve for them than to return home as they attempt to make sense of what they had just witnessed in Jerusalem. Given all this, it is no surprise that Jesus “will go ahead” of his disciples and return to Galilee. Peter responded to the saying of Jesus, “Though all become deserters (σκανδαλισθήσονται) because of you, I will never desert you.” Peter does not know himself very well. He lives with a delusion as to who he is. In verse 34, Jesus responds, Truly I tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” If Peter lived with a delusion about himself, Jesus did not. Jesus knew Peter all too well. Peter responds “Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you,” the rest of the disciples claiming such allegiance as well. It might have been well for Peter to keep quiet, but again, he fails to humbly receive the insight of Jesus into the true Peter. Amazing! We now see that they were all delusional. They did not know themselves. They did not know what the future held. How could they make such a profession? They did not know the depth of their own weakness or of the nature of humanity. Lying to ourselves will slowly make it difficult to see the truth regarding self or others. This will lead to loss of respect and even loss of ability to love, all descending from lying to ourselves.[35] The simple act of betrayal, of handing over those closest to us to suffering, is a potential within us all. All of us have the capacity for betraying our closest friends, our best self, and God.[36] Matthew emphasizes the bond between Jesus and the disciples more than does Mark. Yet, he represents the gospel tradition at this point. Some scholars think the story is part of a polemic against the leadership of Peter. However, the gospel tradition has carried on a polemic against all the disciples, and this will continue in the passion story. The disciples do not look like respectful students or followers of Jesus as the tradition presents them. Yet, their example is a reminder of our weakness. Despite claims to the contrary, no one really knows how he or she will respond in a crisis. And although Jesus knew how his disciples would react, it is impossible for any of us to know with absolute certainty whether one will abandon or deny Jesus when facing a comparable moment of testing.
For Mark and Matthew, the passion is a descent into an abyss during which Jesus himself will hesitate as he finds himself with no human support. He will be betrayed, abandoned, denied, and cursed by his disciples; he will be calumniated in the presence of the chief authorities of his people, who are determined to use every artifice to put him to death; he will be sentenced to crucifixion cynically by the representative of Roman justice, who knows he was handed over out of envy. Leaving the upper room, Jesus becomes decisively negative in outlook. The somber mood established by the opening words, “You will be scandalized.” Why such pessimism? Why juxtapose two such dire predictions, one about the disciples, the other about Peter? Despite the disciples being scandalized, Jesus would not abandon them but reassemble them as his flock. The weakness of the disciples is not an unforgiveable sin. Every moment is a possibility for living as a faithful witness or to fall away from it. Neither moment will last forever. We will make further decisions that will determine the direction of our character and discipleship. If we fail, the possibility is always present for redemption. Our self-deluded thinking, that somehow, we are better looking than we really are, more charming and intelligent than we really are, this tendency to overestimate ourselves in certain areas of our lives, does not make us beyond the reach of God. Our weakness does not make us unserviceable to the rule of God, to reflect the glory of God, or distance us from the warmth of the love of God. Matthew and his readers, like other early Christians, held Jesus’ disciples and Peter in esteem as saintly witnesses, especially if by the time of writing Peter had been martyred. Nevertheless, Matthew uses the Gospel to stress that such witness to Jesus did not come easily or under the disciples’ own impetus. When the disciples of Jesus who had walked with him most intimately, who indeed had already begun their following of him, faced the issue of accompanying him to the cross, they were scandalized and even denied him. Matthew is offering a pedagogy of hope based on the initial failure of the most famous followers of Jesus had a second chance for them. The two predictions fit very well into Mark’s theology, which here Matthew adopts. The placing of the two predictions as transitional to the scene in Gethsemane is Mark’s arrangement to provide an introduction appropriate in tone to what follows. The arrest of Jesus at Gethsemane involved failure by his disciples, eventually specified in terms of flight, denial, and betrayal. How could one reconcile such failure with God’s plan for Jesus?
26:36-46 Story of Gethsemane (Mk)
Matthew 26:36-46 (Mark 14.32-42; Lk 22.39-46) is the story of Gethsemane.[37] Jesus wrestles with the will of God and finally accepts it. It records one of only two prayers of Jesus, the other being 11:25-26. Here is one of the many times Jesus sought solitude in prayer outside the regular times of prayer. Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, at the foot of the Mount of Olives; and in verse 36 he said to his disciples, Sit here while I go over there and pray.” He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee. He was grieved and agitated. Then, in verse 38, he said to them I am deeply grieved, even to death; reminiscent of Ps 42:6, 11, 43:5, the disquiet of soul, remain here, and stay awake with me. The text becomes deliberately dramatic in saying that Jesus went a little further. When Jesus separates himself from the body of the disciples and then from Peter, James, and John, he symbolizes his increasing alienation from his disciples. Then he threw himself on the ground and prayed in verse 39, My Father, personalizing the address Jesus taught his disciples to pray in the Lord’s Prayer,[38] If it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Viewed from his eschatological perspective, Jesus considers the possibility that God might bring in the rule of God even without suffering to precede it.[39] Early Christians had a tradition that before he died Jesus struggled in prayer about his fate. They understood his prayer in terms like the hour and the cup, which in the tradition of his sayings he had used to describe his destiny in the divine plan. Jesus feels the full force of the fear of death and the instinctive urge to escape. However, Jesus concludes, yet not what I want but what you want.” The prayer has some similarity with the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:12 and Luke 11:4, “Thy will be done.” Jesus withstanding temptation becomes an example to all in the face of their temptations. The scene of his prayer in Gethsemane has had a special place in Christian piety. Yet even within the framework of Jewish thought, the presentation of Jesus in Gethsemane could have caused problems. The Maccabean martyrs were righteous people who had died violent deaths at the hands of unjust authorities, but they had faced their fate with the resolve to give a “noble example of how to die a good death willingly and generously.” Jesus would not compare favorably with such a model unless one understood that what caused his reluctance and anguish was not simply facing struggle with Evil, the great trial that preceded the coming of the kingdom. The passage seems to have created an implicit scandal among theologians and preachers who explain away the prayers about the hour and cup so that Jesus is not really asking for deliverance from death or is not thinking of his own suffering but of all the sins of the world. Then Jesus came to the disciples and found them sleeping.[40] He said to Peter, in verse 40-41[41], So, could you not stay awake with me one hour? The disciples fail, Peter receiving specific criticism. Then a logion taken from early Christian instruction, Stay awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial, having an eschatological reference, for the time of testing is near, like the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:4 about deliverance from temptation or the time of trial, the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak or alternatively, The spirit indeed presses eagerly, but the flesh is powerless.[42] The human spirit can be willing to do the will of God, but is often prevented from realizing its intentions by human weakness and frailty.[43] The disciples become an object lesson in what happens when one fails to stay awake as Jesus mentioned in sayings and parables with his injunction to watch rather than sleep. A man who leaves his home leaves his slaves in charge and tells them to be on the watch. Jesus then urges his hearers to keep awake, for the master of the house will come suddenly and at an unexpected time. Jesus’ withstanding temptation becomes an example to all in the face of their temptations (Mark 13:34-37=Matthew 25:13 and 24:42). A second time Jesus went away from the disciples to pray, Matthew identifying the words of the prayer while Mark was content with a general reference to them, in verse 42, My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” The slight change in wording from the first prayer yields another insight. Another connection to the prayer Jesus taught his disciples to pray, applying the prayer for the will of the Father to be done in a way that suggests the struggle and ultimate submission to the will of the Father. Matthew describes how Jesus, while praying, achieves a submission to the will of the Father, at the same time seeking the companionship of his disciples because he wants to help them follow him, inculcating in them the petition of the Lord’s Prayer. The notion of the divine will that impresses itself upon us as a power that acts upon us is a notion we find here.[44] Jesus came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. So leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words. Praying three times was an especially fervent form of supplication, as it was for Paul in II Cor 12:8. Then he came to the disciples and said to them in verse 45-6, Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Here is a gently ironic reproach. The hour you should have stayed awake with me has slipped by, and now the test has begun. Jesus must go through the test alone, the disciples may go on sleeping if they wish. See, the hour is at hand, for the actuality of the will of God reveals itself now and wins the assent of Jesus,[45] having an eschatological ring, the double prayer about the hour and the cup catches the intensity of the request, and in a formula-like saying (Mark 9:31, Matt 17:22, Luke 9:44, 24:7) the Son of Man (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, bar enasha idiom) is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Jesus has been contrasted with his disciples in his sovereignty. The initiative lies with Jesus. he stands his ground in the struggle. With that freedom that is constituted by the correspondence of his will with that of the Father he initiates the ensuring course of events. The one who subordinates his will to the Father is in so doing delivered into the hands of sinners. This man is not overwhelmed by the power of darkness is delivered up by God.[46] Thus, it expresses the conviction of Jesus that anyone else in the same position would make the same decision, for to draw back from his mission in the face of such danger would be unthinkable.[47] The text builds to an impressive climax: Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.” In the last days of his life in Jerusalem as the leaders of his people showed unremitting hostility, both rejecting his proclamation and desiring to get rid of him, Jesus struggled in prayer with God about how his death fitted into the inbreaking of the rule of God. In his struggle and prayer, Jesus prayed for deliverance from the death of an outlaw at the hands of his enemies. Such a prayer will not shock those who give sufficient attention to the view Jesus and of the inbreaking of the rule of God, for it involved a massive struggle with diabolic opposition in whose arsenal death had hitherto served as a mighty weapon.
Early Christians had a tradition that before he died Jesus struggled in prayer about his fate. Hebrews 5:7-10 is an independent witness, reinforcing the notion of the divine will impressing itself upon us as a power that acts upon us,[48]referring as it does to the human life of Jesus, his offering of prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the one able to save him from death. God heard his prayer because of his reverent submission. Even as the Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered, thereby fulfilling his destiny or divine purpose throughout the course of his life. The passage focuses upon the relationship of Jesus with the Father, rather than the incomprehension of the disciples on which Mark focuses. The submission of Jesus to the Father is in sharp contrast to the failure of the disciples to heed the counsel of Jesus to pray.
Jesus prays that he will submit to the will of God rather than seek the fulfillment of what he wants. God has made us as creatures able to want. Part of what it means theologically for God to make us in the image of God is that we can want. Animals have needs. We have not only needs but also wants. Needs and wants relate to each other but are different. Sometimes they coincide and at other times, they do not. We all have need for food, clothing, shelter, health, transportation, and for love and attention. Needs are normal and acceptable. However, we rightly suspect our wants. Children who are always saying, "I want" are tedious. Moreover, adult wants are often crude: "I want luxury" or "I want to have an affair" or "I want you to suffer." Wants can derive from our culture or our egos. We will want them to satisfy our desire for pleasure, status, and belonging. Our wants lead us to consider what is the right auto, house, neighborhood, fashion, clothing, jewelry, and investments. Our wants shape the enhancement of life. Ralph Waldo Emerson said the needs of life are much fewer than most people realize. We need someone to love‑‑and to be loved‑‑so we may share our joys and sorrows. We need something worth doing so we can fill time and not kill it. We need faith in God that makes sense out of life.
An Amish man momentarily stopped his farming to watch a new neighbor arrive. Among the many items that came out of the delivery van were a deluxe refrigerator with a built‑in ice cube maker, a state‑of‑the‑art stereo system with a compact disk drive, a remote‑control television with VCR, and a whirlpool hot tub. The following day, the Amish man and his wife welcomed the new resident bringing a gift of homemade bread. After the usual preliminary greeting and cordial conversation, the Amish man concluded with "...and if anything should go wrong with your appliances or equipment, don't hesitate to call me...." "That's very generous of you," the new arrival interrupted. Thank you!" "No problem," the Amish man replied, "I'll just tell you how to live without them."
26:47-56 Betrayal and arrest of Jesus (Mk)
Matthew 26:47-56 (Mark 14.43-52; Lk 22.47-53; Jn 18.1-11) is the biographical story of the betrayal and arrest of Jesus. It follows nicely after verses 31-35 and fulfills the statement that the disciples will fall away. Jesus appears here as one ready to meet the fate that stands before him. While Jesus was still speaking to his disciples, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived with a large crowd from the religious leaders of Jerusalem who had swords and clubs. The text stresses that the betrayer had given them a sign that the man he kissed is the man they have come to arrest. As soon as they arrived, he came up to Jesus and greeted him with the title rabbi (ῥαββί) and kissed him.[49] In verse 50, Jesus said, cutting short the empty show of greeting, Friend, do what you are here to do. The crowd approached Jesus, laid their hands on him, and arrested him. Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Matthew uniquely has Jesus addressing this matter directly in verses 52-4, Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. There is no approval here of taking up the sword, as Luther would have it. Jesus maintains his own position, renouncing violence and preferring to suffer injustice. Reaching for the sword can only provoke a violence response in which they will fall victim. One cannot defend Jesus in this way. Jesus came down on the side of protection of life.[50] 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? People repeatedly demand that God send angelic legions, visible or invisible, to eradicate all evil through the forces of heaven; God refuses. God’s pathway through history is not the conquest of all resistance; it is instead reflected in Jesus’ way of the cross. People can never agree in their prayers about where the evil to be destroyed is to be found; they turn on each other instead, each trying to get the best of the other in prayer. God refuses in principle to impose God’s will by force, seeking the response of faith. Faith must be as free as love, which can never be forced. True faith comes into being at the very point where God is most powerless: face-to-face with the cross of Jesus. in 70 AD, the path of armed resistance to Roman power would be revealed as a failure and ended the existence of Israel as a political entity until the modern era. Matthew returns to what he has in common Mark: 54 But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?” The passion of Jesus takes its place among those events that must happen according to God’s plan in order that the rule of God may be consummated. Matthew’s addition has turned the story of Jesus’ arrest into a fundamental statement about the use of force. Jesus backs up his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount with the deeds of the passion. This lays the foundation for real obedience: the conduct of humanity derives from that of Jesus, or from that of God. Luke 22:51 reports the healing of the right ear, and John 18:10 gives the name of the disciples who cut the ear off and the name of the victim as well.[51] Matthew then returns to what he has in common with Mark, as Jesus addresses the crowds at that hour in verse 55-6,[52] Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But all this has taken place, so that the scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled. The story of Jesus’ arrest becomes a fundamental statement about the use of force. Jesus backs up his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount with the deeds of the passion. This lays the foundation for real obedience: the conduct of humanity derives from that of Jesus, or from that of God. As the disciples forsook Jesus, they are blind to the way Jesus has chosen for himself, a way he must follow to the end. They misunderstand the way they must follow and serve Jesus. They are in error concerning their own power and capacity to follow Jesus. They deny in practice when they ought to have made good on their previous professions of their desire to follow him. Of course, they do not follow him. They quarrel, fall asleep, run away, disown, and betray him.[53]
Condemned by Religious Leaders, Denial by Peter
This story stresses the responsibility that the Jewish authorities bore for the condemnation of Jesus. it also emphasizes that the confession of Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God was the real obstacle. This confession was an offence to Jews and incomprehensible to the Gentiles. The story of the trial unveils Jesus as the one whom the early community worshipped, the one who was inseparably connected with his humiliation, suffering, and death.[54]
As readers today, we need to exercise some care. Disciples were not present, so they filled in the blanks with inference regarding how the proceedings went. They focus upon the Christological issues presented, including titles from both Jewish-Christian and Hellenistic circles to make it clear who Jesus was, even as he moves toward crucifixion. For them, Jesus was rejected and condemned as a messianic claimant, for that is what the church proclaimed about Jesus. Their claim that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah, was to be identified with the soon-coming Son of Man, and Son of God as affirmed in the early Hellenistic community, becomes the basis for the condemnation by the religious authorities, even though this is impossible historically. Historically, Jesus avoided such titles for himself, although he acted as rabbi and eschatological prophet, recognizing his significance by using a title by which Ezekiel was addressed, “son of man,” which emphasized the humanity he shared with all human beings. Of course, the Passion narrative will present Jesus as one innocent of the charges brought against him, thereby heightening our sense of the injustice of this moment. This trial has led to continuing hatred of the Jewish people. The Jewish people continue in world history. The Roman Empire does not, so the atrocities it committed against Jesus and his followers do not receive the same attention. The point here is responsibility for the death of Jesus rather than guilt for it.[55]
26:57-68 Trial before the high priest (Mk)
Matthew 26:57-68 (Mark 14.53-65; Lk 22.66-71; Jn 18.12-14, 19-24) is the story of Jesus before High Priest Caiaphas.[56] Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, in whose house the scribes and the elders had gathered. Peter followed him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest. He sat with the guards to see how this would end. The chief priests and the whole council were looking for false testimony against Jesus so that they might put him to death. However, they found none, even though many false witnesses came forward. At last, two came forward and said, referring to what Jesus said, in verse 61, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’” The fall of the Temple will be the signal for the intervention of God, and within three days the new temple, and image for the new community of the people of God, will be rise.[57] The veiled attack by Jesus on the Temple would have been reason enough for a trial. The background of this trial is the word and deed of Jesus against the Temple. The cleansing of the Temple precincts from commerce is an action all four gospels recount. The word and action of Jesus in this regard has some ambiguity. In that act, he wants purified worship at the Temple. Yet, Mark 11:17=Matthew 21:13, while referring to the Temple becoming a house of prayer, also wants it to be one for all the nations. Jesus has also prophesied that God will destroy the Temple in Mark 13=Matthew 24. The attitude of Jesus toward the Temple is nothing like that of the Essenes, who had a whole program for matters of priestly descent, sacrifice, those allowed admittance, and so on. He was not from Jerusalem or the priestly class, and so he had no stake in the continued building of the Temple and its material survival as a way of life. The Gospel writers understood the hostility of Jesus toward the Temple, when he manifested it, to be like that of the ancient prophets, for they cite Jeremiah 7:11 and Zechariah 14:21. Jesus engaged in a prophetic dramatic action against improprieties in the Temple and uttered a prophetic threat that the coming of the rule of God would involve destruction and rebuilding of the sanctuary. We need to read this trial considering the word and action of Jesus. The cleansing of the Temple and the prophetic words involving the destruction of the Temple would lead to hostility from religious leaders in Jerusalem. It seems likely that an anti-Temple interpretation of the words and actions of Jesus would lead to the desire by Jewish authorities that he dies. They become the moving agents behind the proceedings against Jesus. Thus, it seems likely that the accusation made in the proceedings occurred something like the way Mark records it. Further, Theissen’s sociological analysis, drawing from incidents in the thirty-five years after Jesus’ death, points to a particular hostility between country people who idealized the Temple and the Sadducean priestly aristocracy. Did Jesus’ Galilean origins bring him into that conflict? Based on figures supplied by Josephus, Theissen estimates that some 20 percent of Jerusalem’s population depended on the Temple for livelihood, and therefore, like the priests, would have been upset with threats to it. Josephus demonstrates serious reaction to a pronouncement of woe upon the Temple in the example of Jesus son of Ananias. Overall, the attitude of Jesus toward the Temple/sanctuary may very well have been among the religious legal reasons offered to the Sanhedrin in making a case for a death sentence.
The high priest stood up and asked Jesus if he had no answer and what this testimony against means. Jesus was silent (Isa 53:7). This silence is not obtuse and becomes a crucial factor in the trial. He refuses to deny that he said the words quoted by his accusers.[58] Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah (Χριστὸς), the Son of God (Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ),” thereby equating the two titles. Among the historical difficulties here is that there does not appear to be a single national expectation of the Jewish Messiah. Historically, we find few references to the claim to be the Jewish Messiah.[59] We know that the followers of Jesus proclaimed Jesus as the Jewish Messiah after his resurrection. We also know the references to Jesus as the Jewish Messiah are rare in the Gospel story, and when they do occur, Jesus has an ambiguous response to the title. It also seems clear that the Romans crucified Jesus with the mocking title of “King of the Jews.” It seems clear that the ambiguity of the response of Jesus led his enemies to conclude that Jesus was a spiritual danger to the Jewish people.[60] The only sure point is that Jewish authorities handed Jesus over to the Romans for judgment as a messianic pretender and therefore as a rebel. In any case, this judgment was clearly a pretext behind which Jewish authorities hid their real reasons of why he had become unacceptable to them.[61]
Jesus responded in verse 64, without making the oath the High Priest demanded, consistent with the teaching of Jesus concerning oaths in Matt 5:33-37, You have said so. In the form of a declaration or admission,[62] already, Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God.[63] But I tell you, as stated in Daniel 7:13 and Matt 24:30, From now on, because the religious leaders have rejected Jesus and are no longer under his protection, you will see emphasizing the difference in time so that in the future the Son of Man (Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) seated at the right hand (Ps 110:1) of Power (the Lord) and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Jesus looks forward to the manifestation of the Son of Man. Jesus refers them to a power that transcends the power they have as religious leaders and the political power of Rome. It becomes a threat to the religious leaders. Jesus discloses the deepest mystery of the triumphant Son of Man. The answer Jesus gives to the High Priest is ambivalent insofar as it replies to the question of messiahship with a statement about the coming of the Son of Man. Matthew emphasizes the divine authority of Jesus: he could destroy the Temple and rebuild it, and his passion is the way to enthronement, so that those who condemn him will know him as Lord of the universe and coming judge. Veiled in Jesus, the outcast from Nazareth, one who renounces violence and willingly accepts execution, is appointed Lord of the entire world. In apocalyptic Jewish circles whose voice finds an echo in the non-canonical literature of the second and first centuries BC and first century AD, there may have developed a strong image of a heavenly Son of Man through reflection on Daniel 7. Given the apocalyptic bent of Jesus and his followers, it seems likely they discussed the heavenly figure that God glorifies and makes judge of human affairs. Granted the conception of Jesus of the role he himself was playing in making present the rule of God, his anticipation of another unidentified human-like figure to conclude the work seems unlikely. He had come to identify himself as the coming Son of Man.[64] Hesitancy by scholars at this point relies upon the assumption that Jesus had no “Christology.” He never considered his personal role in the coming rule of God. The phrasing we find here reflects the thinking of the church in the 60s, of course, but the mindset derives from Jesus. He put together the apocalyptic notion of the Son of Man with that of the Suffering Servant in a unique way.[65] Jewish authorities understood the threat of judgment by the Son of Man as an expression of human arrogance.[66]
Then the high priest tore his clothes, as required by the Mishnah after hearing all the evidence and before giving sentence,[67] and said that Jesus has blasphemed, which deserved the death penalty (Lev 24:16). According to Sanh 7.5, blasphemy is pronouncing the divine name, which Jesus does not do here.[68] He asked the leaders why they needed more witnesses. They have heard his blasphemy against the Temple. The high priest understands the threat of judgment by the Son of Man upon Jewish authorities as an expression of human arrogance.[69] From the attested meanings of the Greek word, the only likely charge involving blaspheme would have been that Jesus arrogantly claimed for himself status or privileges that belonged properly to the God of Israel alone and in that sense implicitly demeaned God. The claim to be the Son of Man would be blasphemous. Yet, even if one sees the answer Jesus gives as an affirmative answer, it is difficult to see why Caiaphas should have found it to be blasphemous. It may well be that the messianic claim of Jesus seemed blasphemous because he regarded it as false, construing it as a blasphemous presumption. Yet, it is hard to answer the question of how Caiaphas arrived at this conclusion.[70] The only sure point is that Jewish authorities handed Jesus over to the Romans for judgment as a messianic pretender and therefore as a rebel. In any case, this judgment was clearly a pretext behind which Jewish authorities hid their real reasons of why he had become unacceptable to them.[71] Jewish leaders could conclude that Jesus was a false prophet, which would also lead the accusation of blasphemy. The fact that Jesus acted like a prophet and thus caused some to think he was one could have caused others to think he was a false prophet. The reaction to Jesus at court is a response to the threat Jesus posed to his earthly judges for their abuse of the Jewish court system. If so, Deut 17:12 comes into play, where if anyone disobeys the priest, the person must die. This view suggests that the threat of judgment by the Son of Man, even without identification of Jesus as the Son of Man, would have been enough for a death sentence as an insult to the court, based on Deut 17:12.[72]
He then asked the religious leaders what their verdict was. Only Matthew records the verdict of the high priest, while the gathered religious leaders said he deserves death. Religious leaders who kill in the name of God is not new. It has been going on from the beginning of human history. In this case, blasphemy is the accusation.
I am reminded of a satirical piece in the Onion after 9/11/2001 that included stories titled, “Terrorists surprised to find selves in hell.” Another title was, “We expected eternal paradise for this” and “God angrily clarifies ‘don’t kill’ rule.” "Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor," God tells the Onion during a press conference near the World Trade Center. "Well, I don't. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it." The story ends with an angry message from God: "How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore -- ever!" Then, "witnesses" say, "God's shoulders began to shake, and he wept."[73]
I would now like to offer a summary of the history behind verses 55-64, one that many scholars would find agreement. In the last period when Jesus was active in Jerusalem, a Sanhedrin was called together to discuss what to do about him. During this session, they discussed the threat he presented to the Temple. This was not a courtroom trial in the technical sense of Jesus being present; but some testified to the kinds of things he said and stood for, and there was a decision that they needed to have him put to death. There is never a suggestion in the Gospels that the Jewish authorities thought of executing him themselves; they remember them only as planning to catch or arrest him without causing a disturbance. From the Gospel unanimity, eventually they gave Jesus over to the Roman governor, without a hint that his was a change of plan, we have every reason to believe that the pre-Gospel tradition envisioned this outcome from the beginning. Finally, through the help of Judas, his opponents seized Jesus in a secluded spot on the Mount of Olives and brought him to the palace of the high priest. The tradition remembers that Jesus’ disciples did not accompany him to lend support in this dark hour. Thus, in the tradition Jesus was a solitary figure throughout the rest of his passion. Whether or not in the pre-Gospel tradition other Sanhedrin members were present is not clear; but there is unanimity that some of them joined the high priest I the morning, taking Jesus to Pilate to press the Roman governor to put Jesus to death.
Fulfilling the pattern to which Jesus referred in 23:33-36 of how religious leaders treated prophets, in verses 67-8 is the ill-treatment of Jesus[74] as the religious leaders spat in his face and struck him. Some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah (Χριστέ)! Who is it that struck you?” Concerning the Jewish abuse and mockery of Jesus, there may lay a slapping or beating of Jesus by one or more attendants in the aftermath of his interrogation by the high priest the night of his arrest. In Deut 13: 5-6, the probability is that Jewish religious leaders suspected Jesus of being a deceiver who was leading people astray from traditional divine revelation, and therefore deserving of death. They did not enact judicial murder out of personal dislike of Jesus. They acted in good faith in regarding Jesus as a deceiver who was seducing the people into apostasy from the God of Israel along the lines expressed here. Justin still has awareness of this decisive accusation in Dialogue with Tryphyo, 69.7 and 108.1.[75]
26:69-75 Denial by Peter (Mk)
Matthew 26:69-75 (Mark 14.66-72; Lk 22.54-62; Jn 18.15-18, 25-27) is the biographical story of the Peter’s denial.[76] This fulfills the word of Jesus (26:34). Jesus becomes an example to inspire the whole community, while Peter is an example to warn them. Peter’s denial of Jesus is his darkest moment as a disciple. Part of what makes Peter’s denials so poignant is his staunch vow to stand beside Jesus even if all the others fail him. The threefold nature of Peter’s approaching denial finds its parallel in the failure of Peter, James, and John in the Garden of Gethsemane. Unable to understand Jesus’ agony or assuage his fears, Peter, James, and John simply succumb to post-meal, long-day exhaustion. We can note a woeful difference between the kinds of following Peter does now, compared to his initial, enthusiastic response to follow in Mark 1:18=Matthew 4:20. Above Peter, in the rooms of the high priest, Jesus is on trial for his life. The accusers of Jesus disintegrate into a vengeful, riotous mob.
Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. A servant-girl came to him and said he was with Jesus the Galilean. Reference to Jesus as “Galilean” may suggest a potential revolutionary.
However, he denied it before all of them, saying that he did not know what she was talking about. When he went out to the porch, another servant-girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders that Peter was with Jesus of Nazareth, but Peter denied it with an oath that he did not know Jesus. A little later, the bystanders approached Jesus and said that he was one of them with Jesus, since his accent betrays him. Then Peter began to curse, and swore an oath that he did not know Jesus. In direct opposition to Jesus’ own teaching, Matthew has Peter take an oath. Peter withdraws from any association with Jesus. Peter’s third and final denial is the most damning. To invoke a curse on himself meant Peter invites destruction upon himself if his statement is not true. Thus, in this third denial, Peter does not just intentionally offend Jesus; he intentionally offends God. At that moment the cock crowed. In verse 75, Peter remembered what Jesus had said: Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times. The approach of dawn, though for Peter the night’s end does not mean daybreak. It means heartbreak. Peter’s own Gethsemane occurs at the edge of the high priest’s courtyard in the chilly morning light. And he went out and wept bitterly.
Some denial from the man Jesus once called "The Rock." Surely, Jesus meant that nickname as a joke. We love Peter for that because many times our brash declarations of faith are also a joke.
Some polls suggest our greatest fear is the fear of failure, then the fear of loneliness, and only then is death listed. We are so afraid to fail that we retreat and do nothing. We have had our own failure and denial, our own courtyard experience. There is an encouragement here. The disciples failed. The leader of the disciples failed miserably. If people like that fail, there is comfort to us. After all, Jesus renewed his fellowship with them. In our darkest spiritual moment, Jesus is willing to renew our fellowship with him.
Really, this story is as old as the Garden of Eden. Someone asked one preacher the geographical question of where the Garden of Eden was. He responded, "215 South Elm Street in Knoxville." The person thought he was joking, but he really was not. He said it was there that he first stole a quarter out of his mother's purse and went down to the store and bought some candy and ate it, and then was so ashamed that he came back home and hid in the closet. It was there that mom found him and asked, "Why are you hiding? What have you done?" He then challenged his listeners to locate our own Eden. What happened to Adam and Eve is the story of us all.
The story of Adam and Eve certainly became alive again for Peter on that dark, cold night, as he comforted himself and denied Jesus. Our experience of life confronts us with our own dark side. That time when we betrayed our highest ideals and discovered that there was a shadow side within us. Has that rooster crowed for you and for me? Have we experienced our own darkness? Alternatively, are we still making excuses?
The impact of the story of the denial by Peter had on the early church suggests their effectiveness. They capture the imagination. For example, they may have been very useful for Christian exhortation after Peter died the death of a martyr in the mid-60s, thus eventually giving witness to taking up the cross to follow Jesus. Yet inevitably, during the persecution, many Christians were not that brave, and both I Clement 5 and Tacitus suggest that in the persecution by Nero in which Peter died some Christians denounced others to the Romans. Was all hope lost for those who failed and denied Christ? A Peter who had once denied and later borne witness could constitute an encouragement that repentance and a second chance were possible. For that reason, it may have been important to underline the seriousness of what Peter had done. Before his arrest Jesus had warned his disciples, “Keep on praying lest you enter into trial” precisely because they were not sufficiently strong.
On New Year's Day, 1929, Georgia Tech played UCLA in the Rose Bowl. In that game, a man named Roy Riggles recovered a fumble for California. Somehow, Riggles became confused and ran 65 yards in the wrong direction. One of his teammates, Benny Lom, outdistanced him and tackled him before he scored for the opposing team. When California attempted to punt, Tech blocked the kick, which was the ultimate margin of victory. All of this happened in the first half. When they went to locker room, everyone wondered what the coach would say. Riggles put a towel around his head and cried. The coach said nothing until three minutes before half time was over. "Men, the same team that played the first half, will start the second." Everyone got up to play, except Riggles. He declared he could not go back to the field. He had ruined the coach and the university and himself. He could not face the crowd. The coach said, "Roy, get up and go on back. The game is only half over." Though Riggles went on to play a great second half, the team lost. What we need is someone to tell us that when we make a mistake, the game is only half over.[77]
All the disciples abandoned Jesus. Two disciples betrayed him. Judas boldly went to the religious leaders, threw the money down, while Peter went out and wept silently. With Judas, the act was premeditated, calculated, even paid for. Peter's was a cowardly, spontaneous burst of emotion that profited him nothing. Judas was overcome with guilt and envisioned a Jesus who was wrathful, judgmental who would declare him to be cursed since he betrayed an innocent person. Judas blocked out Jesus' forgiving nature. He cut himself off from the healing capabilities of God's grace and, in agonizing fit of self-judgment, hanged himself. Peter must have heard himself say he would be willing to die with Jesus. He replayed the denials. Yet, he also could remember the words of Jesus that on Peter Jesus would build the church. He received a new name. Whatever Peter had just done, Jesus had assured him of a future. Judas never bothered to check the back door of grace.
Handed over to Gentiles and Condemnation to Death
27:1-2 Jesus delivered to Pilate
Matthew 27:1-2 (Mark 15.1; Lk 23.1; Jn 18.28) is the story of Jesus delivered to Pilate.[78] The text is an immediate continuation of the account in 26:66-68. Since Jesus did not die by stoning, which would have been allowed for an official act of the Sanhedrin, but by crucifixion, which only Roman authorities could do, the sequence of events here is consistent with what we know of the practice of the time. However, despite the desire to show Pilate in a good light, which is contrary to what we know of him historically, thereby distancing Roman responsibility for the death of Jesus and lessen Roman suspicion of first century Christians, Pilate would not hesitate long in complying with the religious leaders in having him crucified.[79] Jesus becomes a victim, in the same sense in which all of us are victims. People reject him. He receives an unfair trial. Jesus is low-status provincial for whom it would be difficult to have a fair trial, given the alliances formed against him. Events develop beyond his ability to control. Every human being has felt the pain of suffering at the hands of others. Yet, in his suffering, Jesus remained loyal to God. Victor Frankel famously wrote that human beings could survive the worst of conditions if they know the meaning contained in one’s life. One who has a why to live for can bear almost any how one must endure. The story of the last hours of the life of Jesus shows us that Jesus remained focused on the “why” of his life. Thus, when morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus to bring about his death. They bound him, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate the governor, the same term used in 2:6 to tell the magi that a ruler shall arise out of Bethlehem, referring to where Jesus was born. It would be a reasonable conclusion that the Herodian Palace on the western hill was the dwelling place of Pilate and other prefects, as over against the Fortress Antonia. The limited NT evidence suggests the same place where Pilate and Jesus meet. What the Gospels narrate has the goal of dramatizing the religious meaning of the condemnation of Jesus. No legal details of Pilate’s trial of Jesus are in reported. This is like what Josephus says about Roman trials. A general principle of maintaining order in a subject province rather than a specific law may have governed the treatment of a noncitizen such as Jesus.
27:3-10 Death of Judas (new episode introduced by Matthew)
Matthew 27:3-10 (a new episode introduced by Matthew, compare Acts 1:18-20; Papias) is the story of the death of Judas, built upon Old Testament references.[80] In 26:24, Jesus pronounces a woe upon the one who betrays a person like him, for it would be better for that person not to have been born. This story fulfills that word from Jesus. When Judas, the one among the disciples to betray Jesus, saw that the religious leaders condemned Jesus, he repented. He brought back the 30 pieces of silver to the religious leaders, telling them that he has sinned by betraying innocent blood. However, they told Judas that it means nothing to them, and he is to see to the matter himself. He then threw down the 30 pieces of silver in the Temple and left. He hung himself, just as Ahithophel did after he betrayed David in II Sam. 17:23. The fate of Judas in his remorse stands in sharp contrast to that of Peter in his remorse. Matthew suggests that the one who wants to make amends may do so. The religious leaders took the pieces of silver and, since it had been cast into the temple and thus transferred to it,[81] but they could not put the money into the temple treasury because it was blood money. Typical of casuistry, they are selective in the parts of the law they will take seriously. They used the money to buy the potter’s field as a place to bury foreigners, an unclean place set aside for unclean Gentiles.[82] This is why it is called Field of Blood to this day. This fulfilled Jeremiah 32:6-15, where the prophet bought a field from his cousin in the land of Benjamin for 17 pieces of silver and in 18:2-3 Jeremiah journeyed to the potter, Matthew applying all this to Judas in Zech 11:12-13, which has the prophet receiving the wages of 30 pieces of silver and puts it in the treasury. Potter’s Field is just one Hebrew letter different from blood. The Old Testament background of this text suggests to most scholars that the story has its source in reflection upon them. This text illustrates how legend was already coming into being.
27:11-23 Jesus before Pilate the choice of Barabbas (Mk)
Matthew 27:11-23 (Mark 15:2-14, Luke 23:2-5, 13-24, John 18:29-38a, 39-40) is the story of Jesus before Pilate and the choice for Barabbas.[83] The description is from the standpoint that Jesus was executed for his Messianic claims. The hierarchy of religious and political leaders would have had to advance a proper accusation against Jesus. Matthew and Mark differ significantly here. The hearing before Pilate has undergone considerable elaboration. Jesus stood before the governor, Matthew uniquely provided the official title, and Pilate asked him if he was King of the Jews (Βασιλεὺςτῶν Ἰουδαίων)?” The story Matthew is telling began with the gentile magi arriving in Jerusalem and asking where the King of the Jews was to be born. Pilate is asking if Jesus is leader of a resistance movement, of which there were several in the early part of the century. What evidence do we have in the Gospel narratives that Jesus thought of himself as king? The basis of the accusation is the inscription on the cross. The charge on which they interrogated, condemned, and crucified Jesus concerned a pretension to be the king of the Jews, a title derived from that period in the 2nd and 1st century BC when Jewish kings ruled in Judea. Pilate sentenced Jesus to die on the cross on this charge. The writers are interested in making that dramatically effective as a vehicle of proclaiming who Jesus is, not in telling readers how Pilate got his information, why he phrased it as he did, or with what legal formalities he conducted the trial. Jesus said in verse 11, You say so. The evasiveness and ambiguity of the saying suggests an authentic word from Jesus.[84] However, he gave no answer when the chief priests and elders accused him of the claim. Pilate then asked if he heard the many accusations made against him. Jesus still gave no answer. The governor was amazed. Much depends on whether one regards the Jewish charges that Jesus strove for political power and incited people to rebellion is credible, or whether the Christian tradition is valid is seeing this as misrepresentation. Given that Jesus accepted the taxation authority of Rome (Mark 12:13-17), Jesus rejected the path of revolution, based upon the idea that God has granted Rome authority for a brief period, and it was up to the people of God not to disobey the will of God, which any political resistance would entail.[85]
Matthew has consciously expanded the contrast with Barabbas. At the festival of the Passover, the governor was accustomed to release a prisoner whom the crowd wanted. Josephus, in Antiquities 20:208-09, 215, has such an incident of release of a prisoner, as does the Mishnah in Pesahim 8:6a. A notorious prisoner, a bandit or terrorist in Roman eyes, Jesus whose surname added by Matthew was Barabbas. After gathering the crowd, Pilate asked them a series of questions to gauge how much support he had and the degree of danger he presented. He asked whom they want him to release for them, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah (Χριστόν)? Pilate understood that it was out of jealousy that the religious leaders handed over Jesus to him.
Matthew uniquely has in verse 19 the wife of Pilate sending word to him while he is sitting on the judgment seat, urging him not to have anything to do with the innocent man, for she suffered a great deal today from a dream about him.[86] The omen of the governor’s wife heightens the tension. The ray of hope is the sympathetic response of a gentile woman to a dream. As Matthew showed with the story of the dream Joseph had in Chapter 2, dreams could denote intervention from God. However, Pilate will not listen to what God was saying in the dream. As with the religious leaders, there is a hardness of heart in Pilate that is not open to doing what is right.
The religious leaders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed. Matthew is stressing that all the people shout for crucifixion of Jesus. This observation is part of a general tendency within the gospel tradition to absolve the Romans of guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus. Thus, when the governor asked again which of the two the crowd wanted released, they said Barabbas. He asked the crowd what he should do with Jesus who is called the Messiah (Χριστόν)?” They want him crucified. He asked why, for what evil has he done? The prefect recognized that this was not the authentic basis for the antagonism toward Jesus on the part of the Jewish authorities. However, they shouted even more that they wanted him crucified. Matthew makes the either/or choice clear several times between Jesus, son of Abbas, or Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph. Rather than focusing on the suffering Jesus endured, the focus shifts to the incomprehensible choice made by the blind people of the covenant. The authorities arrested the “son of Abba,” with the personal name of Jesus, during a riot in Jerusalem. Pilate spared his life. Pilate may have extended clemency to Barabbas because there was a set custom of releasing a prisoner during Passover. This release struck Christians as ironic: The same legal issue was involved, sedition against the authority of the emperor. Although they knew Jesus was innocent, Pilate found him guilty, while he let Barabbas go free.
27:24-26 Pilate handing Jesus over for crucifixion (Mk)
Matthew 27: 24-26 (Mark 15:14, Luke 23:25, John 19:16) is the story of Pilate handing Jesus over for crucifixion. Pilate sees he could do nothing, for a riot was beginning. He took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, telling them he is innocent of the blood of this man, so they can see to it themselves.[87] He adopts this for cultic and figurative custom to shift guilt before God from himself to the people.[88] The psalmist washes his hands in innocence, asking he not be swept away with sinners and the bloodthirsty (26:6-10). An interesting legal parallel to this act is in Deut 21:1-9, dealing with discovery of a dead body nearest a town, where the elders are to sacrifice a heifer near running water, wash their hands in the water, and declare that their hands have not shed this blood and were not witness to it, asking the Lord not to let the guilt of innocent blood remain amid Israel, absolving them of bloodguilt, purging the guilt of innocent blood from among them, for they must do what is right in the sight of the Lord. The point is not declaring Jesus innocent, but offloading responsibility for the death of Jesus to the crowd. The people responded that his blood could be on them and their children. In 26:28, Jesus said that the wine of the Supper was the blood of the covenant that is poured out for all for the forgiveness of sins. The crowd means something quite different by their reference to the blood of Jesus. The phrasing is like Old Testament texts. Those who curse their parents shall die, and their blood shall be upon their own heads (Lev 20:9). To the killer of Saul, David said your blood be upon your own head (II Sam 1:16). One who murders shall die, and his blood shall be upon his own head (Ezek 18:10-13). Matthew has in mind the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem as the just punishment for this portion of the Jewish people. Yet, later Christian generations made this statement apply to Jews throughout history, an interpretation that has caused great pain in their relationship. We cannot speak of a guilt of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus, despite attempts to twist verse 25. This view was never a biblical or theological argument, but always reflected the anti-Semitism that was part of Hellenistic and Roman culture, which the Middle-Ages inherited, and which modern nation-states have continued, and which is evident in political movements and the Middle East today. Even if in the debates about the release of a condemned person the crowd did utter this terrible curse, is God going to hold the crowd and the whole people to it?[89] Pilate and the religious leaders in Jerusalem are responsible are responsible for the dead of Jesus, this specific crowd not representing all Jews of all time, remembering that the for first decade after his death it was Jews who accepted Jesus as their Messiah and coming Son of Man. Pilate released Barabbas. He had Jesus flogged. He then handed Jesus over to be crucified. Under orchestrated pressure, Pilate yielded to the will of the Jewish authorities rather than have public trouble over an issue in which he had little interest.
He died according to scripture
Reflection
Jesus was falsely accused of fake capital crimes that resulted in a very real, awful, capital crime committed against him, a crime that changed the world — forever. When people withhold testimony, when others give false testimony, and when no one brings corroborating evidence, authorities have committed a crime. This was no injustice. This was a crime. Yet, this crime is precisely what God used to continuing bringing the rule of God into the world through the witness of those who continued to live in fellowship with Jesus.
In Matthew 27:32-54, Jesus dies. It was a small event. Just another execution, a diversion for the people, entertainment for an afternoon. He died and nothing changed. It was a small victory for Roman rulers. One suspected revolutionary was dead. It was a small victory for the religious establishment. One who blasphemed the Temple is dead. Of course, it was a sizable tragedy for his followers. However, his death was barely a blip, quite forgettable, quite unremarkable, quite unexceptional. Certainly not what sociologists might describe as a generational defining moment. Of course, tragic deaths always leave scars that are profoundly personal. Sociologists will tell us that a defining moment or event can shape an entire generation. So, what of Jesus' generation? When Jesus died, his generation was not defined. When Jesus died, except for some women at the foot of the cross, no one mourned. No one knew this death was exceptional. There was no press report. No news briefing. No shocked nation. Few took notice of another Jew's execution.
Jesus did change the course of history, that we now realize. But at the time, who knew? Who cared? The disciples did not know. They had fled and returned to their former occupations, hauling nets, collecting taxes, pounding nails, trying to forget, trying to blend in, trying to hide. Religious leaders did not know. Many rejoiced that an agitating rabble-rouser was eliminated. They were anxious to get on with Passover. The political leaders did not know. They just wanted to get rid of that troublemaker and keep peace in an unimportant Roman province. "Keep the peace" equaled "keep their jobs." The people did not know. They were thoroughly disillusioned. The soldiers did not know. They gambled for his clothes. The thief beside him did not know. He taunted Jesus as he hung dying on the cross.
Do we know? Do we understand choosing the cross can be for us the defining moment of our spiritual lives? Have we encountered Christ in a way that affirms that Jesus was not just a good man, not just someone who showed us how to love one another, but as the Savior who died on this day, Good Friday, in a specific time and place, died for the sins of the world?
We will have no deep understanding of Christianity without reflecting upon the Cross. Yet, the cross and resurrection have a close bond in the gospel accounts. It seems consistent with the thought that one builds real hope on the far side of despair.[90] Such joining of them is chronological in that occur close in time. Yet, the joining is also theological. Paul will not refer to death, cross, death on the cross, or word of the cross without implying resurrection. He will refer to resurrection, glory, or splendor of the Father in a way that includes the death in shame that precedes it.[91]Throughout the story of the trial and crucifixion, we see humanity at its worst. Yet, from the standpoint of the word of resurrection, we see the excellence, glory, and beauty of the act of God. From the standpoint of resurrection, the cross removes any impediments that would hinder us from having anything but the enjoyment of such self-giving love now and forever. Our understanding of the atonement needs to prepare us to be ready for that intimacy.[92] From the standpoint of resurrection, the cross is a splendid theater of the incomparable goodness of God. The glory of God shines forth from the cross. Of course, if we have eyes to see, we will see the glory of God in all things God has made. Yet, it shines brightly in the cross, at least from the standpoint of resurrection. We see the sin of humanity, but we also see God blotting out that sin and redeeming humanity.[93]
The Christian doctrine of sin arises out of reflection upon what the cross says about us. It frees us from delusion about our perfectible. We are still active in improving self and world, but we acknowledge that our expectations should be modest. In fact, modesty in expectations is a sign that we have awakened from the dream of perfection. We believe in redemption, but we do not believe in flawlessness. Thus, the point of this teaching is not total depravity, basic wickedness of humanity, or an incapacity for goodness in humanity. Rather, it teaches us that sin and evil are unnatural, a disorder, and a perversion. We are creations of a good God. What has perverted itself can also experience the miracle of redemption.[94]
Sin shows itself in the fact that we are self-deceiving people who find it difficult to tell the truth about ourselves. In the cross, we see a mirror of who we are. On this day, God tells us the truth about ourselves, the whole truth. We deceive others God sent God’s only Son to us, to embrace us, to show us the way, and we responded with, “Crucify him!” Today is a day for honesty, honesty made possible through the crucified one who says, even from the cross, “I love you still.” We believe in our basic goodness. We do the best we can. We present a well-polished face to others. Such efforts to deceive others are a reflection of what we have deluded ourselves into thinking we are.[95] Our sin is more incurable because we do not view ourselves as sinners.[96] Our inclination is toward hypocrisy, which is an empty image of righteousness. We will not have clear knowledge of self until we see the meaning of the cross.[97] We learn something else as we ponder the cross. We come upon a great irony of self-deception. Self-deception often arises out of our desire to be good and moral people. People who take their moral commitments seriously are the one who appear to be most prone to deceive themselves about their moral commitments.
In the movie Schindler's List, I thought that the most horrifying episode was the scene toward the beginning of the movie when they were bringing Polish Jews into the concentration camp. They lined people up, and made them stand in rows before clerical, accountant people who, with typewriters before them, registered the prisoners. It was so horrifying because it was so ordinary. They were just doing their jobs, just typing in information on government forms. They just registered people for their certain deaths in the camp. It was one thing to see evil done by the soldiers, the guards at the camp. However, it was quite another thing to see evil done by ordinary, everyday people sitting before typewriters.
We rightly ponder the goodness and perversity of humanity. Robert Jay Lifton suggests an answer with the concept of doubling - that is, a division of the self into two functioning wholes, each of which acts as an entire self. Although there are some similarities between doubling and multiple personality disorder, doubling is a milder psychological condition that permits an otherwise well-integrated person with a conscience to engage in heinous criminal activity. It permits an individual to engage in evil with- out violating his or her conscience.
Lifton developed the concept of doubling in connection with a study of the doctors who worked for Himmler's SS during the Second World War. These physicians engaged in medical experiments sponsored by the Nazis for ideological and military purposes. Among their other responsibilities, these doctors also had to make determinations about which of the Jewish prisoners arriving at the death camps would be assigned to work programs and which would be consigned to the gas chambers. The doctors supervised the mass executions, and in some cases personally executed individuals with lethal injections. What began as a racial eugenics program involving sterilization procedures in 1933 progressed to a program of euthanasia in 1939 and eventually became the "Final Solution" for the racial and political undesirable. The doctors conveniently erased the border between healing and killing. Lifton calls it the "healing-killing paradox."
One important strategy that these medical people employed to carry on with their tortures was "technicizing" - that is, translating all their activities into technical tasks that could be measured by ordinary standards of efficiency. One SS doctor told Lifton, "Ethics was not a word used in Auschwitz. Doctors and others spoke only about how to do things most efficiently, about what worked best." They managed to adopt this strategy not by eliminating their consciences as such but rather by transferring them to the state. They subjected their consciences to Auschwitz criteria for what is good: duty to the fatherland, loyalty to their professional colleagues, improvement of living conditions at the death camps, and efficiency of operations. They subordinated the deaths of millions of innocent people to these ends, thereby freeing the consciences of their original selves.
Elsewhere in their lives, these medical people were living family members, responsible in their community, supportive of culture, appreciative of music and opera. They were the pillars of society, the ostensible shepherd of our civilization.[98]
Texts
27:27-31 Jesus mocked by soldiers (Mk)
Matthew 27:27-31 (Mark 15.16-20) is the story of Jesus mocked by soldiers.[99] Matthew follows Mark closely. The soldiers of the governor took Jesus to his headquarters, the former palace of King Herod the Great in the west quarter of the city, gathering a cohort around him. Stripping him, putting a scarlet robe on robe on him, the cloak of a Roman soldier was red, the text influenced by Zech 6:11, twisting some thorns into a crown, putting it on his head. The crown was a mocking imitation of the royal crown worn by vassals of Rome designed to throw scorn on Jesus.[100] They put a reed in his right hand, knelt before him, and mocked him by saying, “Hail, King of the Jews (Βασιλεῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων)!” Mocking after the trial by Jewish religious leaders, concerned Jesus as prophet is here combined with the pollical dimension of the condemnation of Jesus. In the time of this text, believers could think of Jesus as a king, even though during his life he had no such aspirations. Scripture and standard protocol that goes with investing royalty suggested the theater and details. They spat on him, took the reed, and struck him on the head, mocked him, and stripped him of the robe, putting his own clothes upon him. They led him away for crucifixion. Christian charges of deicide against the Jewish people as a seal of its definitive rejection by God ought never to have arisen. The churches have rightly distanced themselves from them, even if too late, but with an expression of shame at the long and painful history of Christian relations to the Jewish people. Charges of this kind have poisoned such relations.[101]
27:32-44 Crucifixion and mocking
Matthew 27:32-44 (Mark 15.21-32; Lk 23.26-43; Jn 19.16b-27) is the story of Jesus crucified and mocked from the cross.[102] Two psalms of lament, 22 and 69, concern the suffering and vindication of a righteous person, are used throughout this story. As they went toward the cross, Simon, who was from Cyrene, happened to be along the way, so they compelled him to carry the cross of Jesus, which Jesus had bid his followers to do (16:24). Matthew has a shorter reference than what we find in Mark. Some believe that the anomaly of one person carrying another’s cross increases the odds that Simon was a historical figure. The Gospel of Peter does not mention it, and John 19:17 says that Jesus carried his own cross. This part of the story provides the name of one eyewitness of the way of the cross for Jesus.[103] When they came to Golgotha, which means Place of a Skull, the traditional site being authentic. Some present offered him wine, mixed with gall, [104] but when he tasted it, he would not drink. This was a narcotic that Jesus denies himself. The story reflects Psalm 69:21b, where enemies offer him vinegar to drink when he is thirsty. The surprise is that Roman officers offer wine, for in the background are family, friends, or pious helpers. For Matthew the offer of wine is another test that Jesus must endure. The just man is abused by his enemies. Recent excavations suggest that crucifixion was done with an upright pole remaining in the place of crucifixion, and the nails driven between wrists and one in ankles. The practice began with the Persians, Hellenistic world, and Carthaginians. With Rome, it was primarily a punishment applied to the lower classes, slaves, and foreigners. As Roman armies began to interfere in Judea, crucifixion of Jews became a matter of policy, e.g., the governor of Syria crucified 2000 Jews in 4 BC. In the first century, Jesus is the first Jew whom we know the Romans to have crucified. Otherwise, Josephus records no crucifixions of Jews during the first part of the Roman prefecture in Judea, AD 6-40, though there are many in 44-60. The cross may have been 7 feet high. As we find in Ps 22:18, they divided his clothes among themselves by casting lots, the evidence favoring complete nudity on the cross. They sat down near the cross and kept watch over him. They put the charge against him over his head: “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews (ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ).” If the Romans intended crucifixion to deter crime, it would be useful to have the specificity of the crime publicized. This was a public event, and anyone could read it. It stamps Jesus as politically suspect.
In verses 38-44, three groups mock this king. Two bandits were crucified with him, one to his right and the other to his left. Like the suffering servant, they made his grave with the wicked and he was numbered among the transgressors (Isa 53:9, 12). Their presence illustrates the indignity to which crucifixion subjected the innocent Jesus. As in Ps 22:7, those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads, while in Lam 2:15, those who pass along the way his and wag their heads at daughter Jerusalem, and saying that Jesus said he would destroy the Temple and built it in three days, so maybe he should save himself. Like Satan in the story of the temptation (4:1-11), they challenge Jesus with the words, If he is the Son of God (Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ) he should come down from the cross. The religious leaders mocked him by saying that he saved others, but he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel (Βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ), so let him come down from the cross and then they will believe him. Here is the only place in the synoptic gospels where the context provides the object of faith as being Jesus as the Christ.[105] As in Ps 22:18, he trusts in God, so let God deliver him now, if God wants to, for Jesus said, I am God’s Son. In Wisdom 2:18, if the upright man is God's son, God will help him and rescue him from the clutches of his enemies. Crucifixion was a public event producing a chastening effect on observers, and so we can be certain that there were people around the cross of Jesus. The most certain to have been present are the soldiers, as well as passersby, and members of the Sanhedrin who had promoted the death of Jesus.[106] Because of the arrogance of making himself equal to God, he was put to death. Death exposed his finitude as distinct from his alleged equality with God. It was a punishment for the sinner and his delusion of being the equal to God. It showed his finitude. The light of his resurrection revealed that he had not deserved the death of a sinner. This means that in truth he suffered in our place as sinners. He suffered a fate he did not deserve, even while those who killed him deserved such a death.[107] The bandits crucified with him also taunted him. Because of the supposed arrogance of making himself equal to God, Jewish authorities wanted him put to death. Death exposed his finitude as distinct from his alleged equality with God. It was a punishment for the sinner and his delusion of being the equal to God. It showed his finitude. The light of his resurrection revealed that he had not deserved the death of a sinner. This means that in truth he suffered in our place as sinners. He suffered a fate he did not deserve, even while those who killed him deserved such a death.[108]
Matthew sees Jesus here as the righteous sufferer mocked by the world. With his entire life, he has done precisely what scorn is heaped on him for: he has trusted in God, thus keeping the first commandment. That he does so even more fully in his death those who mock him do not understand. They refuse to trust in God; therefore, they demand proof from God, and demand to have it now, that is, when they find it necessary. Therefore, they are blind to the fact that in this very place and at this very moment, when they think God is absent, he is present.
27:45-54 Last words of Jesus and his death (Mk)
Matthew 27:45-54 (Mark 15.33-41; Lk 23.44-49; Jn 19.28-30) is the story of the last words of Jesus and his death.[109] Beginning at no one, darkness came over the entire land until 3 PM, when in verse 46 Jesus cried out with a loud voice, Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? This is Aramaic, referring to Psalm 22:1, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?[110] Jesus was fond of praying the words of the Psalter. He may well have either prayed the entire psalm or assumed that others would understand this. Given the offence of the prayer to the development of Christology, it is difficult to explain apart from Jesus saying them.[111] Some of the bystanders thought he was calling for Elijah. Another got a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and gave it to him as a drink. Other said to wait to see if Elijah would save him. Jesus cried out with a loud voice and breathed his last.
As to the physical reasons for the death of Jesus, no evidence exists that the evangelists personally knew anything about that matter. One could carry out such discussion of it simply by employing the best of medical knowledge to determine how any crucified person is likely to have died. The recent study by Zugibe, a medical examiner and pathologist, comes close to that goal. He has challenged the asphyxia theory of LeBec, Barbet, and others by contending that the experiments on which they drew consisted of men hung with their hands directly over their heads. He has conducted experiments with volunteers whose arms in simulated crucifixion spread out at an angle of 60 or 70 degrees to the trunk of the body, and no asphyxia resulted. He contends that shock brought on by dehydration and loss of blood is the only plausible medical explanation for the death of the crucified Jesus. Obviously, the various medical commentators have reached no certitude; and while experiments in actual crucifixion may be the only way to come to higher probability, we trust that this barbarism is now safely confined to the past.
At this point in the story of Jesus, we need to ponder the silence of the Father in the suffering of the Son. The nature of divine action can be difficult to express. The problem arises in part because of the silence of God while creation and human history is so full of suffering. The silence of God in the presence of so much evil and suffering always makes the denial of the lordship of God over creation a possibility. The absurdity of suffering and wickedness provide material enough for atheism when it comes to the postulate of a loving and wise Creator. The primary reason for this is the silence of Father in the presence of so much suffering. The debatable quality of the affirmation of the reality of God is something any theology must maintain throughout its presentation. Yet, human beings show a capacity for wanting to hear a divine word in the presence of so much suffering. Such a divine word would need to come in a unique revelatory moment in history. If we cannot locate a divine word in history, then we must reckon with the divine silence over human life and history. The cross is a reminder that we may hear only silence.[112] The crucifixion alone writes a human “No” over the life of Jesus. Since he spoke of the nearness of God, the crucifixion offers a “No” from God. The silence of God is deafening in the crucifixion. In fact, a struggle all religions have is what they do with the silence of the divine while humanity suffers. Jesus is one more human being who suffers profoundly while hearing the silence of God. The silence of the Father as Jesus suffers upon the cross is deafening. It brings the deity of the Father and the power of the life-giving Spirit into question. The silence of the Father at this moment in the life of Jesus is a parable of the silence of the Father to all human suffering. In many ways, suffering reminds us that we are little more than small, trembling, and weak animals that decay and die. For me as a follower of Jesus, the whole story of Jesus, which includes resurrection and the gift of the Spirit, shows us that God brings good out of evil. If God has a reality that means anything, God must be able to do that. The various interpretations of the cross are all attempts to show how God brings good out of evil. They have their basis in resurrection. Yet, we must not go there too rapidly. We need to face the painful reality that the cross of Jesus discloses. If we carefully consider the cross of Jesus of Nazareth in its historical reality, we see a major objection to the reality of God. One who dedicated his life to his heavenly Father faces opposition, trial, torture, and a cruel end of his life. Given the way Jesus lived his life, the cruelest aspect of the end of his life was the silence of God. God appears to have forsaken him in that moment. Jesus affirms that God has abandoned him. The cross invites us to ponder a painful reality. Death could bring only silence, emptiness, nothingness, and loss.
What does it mean that Jesus died for us? You know the story. Religious people abandoned him. Civil authorities abandoned him. The disciples abandoned him. God abandoned him, even while he yet believed in God. Why? The cross becomes the symbol of divine love. God is not simply fond of humanity. God has come to meet us under the burden and weight of all our sin and suffering in order to be there. The cross is the price God paid by entering human life and history in order to give humanity the pledge of victory. Such an act is genuine love.[113]
There is a story of an old man in India. He sat down in the shade of an ancient banyan tree. Its roots stretched far into the swamp. It was not long until he noticed a commotion where the roots entered the water. Concentrating his attention, he saw that a scorpion had become helplessly entangled in the roots. He reached down to set the scorpion free. Nevertheless, each time he touched the scorpion, it would lash his hand with its tail, stinging him painfully. Finally, his hand was so swollen he could no longer close his fingers, so he withdrew to the shade of the tree to wait for the swelling to go down. When he sat down, a young man was standing above him, laughing at him. "You're a fool," said the young man, "wasting your time trying to help a scorpion that can only do you harm." The old man replied, "Simply because it is in the nature of the scorpion to sting, should I give up my nature, which is to save?" The cross says the nature of God is to save.
The text adds signs following the death of Jesus, offering the effects of the crucifixion. All the phenomena described in the gospels represent a theological interpretation of the import of the death of Jesus, an interpretation in the language and imagery of apocalyptic. Thus, the curtain of the Temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. This was the curtain that divided the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies (Ex 26:31). Following Heb 9:12, 10:20, this event set aside the worship practices of Judaism and opened the way for a new form of worship and relationship to the Father. In words describing the Day of the Lord, the earth shook and the rocks were split (Amos 8:9).
The tombs opened, and many bodies of the saints, unusual in referring to devout people of the old covenant rather than Christians, who had fallen asleep were raised. This wording suggests Ezekiel 37, which symbolizes the spiritual renewal of Israel., and Isa 26:19, where their dead will live and their corpses shall rise, and Dan 12:2, where many asleep in the dust of the earth shall rise to everlasting life. The use of the passive suggests that God is at work. The “saints” would be a substantial number. They wander through the city. This created a problem, for Christ was proclaimed as the first fruit of the resurrection (I Cor 15:20) and first born from the dead (Col 1:18, Rev. 1:5). Matthew now specifies that after the resurrection of Jesus, they came out of the tombs, entered the holy city, and appeared to many. Many theologians of the first centuries thought of this as entering Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:1, 2, 10, 22:19). The story suggests that the resurrection of Jesus was not an isolated event. Thus, this passage reflects the idea that the appearances of Jesus represent the dawn of the time of salvation. It is an earnest of the coming day of God and the beginning of the general resurrection. With the other events on Good Friday, the text reflects the mood of the disciples in that they were witnesses to the dawn of the new age.[114] The story brings out the eschatological significance of the death of Jesus. The end of this age has come, the resurrection of the dead being an integral part of this. Jerusalem is the providential site of the resurrection of the people of God. The relating of the death of Jesus and the raising of the saints presupposes the idea of the descent into Hades and the vanquishing of death, which must yield those whom it holds captive.[115] The eschatological events that have taken place in the death of Jesus are invisible to those who stand there mocking and to the disciples, who are not standing there; here they become visible to everyone as symbols. The resurrection of the upright is a sign of the eschatological era. Death has been robbed of its power.
Matthew and Mark both have the confession of faith by the centurion and those with him who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and all that took place, and were terrified and confessed their faith that truly this mad was the son of God (Θεοῦ Υἱὸς).
27:55-56 Women who witness the crucifixion
In Matthew 27:55-56 (Mark 15:40-41) is the story of the women who witnessed the crucifixion.[116] Many women were present but observing from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee and provided for him: Mary Magdalene (Mark), Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee, James and John. Mark has Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, as well as Salome. Women were part of the gathering of the community by Jesus, and these women had control over their property, so they may have been widows. Jesus was like the rabbis in relying upon his followers for material support. Jesus dissociates himself from the practice of keeping women in seclusion. A rabbinic proverb advised not speaking much with a woman on the street. Given that Jewish principles of evidence present women as invalid, they do not contribute to what some think is an apologetic motive for the empty tomb and the appearances. In rabbinic Judaism, women were incapable of giving valid testimony. In a midrash concerning the promised birth of Samson, Manoah says to an angel that he has heard from the women that he is to have a son, but one cannot rely on the words of women, and he does not trust her words because she may have changed, omitted, or added something (Numbers Rabbah 10). The basis for this is Gen 18:15, where Sarah denied that laughed, expressing her disbelief that she would bear a son, and therefore, women are unable to give testimony before a court (Yalkut Shimoni I, 82. In exceptional cases (Rosh Ha-Shanah 22a) a woman was permitted to give testimony before court that a man had died so that his widow was permitted to marry again. The women go to the tomb to anoint the body, as Jewish custom demanded, shows their frame of mind in going to the tomb.[117] These women follow Jesus and support him. The result of the attitude of Jesus was that women thronged to him. As the Passion Narrative shows, they remained faithful to Jesus to a degree of which the disciples were not capable.[118]
He was Buried
27:57-61 Burial
Matthew 27:57-61 (Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-56, John 19:38-42) is the biographical story of the burial of Jesus.[119] Jewish sensitivity would have wanted the body down before the Sabbath. It shows the faithfulness of this previously unknown disciple, Joseph, and the faithfulness of two women, both contrasting with the twelve, one of whom has betrayed Jesus, and all abandoning Jesus. As evening came, a rich man, Joseph from Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus, asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. In Mark, this man is a respected member of the council who was looking for the coming rule of God, and in Luke, he does not consent to the handing over of Jesus to Pilate. Pilate ordered his guards to allow the body to be given to him. It was unusual for the governor to release the body of a man executed for political reasons.[120]Joseph took the body, wrapped it a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb hewn in the rock. He rolled a large stone at the door of the tomb to keep wild animals from the body and went away. These actions ensure that the burial was an act of piety. Since Jesus was executed as a criminal, his body would have defiled if placed in a tomb with others. The Jewish concern for proper burial is well known in biblical literature.[121] Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, the mother of James and Joses, sat opposite the tomb.[122]
27:62-66 Guards at the tomb (new episode introduced by and unique to Matthew)
Matthew 27:62-66 (a new episode introduced by and is unique to Matthew) is the story of the guard at the grave.[123] Matthew refers to the next day, which would have been the Jewish Sabbath, an unlikely day for a gathering of the religious leaders, and further defines it as after the day of preparation, which refers to Friday as preparation for the Jewish Sabbath. Yet, even with it being the Sabbath, the religious leaders gathered before Pilate, refer to Jesus as an imposter, and told Pilate that he had said after three days he would rise again (ἐγείρομαι). They request Pilate to make the tomb secure, or else the disciples would steal the body and claim that God had raised him from the dead (Ἠγέρθη), and this deception would be the worse than the one presented by Jesus. Pilate secured the tomb with his soldiers. The religious leaders took the guards to the tomb and they sealed the stone to the tomb. An historical fact is that people charged Jesus’ disciples with having stolen. This charge Matthew wants to refute. Non-Christians considered how to account for the empty tomb. They suggested that the body had been stolen. Christians asked themselves how these others could have fallen into such an erroneous assertion and suggested in 28:11-15 that the rumor of the stolen body of Jesus was a malicious rumor by the religious leaders in Jerusalem. The presence of the guards rules out the possibility of theft. This suggestion slowly turned into a rumor.
If there were ever any doubt that God can make use of anything and any situation to accomplish God's intentions for the world, we can simply remember this story. In our times of suffering and passion, we need to learn faithfulness and trust amid the silence of God. The story of Jesus is not over. Our story is not over either. The cross is never the end of the story. Thus, our experience of suffering gives us greater empathy for those who are sick. Our moral failure gives us more compassion for brothers and sisters who fail the moment of their test. Broken relationships make us grateful for the broader Christian community. God is not silent forever. However, God was silent here, in these hours. We need to let that sink into our experience and reflection.
[1] Inspired by Thompson, Derek. "On repeat: Why people watch movies and shows over and over." The Atlantic Monthly Website, theatlantic.com. September 10, 2014.
[2] G.K. Chesterton, “The Red Angel,” in Tremendous Trifles (Dodd, Mead & Co., 1920), 129-130.
[3] Eric Auerbach wrote Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, (pp. 37-38).
[4]
[5]
[6] —Oscar Wilde, from “The Ballad of Reading Gaol.” Full text: https://poets.org/poem/ballad-reading-gaol.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Jesus Seminar considered it fictional to fulfill scripture in Ps 41:9, but the event of betrayal made this scripture real for the disciples.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Schnackenburg: I can find no reason to doubt the historicity of this occasion and the unique interpretation Jesus gives to it.
[18]
[19] Behm, TDNT, III, 736.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] Behm, TDNT, III, 736.
[26]
[27]
[28] Behm, TDNT, III, 736-7.
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34] Stahlin, TDNT, VII, 349.
[35] Inspired by —Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (Random House, 2003), 55.
[36] Inspired by —Henri Nouwen, Bread for the Journey (Zondervan, 2006), 71.
[37]
[38] If one accepts the priority of Mark, Matthew omits the reference to “abba,” probably because it had fallen into disuse in his community.
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42] Rengstorf, TDNT, VI, 695, who mentions that the contrast of flesh and spirit suggests to some scholars that it is not an authentic word of Jesus. However, the usage of the contrast here is not like that of Paul.
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 381.
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53] Bar
[54]
[55] A fundamental issue is the concept of imperium. In the life of Jesus, Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, was tetrarch from 4BC to AD 39 or king in popular parlance. Title of procurator and praefectus. The first part of this surmise has now been confirmed for Pilate by the discovery of an inscription in which he designates himself as praefectus Iudaeae. Their power to capital sentences is in dispute. All mention the Sanhedrin. Our history thus far has portrayed a Gerousia or Sanhedrin in Jerusalem dominated by the chief priests, with other priests, wealthy nobles or elders, and Pharisees. This assembly, administrative and judicial, had responsibility in religious and some secular matters. Before AD 6 the ruler had dealt with and through this body, at times being reproached by it over matters of justice, at times ordering it to accomplish what he wanted. Is there evidence that such a situation continued in the first century AD and thus in Jesus’ time. The situation just described certainly matches the picture given by the NT of the Sanhedrin procedures relating to Jesus, Stephen, and Paul. When we turn to Josephus, we find a similar picture of the Sanhedrin. A minority of scholars would go to the Mishna, though the material comes from a later period. In terms of the Sanhedrin membership and meeting place, the high priest convened Sanhedrin members who were available. Josephus does not invite us to think of a fixed body regularly in session. Still, were there members of the Sanhedrin in the sense of a list of known people who constituted it? Rather than assigned members, we may have to think of the expected attendance of representatives of groups when a Sanhedrin was called. In short, we cannot be sure where the Sanhedrin usually met at the time of Jesus’ death, but a place adjacent to rather than in the Temple may be more correct. What was the dominant influence on a Sanhedrin? In literature written before AD 100, when the Sanhedrin does sentence to death, there is little evidence of court-like procedures to protect the defendant. Nevertheless, as a quasi-legislative and executive body with interests that we would call religious and political hopelessly intertwined, a Sanhedrin when called often acted according to what seemed prudent and expeditious. The Gospels attribute the Sanhedrin action against Jesus to the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes. Some of these scribes would have been Pharisees, learned in traditions that applied the written Law often in more lenient way. Moving beyond these general issues, we encounter the contention that the Sanhedrin would have had to judge capital cases according to Pharisee rules. The theory of Morton Smith explaining this difference has gained considerable following: When Josephus wrote the later work, he was anxious to gain from the Romans a recognition of and commitment to incipient rabbinic authority in Palestine. This was the period after the destruction of Jerusalem during the Jewish Revolt when the rabbinic school at Jamnia was emerging as the major force in Palestinian Jewish life. Since the Pharisees were the intellectual forerunners of the rabbis, and had gained some favor with the Romans, Josephus desired to portray the Pharisees as having been most influential for some two centuries. To return to our survey of Pharisee influence, even at the time of the Jewish Revolt in the late 60s, it is not clear that the Pharisees were a dominant voice, although they were active in political issues, especially in the person of Simon, son of Gamaliel I, who negotiated with the Romans for power. Their dominance in Palestine came only with Yohanan been Zakkai and the movement to Jamnia from Jerusalem; it was the son of Simon, Gamaliel II who became head of the Jamnia academy government, of the thought to have been recognized by the Roman with the proviso that there be no support for subversion. In terms of the trial of Jesus, we need to consider the main conflicts between the Gospel accounts and rabbinic law as found in the Mishna. It is likely that the Jews were not allowed to execute criminals. The procedure of the Jewish authorities in dealing with Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Gospels can scarcely be considered unusual; Josephus describes almost the same procedure thirty years later in dealing with Jesus son of Annanias. In Sanhedrin 43a, ancient Jews thought that their ancestors were involved in an even responsible for the death of Jesus. Celsus and Trypho both admit that Jews participated in the sentencing of Jesus. The Gospels all record such involvement only 30 years after the death of Jesus. Contrary to some modern scholars, one wonders how such a fiction could have been created. When the Jewish, Christian, and pagan evidence is assembled, the involvement of Jews in the death of Jesus approaches certainty. In a case concerning Galileans, Josephus reports that the procurator Tiberius Alexander crucified two sons of Judas, who had led an earlier revolt. In the case of Jesus son of Ananias who cried out against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, Jospehus reports that the Jewish leaders arrested him and handed him over to the procurator Albinus. The first case, which entailed no Jewish legal action against the crucified, exemplifies Roman treatment of political revolutionaries; the second case, which had strong Jewish involvement, exemplifies combined Jewish/Roman treatment of a religious figure who was a public concern. It is no accident that the treatment of Jesus of Nazareth described in the Gospels resembles the second rather than the first. Given the conclusion just reached, the issues of responsibility and guilt are inevitable. Reading the Gospels will convince most that at the least, although troublesome, Jesus was a sincere religious figure who taught truth and helped many, and that therefore crucifying him was a great injustice. Believers in the divinity of Jesus will have a magnified sense of injustice, which at times has been vocalized as deicide. Since by their very nature the Gospels are meant to persuade, the Passion Narrative will arouse resentment toward the perpetrators of the injustice. As for the Roman perpetrators, Rome ceased to function as a world power some fifteen hundred years ago, and so anger toward Pilate for having made a mockery of the vaunted Roman reverence for law and justice has no ongoing effects. Unto this day, however, the Jews as a people and Judaism as a people and Judaism as a religion have survived; and so the observation that factually Jewish authorities and some of the Jerusalem crowds had a role in the execution of Jesus - and execution that Christians and many non-Christians regard as unjust - has had an enduring effect. Note that religious people could have disliked Jesus. In Jesus’ time, such opposition often led to violence. There is plenty of evidence that Jews hated and killed one another over religious issues. The issue is one of responsibility, not guilt. The religious dispute with Jesus was an inner Jewish dispute.
[56] Luke and John have a preliminary hearing before Annas at night, and a solemn session of the Sanhedrin the following morning.
[57]
[58]
[59] To the sparsity of the fewer than thirty references in three hundred years should be added the fact that although Josephus describes all sorts of historical figures, such as prophets, would-be kings, priests, agitators, in the first century, he never calls one of them a Messiah. If we take at face value later rabbinic references, they tell us that Rabbi Aquiba hailed Simon ben Kosiba as the Messiah in 130 AD, but before him in these centuries there seems to be no identifiable Jew hailed a kingly Messiah other than Jesus of Nazareth. There was not a single national expectation of the Messiah.
[60] The basic historical question is: Was Jesus called the Messiah before his resurrection, and if so by whom and with what acceptance by him? I shall mention a number of theories but in evaluating them we must take three points into account. Two of these points are facts; the third is a very strong probability. First fact: after the resurrection of Jesus the followers of Jesus called him the Messiah with astounding frequency. Second fact: the scenes in the Gospels in which anyone addresses or acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah are very few. Complications mar the acceptance of that title by Jesus. Third probability: the Romans crucified Jesus on a charge involving his being or claiming to be the King of the Jews. During the lifetime of Jesus, some of his followers thought him to be the Messiah, that is, the expected anointed king of the House of David who would rule over the people of God. Jesus, confronted with this identification, responded ambivalently because associated with that role were features that he rejected, and also because God had yet to define the role that he would play in the kingdom beyond what he was already doing. Such an indefinite and ambivalent answer could have constituted the basis on which his enemies gave him over to the Romans as would-be king. However, the title of Jesus as Son of God as applied to Jesus before his death is unlikely. It was insight received by his followers with his resurrection.
[61]
[62] J. Schneider, TDNT, V, 465, stressing that Jesus does not make the oath for which the High Priest asked.
[63]
[64] We cannot widely attest to the title outside those circles and hence leaving relatively sparse traces, but an image that could well have appealed to Jesus and his early Christian followers because of their own strong apocalyptic bent. In apocalyptic Jewish circles of the first century AD the portrayal in Daniel 7 had given rise to the picture of a messianic human figure of heavenly preexistent origin whom God glorifies and makes judge. Geza Vermes points to the targumic evidence that “son of man” was used as a circumlocution for “I”. The position of Bultmann, Hahn, Todt, and Fuller, namely, that Jesus did use the title of a future figure who would come to judge but that this figure was not Jesus himself, has lost much of its following.
[65] Hidden behind an attribution to the early church is often the assumption that Jesus had no Christology even by way of reading the Scriptures to discern what anticipated the way he fit into the plan of God. Can one really think that credible? As we reflect upon the historicity of this verse, Jesus could have spoken of “the Son of Man” as his understanding of his role in the plan of God precisely when he faced hostile challenges reflecting the expectations of his contemporaries. Inevitably the Christian record would have crossed the t’s and dotted the I’s of the scriptural background of his words. Even though all of Mk 14:61-62 receives its phrasing in the Christian language of the 60s, there is reason to believe that we may be close to the mindset and style of Jesus himself.
[66]
[67]
[68] Lohse, TDNT, VII, 868.
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73] --Religion News Service, "Satirical paper's serious message," The Washington Post, October 6, 2001, B9.
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77] Haddon W. Robinson, "A Little Phrase for Losers," Christianity Today, October 26, 1992, 11).
[78] Some scholars consider that the idea that all the elders in Jerusalem became involved in a plot against Jesus as an exaggeration. However, we have enough external evidence that it is likely that Jesus was brought to Pilate. Raymond Brown analysis of the story. The different atmosphere in Judea/Palestine between the preAgrippa and postAgrippa periods must be emphasized. Too often the final years before the revolt with their seething discontent and zealot terrorism have been thought characteristic of the earlier period in which Jesus lived. This has facilitated the creation of the myth that Jesus was a political revolutionary, either the Che Guevara type gathering a band of armed followers, or the Gandhi type practicing and encouraging nonviolent resistance. Such an impression has been furthered on the popular level by media hype, since the view of Jesus as an advocate of Jewish or peasant liberation can be presented with enthusiasm and does not require radio, newspaper, or TV presenters to take a stance about Jesus’ religious claims that might offend viewers. There are fourteen times when lestes is used, half of which are in the passion narrative. Barnabas is one, while Jesus says he is not. Of major importance, however, is the fact that we have no evidence in the Roman prefecture of Jesus’ lifetime that lestai were equivalent to revolutionaries. There were charismatic leaders, messiahs, would-be kings, prophets and charlatans, bandits, sicarii, and zealots. Pilate may have had the prefect Sejanus as a patron. If so, he would have been more confident of Rome’s backing in 30-31, who died in 33 because of falling out of favor with the emperor Tiberius. Sejanus may have strongly been antiJewish, as Philo reports. Pilate was involved in 25 with the Iconic Standards, in 39-31 with the issue of coins with pagan cultic symbols, in ? with the Aqueduct riot, in 28-29 with bloodied Galilean sacrifices, in 31 with the Golden shields, and in 36 with a Samaritan prophet. It would be a reasonable conclusion that the Herodian Palace on the western hill was the dwelling place of Pilate and other prefects, as over against the Fortress Antonia. The limited NT evidence suggests the same place where Pilate and Jesus meet. Christian tradition began in the twelfth century as the Fortress Atonia as the place where the trial took place. The archaeological evidence gathered earlier in this century also suggested the fortress. This is no longer the case. In terms of the Roman trial, we must be cautious about the NT reports. What the Gospels narrate has the goal of dramatizing the religious meaning of the condemnation of Jesus. More important, as might be expected from the character and goal of the Gospel accounts, no legal details of Pilate’s trial of Jesus are in fact reported. This is like what Josephus says about Roman trials. A general principle of maintaining order in a subject province rather than a specific law may have governed the treatment of a noncitizen such as Jesus. In retrospect, of course, one can find a relationship between that general principle and Roman laws against treason; but it would be wrong to imagine that the prefect consulted law books at time he had to deal with a provincial accused of a crime. The presence of a hostile crowd is a frequent ingredient in accounts of a condemnatory trial.
[79]
[80]
[81] Rengstorf, TDNT, III, 865.
[82] Stahlin, TDNT, V, 14-5.
[83]
[84] Jesus Seminar
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88] Goppelt, TDNT, VIII, 324.
[89]
[90] John Keats
[91] Gerard S. Sloyan.
[92] Dennis Kinlaw, Let's Start With Jesus. Thanks to Rev. Jeff Coleman, The Highlands UMC, Gainesville, Georgia, for passing this on to us.
[93] John Calvin, Commentary on John 13:31.
[94] Walter Wink, “The Gladsome Doctrine of Sin,” The Living Pulpit, October–December 1999
[95] Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol. 1, pp. 186–188
[96] Augustine, The Confessions, Book 2
[97] John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 2, pp. 37–38.)
[98]
[99] Some scholars consider this a product of Christian imagination long after the event. The thorns on his head appear in John, while Zech. 6:11 may have influenced the wording. In the time of Mark, believers could think of Jesus as a king, even though during his life he had no such aspirations. Scripture and standard protocol that goes with investing royalty suggested the theater and details. Although we might have difficulty determining such an event occurred, everything recorded here could have happened.
[100] Grundmann, TDNT, VII, 632.
[101]
[102]
[103]
[104] In the earliest tradition, it is likely that there was offering of wine in mockery of Jesus’ thirst on the cross.
[105]
[106] This makes Joseph of Armathea an historical figure. The most difficult to verify for the historian would be the comments from the others who were crucified and of his friends and family.
[107]
[108]
[109]
[110]
[111]
[112]
[113] Inspired by Paul Scherer, (“The Love that God Defines!” in
[114]
[115] Bornkamm, TDNT, VII, 200.
[116]
[117]
[118]
[119]
[120]
[121]
[122]
[123]
No comments:
Post a Comment