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.
No comments:
Post a Comment