E. Matthew 8:1 - 9:35 In Galilee

8:1 Introduction
This verse brings us back down from the mountain and back into the crowds, seeking healing from “every disease and every sickness” (4:23 – 5:1). The framework around the SM is closed.

8:2 –17 Three healings
The leper (8:2 – 4)
The leper, who could be suffering from a wide range of skin disfigurements (Lev. 13–14) and not necessarily from “Hansen’s disease”, was a social outcast. His approach to Jesus, with the kneeling down and the homage, reminds us of the magi in chapter 2. The title Sir/Lord does not appear on the lips of outsiders (Luz). Jesus touches him, restoring the social contact and healing him. The one who came to fulfill the Torah then sends the former leper off to the priests to complete the process by certifying the cleanliness.

The centurion (8:5–13)
Entering Capernaum, his base in northern Galilee, Jesus is accosted by a Gentile centurion, serving in Herod Antipas’ garrison, who requests healing for his sick child/servant. Jesus’ response, which can be seen as a question, serves as a rejection: “You can’t expect me to come to your place and do this!” Again, Jesus’ does not abrogate Torah by entering the house of a Gentile. The centurion’s response confirms this and clarifies what the man wants. He is not expecting Jesus to come personally: he is not worthy of the “Lord” doing that and that’s not how things work. A word from Jesus is sufficient, just as his own word accomplishes what he wants. There is an additional possibility. As the centurion sends out soldiers to carry out his commands so too Jesus could send one of his “men” to carry out the healing. The time for that has not yet come in Matthew’s story (10:1) and the mission to the Gentiles is also for a later time. The centurion’s confidence that Jesus’ word could heal, and heal at a distance, is taken by Jesus as an expression of such faith, not seen in Israel. The centurion can thus serve as a Gentile exemplar of faith. The servant/child is healed and the social grouping is restored.

Peter’s mother in law (8:14 – 17)
The trimmings are removed from Mark and Jesus is left alone with the woman, He heals with a touch, as he will cast out with a word. The society of this household is restored and this is demonstrated by the woman offering hospitality to the guest.

The words of Mark’s transitional summary are carried over into Matthew: the three healings are examples of the sort of things that Jesus did. The crowds include a leper, a centurion and his servant/child and an elderly woman. All are healed of their various diseases: society is restored.

8:18 – 9:1 Three words of power
To the scribe and the other disciple (8:18 – 22)
In response to Jesus’ command, the disciples are about to enter the boat and depart to the other side. A potential disciple is warned of the total poverty of the Son of Man and those who follow him. This is a poverty necessitated by being on the move as a “wandering charismatic” (Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity). Jesus does have a home base and we know (because we are not first time readers) of the women from Galilee who minister to Jesus (27:55-56). To this scribe, the word looks like a proverb from the world of the charismatic: “Foxes have dens …”. A comparison of Matthew with Mark shows that Matthew has removed the cushion in the boat so that Jesus has nowhere to lay his head.

To the one who is a disciple, who would like Elisha (1 Kgs. 19:20) go back and attend to the basic religious obligation of burying the dead, the word is a shocking, more basic obligation to the preaching of the Kingdom.

To the storm (8:23 – 27)
Jesus in a boat, on the lake, during a storm, commanding the storm has to evoke the image of creation. The obedience of the wind and the seas recalls the spirit hovering over the waters of the deep in Gen 1:2. In what looks like an enactment of Ps 107:23-32, the crossing shows the lordship of Jesus over the chaos and demonic powers lurking in the seas. The fact that Jesus is asleep (without the cushion on which to lay his head) contrasts with the smallness of faith of the disciples. As we noted in Mark, the sleeping Jesus evokes the absence of Jesus to this small Jewish-Christian community. Their prayer: “Lord save us, we are perishing!” “Little faith” is a favorite designation of the disciples in Matthew. (Go check it out in a concordance.) Their faith is far from perfect (Harrington)

To the demons of the town (8:28 – 9:1)
To those who “sit in tombs and eat swine flesh” (Is 65:4), Jesus says “Go”(into the swine)!” These (gentile) demons recognize Jesus for who he is (“Son of God”) but appear puzzled that he is there ahead of time. Do the evil spirits return to the sea? With their livelihood destroyed and their brand in tatters, the shareholders ask Jesus to leave town.

D. Matthew 5:1 - 7:28 The Sermon on the Mount

Introductory Matters

1. Outline of sections

It wasn’t just thrown together; it made sense to someone! Here is the outline given in H.D. Betz’s commentary. It’s as good a place to start as anywhere.

The Sermon on the Mount (outline) - Upload a doc

Read this doc on Scribd: The Sermon on the Mount (outline)

2. Recent major researchers on the SM

Since St Augustine gave this part of Matthew the name “Sermon on the Mount” and wrote a commentary on it, the SM has received a lot of attention. The two most significant, recent, critical writers are (I reckon) W.D. Davies and Hans Dieter Betz Read Davies (The Sermon on the Mount, 1964) and you will see him seek to understand Matthew’s SM as a part of a larger presentation of the Christians’ law-giver Jesus as the Second Moses, set out in five books or narrative and discourse, with the same stylized ending, a presentation that engaged current, late post 70CE Jewish expectations within early Judaism. Read Betz (Essays on the Sermon on the Mount, 1985 and The Sermon on the Mount, 1995) and you will see him lay the foundation for understanding the SM as an older Jewish Christian distillation of Jesus’ teaching that can be understood to exemplify the Greco-Roman epitome. Betz then gives us a massive commentary on the SM (1995). See Stanton for a sustained critique of Betz’s stimulating thesis.

3. Purpose of the SM

It has often been assumed that the SM gives us Jesus’ ethical system, his instructions for daily living. Many have seen it as a system that is impossible to follow but which serves to usher in the grace of God.

Betz, in understanding the SM as an epitome, sees the author Matthew creatively condensing Jesus’ teaching, not to produce something that the disciple can then regurgitate, but rather to “enable the disciple to theologize creatively along the lines of the theology of the master. To say it pointedly: The SM is not law to be obeyed, but theology to be intellectually appropriated and internalized, in order then to be creatively developed and implemented in concrete situations of life.” (Essays, 15f.) It is like an “aide memoir”, carried into battle by a soldier that will allow and encourage him to think his way through conflict. Betz sees Paul as “thinking” his way through a problem confronting the “unmarried” in 1 Cor. 7:25).

4. Distinctive point of view

It is the contention of the SM, stated in the four hermeneutical principles, that Jesus “came to fulfill the law and the prophets”. Examples of this are presented in the antitheses, with their distinctive pattern “you have heard that is was said [quotation from Torah] but I say to you [Jesus’ extension, not abrogation, of Torah]”.

The ghost of an anarchical Paul is often detected behind the label “the least in the kingdom of heaven” given to the one(s) who break the least of these commandments and teaches other to do the same (cf. 1 Cor. 15:9).

The dismissive tone of “do not even the Gentiles do the same?” evokes a time before the community of the Gospel became outward facing, a time in “the mid-first century, when the Jewish-Christian community was still part of Judaism” (Essays, 19.), “The community of the SM is, without a doubt, a Jewish-Christian minority in distress.”(Essays, 21)

5. The SM within Matthew

The SM forms the first of the five discourse blocks of the Gospel. It has been used by Matthew and is marked with favored Matthean language but has it been substantially written by Matthew. No one would seriously see the SM as a cohesive, verbatim piece of Jesus-speak, such as a “sermon”. A piece of the jigsaw is the existence of the much, much smaller “Sermon on the Plain” in Luke 6: 17 – 49. It does not advance things too much further to consign them both to the Q source because the pieces they have in common are so different.

Betz argues that the SM has an integrity that pre-dates Matthew but which Matthew has incorporated and integrated into his Gospel. Wherever it has come from, this Jewish Christian treasure is now a part of a self-consciously Christian community that is looking outward to a Gentile mission field. Its author “Matthew” is the householder “who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old." (13:52). The SM is the precious jewel amongst the old treasure

The Discourse Itself

The Beatitudes (5:3 – 12)

• Betz refers to them as “macarisms”, using the Greek, rather than the Latin, root to bless
• They now exist as members of a list of ten, though originally they existed independently
• They have been arranged with the most important, the signal blessing, at the head and its counterpart in v. 10
• The other eight have their “pay off” in the future
• They exist in four different forms: vv 3 & 10, 4-9, 11, 12.
• `Why have the macarisms been placed at the head of the SM? What is their function?
• Hebrew literature distinguishes at least four types of macarisms: religion secular, the wise man, and satirical.
• The head macarism (5:3) anticipates the verdict belonging to the last judgment (25:34)
• It corrects the notion that it is the economically poor who are to be called blessed: human existence is recognized as miserable.
• It moves far beyond all other forms of macarism to the status of “a fundamental theological definition” (Essays, 35). “It contains everything one must know to pass through this life into paradise.”
• Betz judges that “the first macarism is unfolded, and variously developed, in the following [nine] macarisms… The rest of the SM is nothing else that the concretization and elucidation of the first macarism.”(Essays, 35)

The Hermeneutical Principles (5:17 – 20)

• The authentic Jesus saying exists as a concept in the mind of the reader. “The text is intentionally written so that that the reader cannot simply read-off the correct saying as he can the false one, but he must construct the saying himself out of the the building materials that the text provides.” (Essays, 41) The correct saying is: “I have come to fulfill the law and the prophets”.
• This points to the functioning of the SM as epitome. The non-text of v.17a “compels the reader to compose the intended text from personal knowledge and experience, based on the building materials at hand.”(Essays, 42)
• The author of the SM makes choices, that differ from those made by the later Evangelists, as to what Jesus material he incorporates. One thing that is important is that he refutes the charge of heresy against Jesus by establishing his orthodoxy as a Jewish teacher.
• It is the written, Hebrew text of the Torah that is authoritative but it is also transient. Torah is neither eternally valid nor did it end with the coming of Jesus (as in Paul). It ends when “all things are accomplished”.
• The third principle distinguishes between the true teacher who does and teaches the commandments of Jesus that are about to follow in the SM, and the one (Paul?) who abolishes even the least (not specified) of these SM commandments of Jesus. At first glance, the teachings of Jesus are light and easy to fulfill (11:30), in contrast with those of the Pharisees, but this is only at first glance. Even the teacher who is judged to be “least” is still a part of the kingdom. “This implies that a form of Christian teaching guided by theological principles other than those of the SM is recognized as legitimate in a relative sense, even if it remains excluded for the teachers of the community of the SM.”(Essays, 51)
• The final principle shows that the SM’s take on the common Jewish quest for righteousness: it can only be spoken about in terms of comparison and contrast. More than external observance, more a “turning toward the inner disclosure of the human heart before God. This is the principal reason the commands of Jesus in the SM cannot simply be regarded as legal provisions, subject to outward fulfillment. Rather they are to be regarded as a set of instructions whose purpose is to educate the disciples of Jesus so that they may be able to recognize for themselves the demands of God that apply to them, and thus do justice in their thought and conduct to the will of God.”(Essays, 53) This is recognizable righteousness.

The Antitheses

• Who called them “antitheses”? The second century “heretic” Marcion, that’s who. He saw a contrast between “Law and Gospel”, the old and the new. He was wrong on this, if not on some other things. He would have said what the SM has Jesus say is wrong, viz. “I came to abolish the law and the prophets”
• “Torah” is not “law” it is the teaching of God. The SM has us formulate the correct saying, viz “I came to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets”.
• The formal structure of the six “antitheses”: “You have heard … but I say …” does not turn against the original quotation but rather extends it. It is like a fence put around the Torah.
• It is without parallel in early Christian literature. Christian vice and virtue catalogs (e.g. Mark 7:21-22 cf. Matt 15:9)come from Hellenistic-Christian sources, not Jewish-Christian.
• There is no accepted order in the antitheses.
• The antitheses deal, under the metaphor of the family, with broken relationships.
• Betz sees the antitheses as pre-Matthean but not going back to Jesus.
• Davies & Allison note: (i) Jesus’ words are not set over against Jewish interpretations nor do they contrast with Torah. (ii) They present a new teaching grounded in Jesus’ authority. (iii) They do not offer a set of rules but, rather, they seek to instill a moral vision.
• Walter Wink’s interpretation of 5:38-42 (seen, for example, in Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way) is a gem

Teaching on Piety

• Into the instruction on piety (6:1-6, 16-18) the Lord’s Prayer (6:7-15) has been inserted. The former has a theology of God who is and sees “in the hidden”. The instruction on prayer (6:7-8) emphasizes God’s omniscience.
• The instruction on prayer is woven around assumptions of inconspicuous piety, a doctrine of rewards that eschews all rewards in this world and a contrast of true piety with the piety of the hypocrites and the pagans, a contrast that comes from within Judaism rather than being anti-Jewish.
• There are issues of authorship of the larger piece on piety (6:1-6, 16-18) and of the inner 6:7-15. The Lord’s Prayer (6:9-13) exists in three independent forms (Luke & Didache) and, as a result of this multiple attestation, can sustain a claim to go back to Jesus. The same cannot be said for its present context (6:1-6, 16-18).

The Eschatological Warnings

• The two ways and the two gates. Jewish tradition knows of the doctrine of the two ways (Deut. 30:15-19). The path leads to the gate through which we pass, not the gate marking the start of the path. What lies through the gate? The Kingdom of Heaven, which has not yet fully come. The path is not straight, it is narrow, it is difficult to find and many take the other path. Few find the true path. Our choices are not obvious.
• The false prophets. The one(s) who we thought was speaking the word of God, we now suspect are telling us lies – false prophets, false leaders. The SM is taking on the colouring of the end of the age – eschatology. They will lead us astray, saying “I am the one, I am he”. The SM grapples to put forward a new test that will get around the old test of fulfillment: you will know them by their fruit.
• Self delusion. Some might be on the narrow path, bearing good fruit and yet not make the cut. They pass all the tests, look and smell like the real thing. They are members of the community, they say “Lord, Lord”, but they are shut out. Who then will be saved?
• There will come a time, the SM tells us, when it will be very hard to tell if we are on the right path. The only assurance might be that the way is not straight nor the path easy.

27:27- 66 The crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus

Matthew, following Mark, works with two themes: the irony of his condemnation and mockery as the “King of the Jews” and the fulfillment of Scripture. The mocking is seen in the soldiers having their way with Jesus, the placard on the cross together with the taunting of the passersby to show what he was made of and come down from the cross. The ironic fool has much to laugh about and much to learn.

The scourging and mockery (27:27-31)

The exact location of the praetorium (the Governor’s residence in Jerusalem) the number of soldiers (a cohort would be 600 soldiers) and whose soldiers they were is unknown. It begins the need to make a public example of the condemned and fires up the soldiers for a killing. The soldier’s scarlet cloak, the throne-crown and the read scepter create an ironic image to match the charge “king of the Jews”. Jesus has already been flogged.

The crucifixion (27:32-44)

Simon of Cyrene, of whom Mark makes much, is pressed into carrying the crossbeam – for whatever reason. The location of “Golgotha (Latin calvaria) is unknown. The reference to those who “passed by” (27:39) fits with a road side or crossroads where the public example could be maximized. When the Roman soldiers got into the swing of things, they would crucify victims on door lintels or on windows or anywhere. The “green hill” is indeed far, far away! The offer of wine mixed with gall continues the theme of mocking; drinking a narcotic or a poison is another easy out,

A watch is set over the crucified as one will set over the tomb. The practice of breaking the legs to hasten the process of suffocation is not mentioned here. It was not done for humanitarian reasons. A spear thrust would end the suffering, breaking the legs makes it worse.

“If you are the Son of God” echoes the tests put to Jesus in chapter 4. Both sets have three members – the rule of three lives on. (OK. There are three tests in chapter 4 and here in chapter 27 but it is a well established rule of storytelling to uses sets of three characters or three incidents.) “He has trusted in God” possibly alludes to Psalm 22:8.

The death (27:45-56)

The cry beginning “Eli, Eli, …” is fittingly ambiguous. It could be a cry of abandonment, a a cry of the pious one quoting the first verse of the Psalm of the Righteous Sufferer (Ps. 22:1) that put the whole Psalm on the table, so to speak. Who would not know that this was a cry to God but be able to confuse it with a cry to Elijah? In what world would such a confusion work? Is it a Hellenistic pun? I think it works better as a Semitic pun where “my God” is confused with “Yahweh is God”.

A major cause of the death would have been suffocation but the human body was not designed to cope with the gross trauma inflicted by the whole process of crucifixion. As Jesus takes his last breath the lights go out in nature and events associated with the end of the age give the color and force to the story – the sky turning black, the exposure of the Temple, the tombs opening . This is not the death of just anyone but the death of everyone: “this one is the Son of God”.

The burial of Jesus (27:57-66)

That the body was taken down from the cross before it was mauled by wild animals is extraordinary enough; that is was buried, with necessary haste and loving care in a cave tomb is a fitting end to the story of the one who has been associated with Abraham, David, Moses and who at his death has (once again) be acclaimed by the Gentiles. Like John the Baptist, Jesus’ body is gathered up by his disciples and buried. In contrast to Moses, the burial place of Jesus is known. It is guarded by a Roman (or is it a Jewish) watch and watched over by women disciples.

[Now that we are into Easter, we will go back and pick up the story with the (so-called) "Sermon on the Mount". I haven't forgotten chapter 28 but will return there when we have finished the story.]

27:1- 26 Jesus before Pilate

Jesus delivered over to Pilate (27:1-2)

In the early morning, all the chief priests and elders of the people confer together against Jesus that he might be put to death. These characters in the story are acting as though they were formally the Council and as though they had power to pass a capital sentence. In time (27:25) they will act as though they can take responsibility for the action that only Pilate can take. Jesus is taken in chains to the Governor Pilate. The third passion prediction (20:18-19) links the handing over of Jesus to this group of Jerusalem leaders and to Pilate. Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from 26 – 36 CE and in less precipitous times would be found in Caesarea Maritima. Three passion predictions of a “delivery” are matched by Judas delivering Jesus to the Jerusalem authorities, the authorities delivering Jesus to Pilate and Pilate delivering Jesus over to the execution detail.

The death of Judas (27:3-10)

This is the first of four new features in Matthew’s passion story. There is another story of the end of Judas’ life in Acts 1:18-19) There, Judas does not explicitly take his own life, he buys the field. The “Field of Blood” may refer to Judas’ blood. Here, the returned money is “blood money” and the use of it by the Temple authorities to purchase the Potter’s Field gives the name to the field. The return of the money and the subsequent suicide is modeled on the actions of Ahithophel (2 Sam 17) and the prophet Zechariah (Zech. 11) rather than Jeremiah. (The parallels are set out in Davies and Allison, p. 502, 504f.) Judas’ “change of mind” (27:3), followedby “confession” (27:4) and return of the money (27:5) perhaps indicates repentance.

Jesus before Pilate (27:11-26)

The other three features peculiar to Matthew occur here, along with the revamped Barabbas scene. (i) Pilate’s wife, an impartial observer (?) declares Jesus to be a “just man” Her message comes as a result of a dream (going back to the infancy story). (ii) Pilate is portrayed as going out of his way to get Jesus to disentangle himself from the jealous accusations. He eventually washes his hands of the matter, alluding to Deut 21:6-7, Ps 26:6. Unlike Joseph, Pilate does not act decisively upon warnings given in dreams.

(iii) Jewish acceptance of responsibility. In this story, the characters representing the leadership of Jerusalem are made to accept responsibility for Jesus’ death. In the world of history, the most that can be aligned with this is to say that Pilate’s decision to put Jesus to death as a political revolutionary furthered the interest of the Temple hierarchy who were threatened by Jesus. In the history of the world of Christian anti-Semitism, this has been generalized without restraint to say that all Jews for all times and in all places bear total responsibility for Jesus’ death. Shame on us!

(iv) The Barabbas story of a condemned man Barabbas being swapped out for an innocent man Jesus is found in all Gospels. Matthew, in the NRSV translation, has the manuscript suggestion that there was poignant choice between Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Christ. "Which Jesus do you want?" This will be made much of in the Fourth Gospel where the people cannot distinguish between the Good Shepherd and the lestes who climbs over the wall and whose voice the sheep do not know. There is no historical evidence of such a swapping. The irony of the choice is rich.

What is being served by writing about Pilate and the Jewish leadership in this way, this transfer of blame away from the Roman Pilate and onto the Jewish leaders, this portrayal of Jesus as being innocent on any and all charges of insurrection, is the attempt to exonerate the early Christian communities in the eyes of the Roman state in the late first century. It is political apologetic: we are the good guys, you have nothing to fear from us!

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.