26:57- 75 Confession and Denial

Jesus’ confession is contrasted with Peter’s denial by means of a “sandwich structure” which tells us that two things are happening at the same time: Jesus’ is taken into Caiaphas’ house, Peter is hanging around outside, Jesus is questioned and confesses, Peter is questioned and denies. This provides a connection between the two incidents and also makes for an ironic contrast. This is the overall setting.

On the assumption of Matthew using Mark as his major source, we see changes made that could be understood as corrections of what we have called [in the Markan blog] Mark’s “rough spots”. (i) There is one high priest and he is Caiaphas, (ii) the repetition of the inadequacy of the witnesses is toned down, (v) the trial before Pilate is made distinctive by the addition of new material.

Here are still “rough spots”: (iii) the function of the first (temple) charge is perhaps even less clear with “not made by hands” removed. The second (blasphemy) charge is not clear – there is no use or abuse of the name!

The motivation for this “arraignment” from the point of Matthew’s community is not too hard to see. The Jerusalem leadership’s opinion “he deserves death” comes at the conclusion of their opposition to the preaching in Matthew’s story. This group of characters in Matthew’s story will admit culpability in 27:25.

Were we to attempt to go behind Matthew’s story and look for historical verisimilitude we would run into the problems that have been discussed over the years: (i) Is this in any sense a “Jewish trial” of Jesus by a legally constituted group, such as the Sanhedrin? (ii) Pilate was known to be a “hanging judge” who did not shared neither his power nor his hated of Jews. He alone can pass, and carry out, a death sentence. (iii) The whole wife-warning, hand-washing no-fault thing tells us about Matthew’s need for “Christians” to appear to Rome as the “good guys”, not about the historical Pilate. What is realistic is that Jesus was a challenge to the Jewish and Roman authorities and, particularly at the well-known flash point of Passover, had to be dealt to. “Thus Jesus was probably viewed as one in a series of political-religious messianic pretenders in first-century Palestine.”(Harrington, 383)

Matthew reduces the complexity of Mark’s “Christological tableau” (Mk. 14:61-62) but Jesus’ response “you say so”, to the high priest’s question (“tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God”) is no less direct that Mark’s “I am”. We have already met the circumlocution “you say so” in the “is it I, Lord” sequence at the Last Supper. When Judas says “Surely not I, Rabbi?” Jesus responds “you say so”(Matt 26:25). Jesus’ response means “You’ve got that right!” It does not mean: “they are your words, not mine!”

Why did Jesus say Peter would deny him three times? Perhaps to distinguish it from a mistake: more likely to make a good story. Three strikes and you’re out! Just as Jesus faces two charges, so too does Peter: (i) he has been “with Jesus” and (ii) his accent betrays him as being “one of them”. Matthew has omitted Mark’s “he called them to be with him” (Mk 3:14) from the appointing of the twelve but we hear it here anyway. This seems to be the more damning of the “charges” although it comes like a toss away remark. Peter “doth protest too much”, twice, and he begins to back his way outside (vv. 71, 75).

There is a progression as Peter digs himself deeper into a hole (i) A chance remark by a serving girl to Peter is denied in front of everyone. (ii) Peter moves outside onto the porch and a different servant girl makes the same remark, this time to the larger audience that Peter has created, and Peter responds with a (forbidden) oath of denial. (iii) The crowd, sensing blood, closes in on Peter and he totally looses it and swears an oath: Ï do not know the man!” How “Clintonesque”.

Peter’s three-fold denial had been prophesied as coming before the night is out (“cock crow” is about half an hour before “sparrow fart”). Three fold confession is usually balanced off by three-fold denial. In the Fourth Gospel the three-fold denial is countered by the three-fold “do you love me?” (Jn. 21:15ff)

One other thing to note is the use of oaths and curses by both the Jerusalem authorities (“I put you under an oath before the living God, tell us”) and Peter (“Then he began to curse and he swore an oath”). Matthew’s Jesus had taught (Matt. 5:33-37) not to swear oaths but to let your “Yes” be “Yes” and your “No” be “No”.

26:31 – 56 In the Garden: Agony, Betrayal and Arrest

They went to the Mount of Olives – from Bethany? The journey from the “suburbs” into the immediate surrounds of Jerusalem is just a few kilometers. The Mount would have served as a camp site for pilgrims unable to find lodgings. There is no way that (from the historical point of view) Jesus would have been alone with his disciples. But, hey, this is a story.

The prediction of the desertion: Before this night is out you will all be saying “I’m out of here!” You will have suddenly tripped up on me. “Scandelidzomi” is a verb that Matthew returns to again and again. Perhaps here, Peter is exemplifying the response of the “Rocky ground” (13:20-21).”Such a person has no root, but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away.” Peter plays the part of the ironic fool, whose inevitable fate adds spice to the story as it unfolds.

In the place called Gethsemane: Behind the world of pilgrims and sleep there is another world in which Jesus focuses on what is really happening behind the machinations of betrayal and arrest. “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me” changes to “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it” finally becomes “Get up, let us be going. See my betrayer is at hand.” The death of Jesus is neither an accident nor an absurd tragedy resulting from Judas’ momentary sin. Jesus takes charge and sets thing in motion.

Kiss and tell: Were we looking for history-like features, we could say that the sign of the kiss would have been necessary to mark out Jesus from the thousands of other pilgrims on the hill (think camping ground at the beach on New Year’s Eve). For the passion story, it is a bitter-sweet irony that has given us “the betrayer’s kiss,” intimacy gone sour. The words “Greetings Rabbi” identify the betrayer as the kiss identifies the betrayed. It’s that “Rabbi” again, forbidden in Matthew (23:7-8), perhaps because it was a mark of respect (“my teacher”) used amongst the synagogues who form the opposition of Matthew’s community (Harrington, 374).

Am I a bandit? No!: The posse arrives to overwhelm this bandit and arrest him. Although he would be crucified as a “lestes” (a messianic freedom fighter), Matthew’s Jesus has resolutely rejected the “twelve legions of angels” option and his response to the reaction of counter-violence has given us one of those biblical sayings that we can never do without: “… live by the sword … die by the sword”. How could he drop his integrity in order to reach for his sword (5:38ff)? They come with swords and clubs, and under the cover of darkness, to arrest Jesus and the disciples are afraid. Jesus sits in the Temple by day, under the protection of his good reputation and the Jerusalem leaders are afraid (21:26).

Matthew 26:1 – 27:66 The Passion of Jesus

Matt 26:1 – 30 The Death Plot and the Last Passover

[We are out of order here because we are looking at the Passion Narrative during Lent.]

The link (26:1-2)

The phrase “when Jesus had finished all these words…” serves as the conclusion of the preceding discourse and the point of continuity with the Passion. The same phrase without the word “all” has served to mark the conclusion of the great discourse of Matthew: 7:28 the end of the Sermon on the Mount; 11:1 the end of the mission discourse; 13:53 the end of the parables discourse and 19:1 the end of the community discourse. As the infancy story alluded to the start of the life of Moses, as Moses was a model for Jesus the teacher on the mountain, so now, with the allusion to Deut 32:45 (“when Moses had finished reciting all these words to all Israel”) marking the beginning of the departure of Moses (to a place that, in time, no one will know Deut 34:5), we move over into the departure of Jesus the teacher. Now, with the use of “all”, the public teaching ministry of Jesus comes to and end and moves over into his Passion. In two days time it is Passah when the Son of Man is delivered over to be crucified. Nothing will happen by chance; Jesus’ fate is not a consequence of the leaders’ plotting.

The Death Plot (26:3-16)

The leaders conspire: Jesus’ adversaries are the board of “Jerusalem Corp.” (The Pharisees are left on the sidelines until after Jesus’ death (27:62).) They gather in the (same) courtyard in which Peter will deny Jesus (26:69). Not during the feast, but before or after. Jerusalem was a flash point of nationalism at Passover, according to Josephus. The Roman Governor would move down from Caesarea Maritima, with troops, for the Feast. Pilate was in Jerusalem for the Feast – and not as a pilgrim! The secretive, furtive plotting of the leaders contrasts the open teaching of Jesus (26:55)

The woman is remembered: Out in the suburbs, in Bethany, Jesus and his disciples gather. (Matthew is basically following his source Mark and so we may note some comments we have already made.) (i) The woman’s public action is in contrast to the secret actions of the plotters (before) and the betrayer (after). (ii) “Given to the poor” may be ironic – Jesus is an exemplar of “the humble poor”. (iii) We are not told how much the obviously-rich woman had already given to the poor and how little the disciples had given. (iv)Passover carried with it the special obligation to give support to the poor (Deut. 15:1-11). (v)The money given to Judas was a waste: why was not this given to the poor, one might well ask? (vi)The woman had sensed the opportune moment to attend to Jesus. Matthew seems to move the memorial away from Mark’s general preaching of the Gospel to the proclamation of the “good news” of the passion. The woman is the exemplar of “the good disciple” and her loving and timely action towards this poor man anticipates his death and prepares his boy for burial and will never be able to be forgotten. She is the focus of this part of the story, not Judas!

Judas sells out: What mythic, anti-Jewish role does the character Judas Iscariot play? (See Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil by Hyam Maccoby). I acknowledge the question but see the answer as a “work in progress”. “What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?” Matthew’s attempt to attach a motivation to Judas’ action is precise, but reflects Matthew’s teaching on the corrupting influence of money (e.g. Matt. Chapter 6). Thirty pieces of silver is often linked to the value of a slave gored by an ox (Exod. 21:32). Perhaps better is the paltry wage given to the shepherd in Zech 11:12-13, wages that ar thrown back into the treasury in the House of the Lord. Such an allusion will prepare us for the action of Judas in Matt. 27:3-10 where he throws the money back into the Temple before taking his own life. Attempts to unpack the character Judas are like “the books without end” (John, 21:25). It is the anonymous woman who deserves to be remembered.

The Last Passover Meal (26:17-30)

The preparation: The first day of Unleavened Bread, here and in Mark, is the morning of the day before Nisan 15. The Passover meal will follow in the evening, at the beginning of the day. Where shall we make the preparations? The mysterious, covert instructions (much beloved of SGF Brandon‘s Zealot reading of Mark) are simplified (?) by Matthew. Were they simply not understood? A “certain man” means “so and so – you know the one” (so Robert Fortna, Scholars Bible). Jesus’ (significant) time is at hand, as the clock ticks on.

The prediction of the betrayal: All the predictions assure us that there is a big plan playing out beyond the superficial “yapping of the puppies.” “Is it I, Lord?” is the response of the disciples, using the Matthean favorite “Lord,” except for Judas whose “surely not I, Rabbi?” uses the forbidden “Rabbi” title (23:7-8). The Son of Man goes where it is written of him. The Son of Man going up to Jerusalem to be handed over, to suffer and die, goes back no further than the Gospel of Mark. The saying reflects the early Christian conviction that the suffering and death of Jesus is according to the Scriptures (Harrington, p. 367).

The bread and the wine: Some of the critical issues that climb out of the text include (i) Was it a Passover meal? If so, where are the Passover foods, the lamb, the herbs? (ii) Was it an anticipation of such a meal, as in the Fourth Gospel where the killing of the “Lamb of God” at the same time as the Passover lambs are killed provides a strong ideological motive for rearranging the nature of the meal? (iii) How heavily are the words over the bread and the cup influenced by the earlier Pauline tradition (1 Cor. 11:23-26)? I sometimes think it reads more like the pivotal, last meal in the sequence of common meals in which Jesus shared, with overtones of later, early-liturgical traditions.