 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
BIBLE STUDY MATTHEW 26:1-75 REVIEW: Chapter 25 was part of Jesus’ “Apocalyptic Discourse”, in which he teaches about the End Times and how we as his people should prepare for them. This chapter has three parables:
CHAPTER 26:1-5 “The Beginning of Christ’s Passion” “When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and they conspired to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. But they said, “Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people.” In this chapter, Matthew resumes his narrative of events. To recap, Jesus had entered Jerusalem in triumph and then had cleansed the temple in chapter 21. He then had taught a number of parables against the chief priests and the Pharisees – stirring up their anger so that they wanted to arrest and kill him. The only thing that had prevented that from yet happening was Jesus’ popularity among the crowds, many of whom were convinced that he was a great prophet or even the promised Messiah. It must also be kept in mind that the Passover was a very nationalistic festival – a celebration of God’s deliverance of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. Jerusalem was teeming with pilgrims – William Barclay in his Daily Study Bible commentary says that perhaps almost two million Jews from all over the world would come to Jerusalem for this event. All of them were hoping that some day God would again deliver his people from their bondage – to Roman rule! Besides their religious differences with Jesus, the chief priests and elders were afraid that he might incite the crowds to rebel against Rome. They became convinced that Jesus had to be dealt with in order to avert that possibility – which they knew could only end in catastrophe. In Matthew especially, Jesus is portrayed as being fully aware of what was happening – he knew that his arrest and crucifixion was a foregone conclusion. In Matthew’s narrative, it almost seems to be implied that Jesus’ prophecy caused the chief priests and elders to plot his death – in other words, that Jesus was fully in control of everything. CHAPTER 26:6-13 “The Anointing of Jesus” “Now while Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment, and she poured it on his head as he sat at the table. But when the disciples saw it, they were angry and said, “Why this waste? For this ointment could have been sold for a large sum, and the money given to the poor.” But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? She has performed a good service for me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. By pouring this ointment on my body she has prepared me for burial. Truly I tell you, wherever this good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.” This story is told in all four gospels – but with major differences between them. In this passage in Matthew and in Mark 14:3-9, this is at the house of Simon the leper (presumably someone who had been healed by Jesus), and the woman is unnamed; in John12:1-8 it is at the house of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, and Mary is identified as the one who anoints Jesus (his feet – not his head); in Luke 7:36-50 it is at the house of Simon the Pharisee (Jesus’ feet are anointed) and the unnamed woman is identified as a “sinner”. None of the gospels tell us about the woman’s motive for anointing Jesus. There are two possibilities, both of which can speak to us in our lives today:
Jesus, however, does not accept this acclamation. On one hand, he appreciates the woman’s trust in him and loyalty to him – saying that “she has performed a good service for me.” On the other hand, he also says – somewhat wryly – that by anointing him she has prepared him for burial rather than kingship – because claiming that kind of Messiahship would result in his certain death! QUESTION – in what ways do we sometimes try to impose our agenda upon Jesus? Jesus rebukes the disciples for their anger at the woman for her “waste”. It is not that he is unconcerned for the poor – but at the same time he does not want those who are concerned for helping the poor to be criticizing those who want to honor him. Perhaps we still sometimes have this issue in our churches today. I (Pastor George) have sometimes heard criticism from some that when we have spent money on expensive projects at church, that it might have been better to do something to help people in need. But “social zealots” should beware of any inclination to “put down” others who want to show love for God in ways that are different from their priorities. In the end, this woman’s act won higher praise from Jesus than any other mentioned in the New Testament! CHAPTER 26:14-16 “Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus” “Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What will you give me if I betray him to you?” They paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he began to look for an opportunity to betray him.” Matthew is the only gospel writer to specify that Judas was paid “thirty pieces of silver” - Mark and Luke only say that the chief priests agreed to “give him money”. Thirty shekels of silver was the price of a slave according to Ex. 21:32. Thirty shekels of silver was the wages of a shepherd which was paid to the prophet Zechariah, who then threw them back into the treasury in the house of the LORD (Zech. 11:11-13). The reason that Matthew specifies the amount of money paid to Judas is to later show (in Mt. 27:3-10) that yet another Old Testament prophecy has been fulfilled by the story of Jesus. The exact reason why Judas decided to betray Jesus is unclear. According to William Barclay in his Daily Study Bible commentary, there are three possible explanations:
I (Pastor George) personally believe that this third view is the most probable explanation. It explains why Judas later was overcome with remorse and driven to suicide when he plan went wrong (Mt. 27:5). “However we look at it, the tragedy of Judas is that he refused to accept Jesus as he was and tried to make him what he wanted him to be. It is not Jesus who can be changed by us, but we who must be changed by Jesus. We can never use him for our purposes; we must submit to be used for his. The tragedy of Judas is that of a man who thought he knew better than God. (William Barclay – Daily Study Bible commentary) CHAPTER 26:17-29 “The Last Supper” “On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?” He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’” So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover meal. Jesus had been staying in Bethany, but the Passover meal itself was supposed to be celebrated in Jerusalem. The “certain man” was obviously an unnamed disciple who deserves our praise and respect, for he was willing to offer Jesus hospitality even when powerful people such as the chief priests were plotting to arrest and kill him. In showing that Jesus had made prior arrangements for where he and the disciples would eat the Passover, and by specifically quoting Jesus as saying that “My time is near”, Matthew shows us that Jesus was in full control of everything that was unfolding. He was NOT just a “victim of circumstances.” “When it was evening, he took his place with the twelve; and while they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.” And they became greatly distressed and began to say to him one after another, “Surely not I, Lord?” He answered, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. They Son of Man goes 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.” Judas, who betrayed him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” He replied, “You have said so.” No explanation is given as to how or why Jesus was aware that one of the twelve would betray him, although Matthew seems to indicate that Jesus had some supernatural knowledge. The main point stressed here, however, is to point out how terrible Judas’ betrayal was. As Psalm 41:9 states; “Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted the heel against me.” Judas’ betrayal violated the sacred bond of table fellowship, especially considering that this table fellowship was at the holiest meal of the Jewish year! Another small but significant point is that all the rest of Jesus’ disciples address him as “Lord”, but Judas addresses him as “Rabbi” – a title Jesus previously had told them not to use (Mt. 23:8). In other words, Matthew shows Judas as having already cut himself off from the community of Jesus’ disciples. “While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 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.” The rituals of the host blessing, breaking, and then sharing the bread – and then blessing and sharing the cup of wine are part of the Jewish Passover liturgy. Jesus, however, gives them a new meaning by connecting them to himself and what is about to happen. Only Matthew has Jesus telling his disciples to take the bread and eat it – thus emphasizing that as the broken bread when eaten provides nourishment, so his broken body will also be for a good benefit – their “nourishment” from God. With the cup Jesus says that this is “my blood of the covenant”. This is an allusion to Exodus 24:8, where Moses took the sacrificial blood and dashed it against the altar and then on the people to confirm God’s covenant with the Israelites. Again, only Matthew has Jesus’ saying that this is “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew’s Jewish-Christian community would have been very familiar with the shedding of blood as being necessary for one to receive forgiveness. As Hebrews 9:18-22 states: “Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been told to all the people by Moses in accordance with the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the scroll itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” Jesus’ words also recall the “Suffering Servant” song of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 – that he has made his life “an offering for sin” (Is. 53:10), and that thereby he makes “many righteous” (Is. 53:11) when he “pours out himself to death” and makes “intercession for the transgressors” (Is. 53:12). Finally, Jesus connects this eating of the bread and drinking the cup to the future Messianic Banquet when his Father’s kingdom is fully come (see Is. 25:6, Lk. 14:15, and Rev. 19:9) – that we as his people will be sharing this banquet with him! CHAPTER 26:30-35 “Jesus’ Prophecy and Peter’s Promise” “When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. Then Jesus said to them, “You will all become deserters because of me this night; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.” Peter said to him, “Though all become deserters because of you, I will never desert you.” Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And so said all the disciples.” The Passover meal traditionally concluded with Psalms 113-118, the so-called Great Hallel, which proclaim God’s power to redeem and his faithfulness in leading Israel to freedom. As Daniel J. Harrington states in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, these psalms would have been appropriate for the season and as a context for Jesus’ death. Jesus’ prophecy is based on Zechariah 13:7- “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.” Yet at the same time, Jesus is confident that he will be raised up and eventually will “go ahead of (them)” to Galilee. This prophecy is later fulfilled – see Mt. 28:10 and especially Mt. 28:16-20 where Jesus gives his disciples the “Great Commission”. In all of this, Jesus again is shown as being in full control of his destiny. Peter then makes a rash promise that he would never desert Jesus. It may have been based upon his love for Jesus, but it also contained an element of pride – that he was better than the others. Perhaps Peter’s greatest “sin” was that he denied his own human weakness – a sin that we all often do. What Peter needed to learn was humility and the awareness to forthrightly admit his need for help in dealing with his weaknesses. So do we all! The emphasis in Jesus’ reply to Peter is not on his apparent power to make an accurate prediction: “Before the cock crows” is simply a proverbial phrase for “early in the morning” and “three times” simply means “repeatedly”. Note that all the disciples also made the same promise as Peter did! Peter’s story of denying may have been “highlighted” later, but ALL the disciples ended up deserting Jesus despite their earlier promises to stand by him. The point to Matthew’s readers is a warning that we by ourselves can not withstand temptation and trial – that without Christ we are doomed to fail! CHAPTER 26:36-46 “The Agony of Gethsemane” “Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; and 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, and began to be grieved and agitated. Then he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and stay awake with me.” And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayer, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.” Then he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, So, could you not stay awake with me one hour? Stay awake and pray that you may come into the time of trial; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Again he went away for the second time and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” Again he 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. Then he came to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.” The Aramaic name Gethsemane means “oil press.” The garden still exists today, with some olive trees that are so old that they were probably there at the time of Jesus. Jesus knew that if he stayed around Jerusalem he would be arrested by his enemies, and would then suffer and die. He could have “run away” by going back to Bethany or even to Galilee – and he certainly could have “rationalized” that decision by thinking that he had a lot more ministry of teaching and healing to do. Perhaps that choice, as much as any dread of suffering and death, is what caused Jesus so much anguish. Often in life, our choices are not between “bad vs. good” but rather between “good vs. best”. Ultimately, Jesus was guided in his decision by what he understood to be his Father’s will for him. Being “in tune” with his Father’s will was more for him important than anything else. Perhaps Jesus had an understanding of what his death would accomplish from the “Suffering Servant” passage in Isaiah – but most of all I (Pastor George) believe simply that Jesus knew that he HAD to be guided by his Father’s will if he indeed was to be the “Son of God” with all that this implied. In other words, Jesus once again was wrestling with the same temptations that the devil had presented him with in the wilderness before he had begun his ministry in Matthew 4:1-11. We also note that Jesus’ prayer has “echoes” of the Lord’s Prayer that he taught in Mt. 6:9-13 – especially “lead us not into temptation” and “deliver us from the evil one.”. Luke in his gospel says that the disciples were “sleeping because of grief” (Lk. 22:45) – a common reaction to extreme stress is a feeling of exhaustion. Again, this is mentioned in order to “highlight” our natural human weaknesses (“the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak”), and our need for God’s help in time of temptation and trial. Peter, as throughout Matthew, is portrayed as representing all of the disciples. Finally, at the end of this passage we see the courage of Jesus. After having prayed, he sees Judas and those whom he is leading coming – and he is ready to face his ordeal. So may it be for us all in our times of trial! CHAPTER 26:47-56 “The Arrest of Jesus” “While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; with him was a large crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him.” At once he came up to Jesus and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him. Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you are here to do.” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus 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. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?” At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me and though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But all this has taken place, so that the scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.” The “large crowd” was probably composed of the high priest’s servants and perhaps some of the temple guards – there is no indication that any Roman soldiers were present. They came with swords and clubs because they thought that Jesus was a bandit (the literal word actually means someone who is a revolutionary or a terrorist). But Jesus was no revolutionary messiah. When one of his disciples (John in his gospel identifies him as Peter (John 18:10)) drew his sword and cut off the ear of the high priest’s slave, Jesus immediately rebuked him. His messiah-ship did NOT involve violence in any way! Unfortunately, Christians and the Church have often forgotten this many times in the years and centuries since that night. God’s kingdom will never come about through violence, but only when people’s hearts are changed. As mentioned previously, Judas addresses Jesus as “Rabbi” – a negative term throughout Matthew’s gospel (probably because Matthew’s Jewish-Christian community was in conflict with Pharisaic Jews – who used the term often to describe their leaders and scholars). This passage makes it clear that although he was being betrayed and arrested, Jesus was still in full control of the situation. This, as was true with every aspect of his life and ministry, was taking place “so that the scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.” The specific scripture in this case was probably the above-mentioned passage from Zechariah 13:7 – especially since immediately after Jesus mentions it “all the disciples deserted him and fled.” CHAPTER 27:57-68 “Jesus’ Trial before Caiaphas” “Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, in whose house the scribes and the elders had gathered. But Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest; and going inside, he sat with the guards in order to see how this would end. Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’” The high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your verdict?” They answered, “He deserves death.” Then they spat in his face and struck him; and some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Who is it that struck you?” Most likely, this was NOT a formal trial before “the whole council”, but was rather an “ad-hoc committee” (perhaps equivalent to a grand jury) that was investigating Jesus with the intent of formulating formal charges to bring against him. It is highly unlikely that the entire Sanhedrin Council of 71 members (70 plus the high priest) would have all gathered at Caiaphas’ house – and any formal trial was to be held in the Council’s formal meeting place, the Hall of Hewn Stone in the temple precincts. Also, Jewish law specifically stated that a formal criminal trial had to be tried during the daytime and must be completed in the daytime – and they were not to be held during the Passover season at all. The synoptic gospels all tend to “conflate” this committee gathering of persons seeking to eliminate Jesus into a formal trial involving the entire Council. For Matthew especially, whose Jewish-Christian community was in conflict with the Pharisees of their time around 80 A.D., this would have been understandable. Another area of Jewish law was that witnesses must be cross examined separately and not allowed to come into contact with each other and that the giving of false witness was a crime punishable by death. These aspects appear to have been ignored, thus showing that the verdict against Jesus was indeed a travesty of justice. The final charge by two witnesses against Jesus was that he could (different from will as stated in Mk. 14:58) destroy the temple and build it in three days. Most likely, this charge was a garbled account of Jesus’ prophecy in Mt. 24:2 about the coming destruction of the temple – and Jesus’ prophecy that he would be raised in three days. We must remember that the chief priests thought that Jesus saw himself as a revolutionary messiah – who was possibly planning to lead a rebellion against Rome. This prospect terrified them! That is why Caiaphas then asked Jesus if he was the Messiah. SIDE POINT: Jesus’ silence was obviously viewed by Matthew and the other gospel writers as being another fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy from Isaiah 53:7. Technically, Jesus’ answer was NOT “blasphemy” – only the direct invoking of the Divine Name of God was. This shows once again that the (committee’s) verdict against Jesus was unjust. This passage as a whole is a vivid account of what persons who are filled with hatred and fear will do. The entire spirit of Jewish law was to protect an accused person and give that person every benefit of doubt, but the persons judging Jesus were looking for every possible excuse to convict him. We would all do well to consider how we often do likewise – of looking for the worst in a person rather than the best. Martin Luther puts it very well in his explanation of the 8th Commandment: “We are to fear and love God so that we do not betray, slander, or lie about our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and explain his actions in the kindest way.” When we disobey this Commandment, we are repeating the very same sin of those leaders who condemned Jesus to death. CHAPTER 26:69-75 “Peter’s Denial” “Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. A servant-girl came to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” But he denied it before all of them, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about.” When he went out to the porch, another servant-girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” Again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man.” After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.” Then he began to curse, and he swore an oath, “I do not know the man!” At that moment the cock crowed. Then Peter remembered what Jesus had said, “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.” Almost certainly, the details of this story were narrated by Peter himself! Many commentators believe that Peter shared with Mark some of the intimate details of Jesus’ passion story that are in his gospel – and Matthew of course used Mark’s account in his gospel. Peter’s denial was a terrible thing – his doing it three times was equivalent to publicly divorcing himself from being one of Jesus’ followers. Indeed, in Mark’s account of the resurrection, the angel at the tomb tells the women to “go, tell his disciples and Peter” – thus indicating that Peter by his three-fold denial was no longer a disciple. If anything, his denials were made even worse by his use of oaths – which Jesus had specifically forbidden in Mt. 5:33-37. And yet, we also know that Peter’s denials were a result of his weakness rather than because he had “hardened his heart” like had probably happened with Judas. We must admire Peter’s courage in going into the courtyard of the high priest’s house in the first place. We also know that he loved Jesus with all his heart. And yet, despite his best intentions, Peter’s courage failed. So it is with all of us – despite our best intentions, we will always fall short of doing what we want to do and be whom we want to be. Why would Peter tell this story? Because he wanted to share the reality of God’s grace that he had experienced afterwards when the resurrected Jesus had forgiven him and restored him to apostleship (see esp. John 21:15-17). In the same way, when we fail because of weakness, Jesus will still love and forgive and restore us when we confess our sins and turn to him. The greatest saints are not “perfect” people, but rather are those who have sinned, but have repented and experienced God’s grace and forgiveness – because then they KNOW what it truly means to receive a new life! Understanding this is perhaps the very essence of the Gospel message. So may this be for all of us! -------------------- George R. Karres, Pella Lutheran Church 418 W. Main Street Sidney, MT 59270
|
||||