36. Matthew 26
The Setup (26:1-5)
The end near now. Very near. His
final discoursed finished[1]
(v.1), Jesus makes this portentous statement: “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the
Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” His thrice predicted demise is
at hand (16:21; 17:22-23; 21:18-19). His active obedience finished, Jesus now
is the one acted on, seemingly at the mercy of others (his passive obedience). Three
key terms punctuate this saying.
-Passover: the great commemoration for the Jews of God’s great act of
liberating them from slavery in Egypt. This puts his coming death in proper
perspective. It is of that magnitude, or greater (as we have come to expect
Jesus to say in this gospel).
-Son of Man: Jesus’ favorite self-designation from Dan.7. It is the term
he uses to indicate his (and his -people’s) coming rule.
-crucified: here’s the twist in the kind of rule Jesus (and his people
will exercise). Here Jesus combines Isa.53’s suffering servant with the Son of
Man. As he has taught from the Sermon on the Mount till now his way, God’s way,
is different, counterintuitive, and counter-cultural from what the world knows
and expects as ruling.
The chief priests, elders, and the High Priest, Caiaphas, the
Jewish leadership, gathers, as Jesus will gather his followers later in this
chapters, to culminate their mortal plot against him (vv.3-4). Ironically, they
don’t want to kill him during Passover because they fear a riotous rejection on
the part of the people if they do. This is a sign, since they are not able to
forestall his death on Passover, that though the religious leaders are actively
plotting and seem to be calling the shots, there are other powers at work as
well.
Jesus Anointed for his Burial
(Mt.26:6-13)
Matthew weaves so many themes and emphases into the fabric of
this story as he begins to draw his story of Jesus to a close that we cannot
begin to explore them all here.[2]
I restrict my comments to the anointing, the woman, and money.
-the anointing: Kings and priests were anointed in Israel when taking up
their vocations. We are not wrong, then, to see Jesus’ anointing similarly. He
is Israel’s king and priest. And this anointing is for both Jesus’ royal and
priestly service. His investiture, however, takes place not in a palace or a
temple but in the home of Simon the eper (presumably a healed leper, probably
one Jesus healed, because a person with an active case of leprosy would hardly
be hosting a dinner party). Jesus has already laid claim to be God’s true
temple so anointing his as king and priest is tantamount anointing him in the
temple. And the service into which this unnamed woman anoints Jesus is . . .
his death! He is the king who wins by losing; the priest who offers himself on
the altar for his people. Jesus’ cross will be his throne; his body the
sacrifice of praise, forgiveness, and fellowship with God restored.
-the woman: She gets this! The disciples, bless then, males all, don’t.
Not yet. But this woman does. It may well reflect the patriarchal times from
which this story comes that this woman is unnamed but I suspect there’s
something more to it than that. Two somethings, perhaps. One, the women seem to
catch on to what Jesus is up to faster than the men in the story do. And has
often been the case in the history of the church for whatever reason. It would
be hard to overestimate the scandal this story might cause for 1st
century hearers and readers of this gospel. This anticipates that women are the
first to hear and deliver the good news of Jesus’ resurrection (28:6-8). The
good news of God’s asserting his rightful reign over the world is bookended by
these women’s witness. We can hardly stress this strongly enough at a time in
our country when many are still vigorously denying women a role in proclaiming
the gospel.
The messengers don’t need to be named. This is the second
something I mentioned above. Their glory is in their message. Only those who
don’t get it are singled out by name. Those who do need not be named but only
remembered for their lifting up the death and resurrection of Jesus. Again, in
a day when celebrity preachers are a crucial issue, very often reflecting quite
negatively on the church, this too is a dimension of this story we cannot
afford to miss.
-the money: we too perhaps take umbrage at the woman’s unbelievably
extravagant act. Even if we take them as sincere in their wish that the money
that could be gotten through the sale of the woman’s “very costly ointment”
(vv.8-9) be used for ministry to the poor, that very intention reveals their
lack of understanding who Jesus is and what she is up to. Their people were to
care for the poor and needy, to see to the maintenance of a fair and equitable
society in which all had enough (Lev.25), even the poor who always and
inevitably existed among them (Dt.15), yet God instructed them to spare no
expense in the materials and labor expended in building the temple. And, as we
have had multiple occasions to note in Matthew, in Jesus they one “greater than
the temple.” To try and hinder an extravagant act of devotion to this one who
is the new and true “place” where God and humanity meet and enter into
fellowship together is a quite a failure of understanding! It’s not an
either/or zero-sum game. We can trust that God will see to it we have what we
need to express our love for God in both devotion and ministry to the poor.
While worship is, rightly understood, a “waste of time”[3]
from the perspective of efficiency and productivity in “getting things done,”
and money spent on it capable of being used to meet more human need, both the
time and resources expended on worship to facilitate the people’s devotion and
adoration of Jesus is both justified and necessary. Wright puts it well:
“whose love for
Jesus has overflowed, quite literally, in an act of needless beauty, like a stunning
alpine flower growing unobserved half a mile up a rock face. Of course, some
people always want to pick such flowers and make them do something useful - to
grow them in a garden at home, perhaps, to make a profit. God's creation isn't
like that, and nor is devotion to Jesus. When people start to be captivated by
him, and by his path to the cross, the love this produces is given to
extravagance.”[4]
The poor we will
always have to minister to, as Jesus observes (v.11). But he will not always be
physically present for us to lavish our love on. But lavish our love on him we
should and must. Again, the two don’t have to be in competition.
This woman’s recognition of the
pathos and gravitas of this moment in Jesus’ life, his imminent death for all
of us, is a witness the church everywhere and at all times needs to honor and
proclaim with whatever lavishness we can manage (without neglecting the care of
the poor always among us).
Judas Agrees to
Betray Jesus (Mt.26:14-16)
With breathtaking artistry Matthew
highlights the previous episode by this brief, tragic note of Judas agreement
to betray Jesus. Consider the contrast:
-the unnamed woman extols Jesus; Judas
betrays him
-She finds devotion to Jesus priceless;
Judas prices him out at 30 pieces of silver
-the woman enters into Jesus’ company;
Judas is on his way out
-the woman pursues Jesus for who he is;
Judas betrays him (most likely) because Jesus does not support his
revolutionary agenda against Rome
The whys and wherefores of this
most heinous act is finally unknowable. Evil always is. We encounter it in
others, in the world, and (most terrifyingly) in ourselves but we can never
understand it. Irrationality is its hallmark.
Those words “one of the twelve”
should bring each of us to our knees in tears and repentance and prayers that
no such fate befall us. It can happen. It has happened. One of us might do
similar despite to Jesus, “crucifying again the Son of God and holding him up
to contempt” as the writers of Hebrews puts it (Heb.6:6).
A
Covenant Renewal Meal (Mt.26:17-30)
“Unleavened bread” signaled a new,
fresh break for Israel, a leaving behind their life of slavery in Egypt. From
that day and for seven days no leaven was to be used in Israel. Leaven is not
yeast and a bit of each lump of bread dough was cut off and kept to leaven the
next bunch of dough. During Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread,
however, all leaven was to be removed from Israelite homes. Failure to do so
made one liable to excommunication. Once the week of the festival passed, the
Israelites use of leaven resumed. “They were supposed to abandon the permeating
influences of Egyptian culture and religion. But even that new lump became
corrupt over the year, and so a new beginning had to be made every year (see 1
Cor,5:5-6).”[5]
Matthew has already warned his
followers against the “leaven” (the teaching) of the Pharisees and Sadducees
(16:16-21). Mention of it here can only recall the notice that it is with these
leaders that Judas negotiated his betrayal of Jesus (vv.14-16). Judas has
consumed that evil leavening and Jesus warns against other disciples following
his lead. This period of cleansing above all others would put them to an
unimaginable test. Their own lives were at stake, too, as well as Jesus’.
“If the disciples follow Jesus, and stay
with Him, and do not flee when He is arrested, they face the literal prospect
of crucifixion. The Romans frequently suppressed Jewish rebellions not only by
killing the leader but by destroying the followers. “Take up your cross” does
refer to all sorts of suffering we might endure as followers of Jesus. But it
is in the first instance a political exhortation: it is about staying close to
a controversial and politically disruptive Jesus even when the Romans threaten
to nail you to a cross . . . If teacher is going to the cross, the disciples
run the same risk”[6]
No small ask, huh? No wonder Jesus
felt the need to admonish them to constancy. Unfortunately, as we know, he was
doomed to disappointment on that score! How are we doing in this regard is the
question this episode leaves us with.
Everything is prepared for the meal
in accord with Jesus’ wishes (v.19). Jesus announces his betrayal which
understandably shocks the others. Each asks Jesus to assure them they are not
the one to perform this deed: “Surely not I, Lord?” His response does nothing
more than confirm that the perpetrator is one of them. But when Judas asked the
same question of him, Jesus answers in the affirmative with the same phrase he
will later use to affirm the high priest’s question of whether he was the
messiah: “You have said so” (v.64). Presumably Judas left the table at that
point though we are not told as much.
What follows are perhaps the most
controversial words in the gospels: “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’”
(vv.26-29).
I do not intend to enter or trace all those arguments (for
which the reader will doubtless be grateful). I will only state my views. I do
not believe these words “this is my body” and “this is my blood” signify an
ontological change from the physical element into the actual body and blood of
Jesus. I think they do carry a sacramental significance: physical elements that
signify and partake in the reality of that which they signify without changing
into it. Partaking these elements, eating and drinking, not only points to but
allows to participate in their reality. That is, the sacraments sign their
reality to us and seal that reality in us. That means I follow John Calvin in
his notion that Christ is really, though not physically, present in them. We really do meet the risen Christ in this
rite; they are as classically defined, “means of grace.”
All this goes well beyond our text in Matthew, of course.
But I think the understanding I sketched is congruent with it. Jesus clearly
identifies himself in some way with the bread and wine as he has identified
himself in some way with his disciples (see my comments on 25:31-46, “. . . you
have done it to me”). It is no great leap, then, to see the body and blood that
is to be eaten and drunk as including his disciples as well. We noticed earlier
that Jesus’ call for them to follow him into Jerusalem placed them in mortal
danger. That he envisioned them as being broken and their blood spilled when he
made this pronouncement is not too far afield, I think. And their bodies will
be broken and blood spilled for him! And, on the other hand, their failures will
constitute a part of the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood.
Jesus’ statement “my blood of the covenant” tells us this
meal he celebrated with his disciples is a covenant renewal meal. His disciples
doubtless expected a traditional Passover meal recalling God’s mighty action in
freeing them from their horrid slavery in Egypt and their anticipation of living
under his rule in a land all their own. And of the covenant God made with them at
Mt. Sinai seen in Ex.24. And they were right . . . in a way.
It is a meal commemorating that epochal event in Israel’s
existence. It is a meal celebrating a renewing the covenant at Sinai. As the
elders of the people enjoyed a meal with God on that mountain (Ex.24:9-11), so
the disciples enjoyed a meal with Jesus in the upper room. As Moses splashed
the blood of the sacrifice (Ex.24:6) against the altar built on that mountain,
so Jesus will have his blood splashed over the ground at the foot of his cross
on Golgatha (Skull Mountain). As he has done with every other key marker of
Jewish life – law, temple, wisdom, prophecy – Jesus gives it a messianic twist
by referring the meaning of what they are doing that night to himself. Jesus “drew the meaning of the whole meal on to
himself. He offered a new direction of thought which, for those who followed
him and came to believe in him, took Passover in quite a new direction, which has
likewise continued to this day. We can perhaps imagine the shock of the
disciples as they realized he was departing from the normal script and talking
about . . . himself.”[7]
Everything Israel had been about,
-its Abrahamic
mission to spread divine blessing to the world,
-its Mosaic
calling to live that blessing out in gracious and equitable ways in daily life,
-its Davidic vocation to practice
God’s rule in merciful justice and suffering servanthood,
is now proclaimed to rest in Jesus
and to be fulfilled by the breaking of his body and the spilling of his blood.
He is the covenant fulfilled in person, in his body soon to torn and mutilated and
hung on a cross for all to see and jeer at. The climactic character of this
weekend he gives in his final saying: “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.”
That
Jesus leads his followers in hymn (v.30) to conclude this solemn (and if truth
be told pretty much of a downer) celebration and preface their going out into
the night to face the ordeal ahead suggests that at least he (we can only
speculate what the disciples must have felt like at this point) ventured into
the hell he knew awaited with joy. As the writer of Hebrews, again, put it: Jesus
“for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding
its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God”
(12:2).
[1] Interestingly, Jesus says that he has finished saying “all”
these things. His message to Israel is now complete. See Leithart, The
Gospel of Matthew: 3854-3861.
[2] Leithart’s exposition is especially good here: 3933-3988.
[3] See Marva J. Dawn. A Royal
Waste of Time: The Splendor of Worshiping God and Being Church for the World
(Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999),
[4] Wright, Matthew for Everyone: 148.
[5] Leithart, The Gospel of Matthew: 4038.
[6] Leithart, The Gospel of Matthew: 4020-4026.
[7] Wright, Matthew for Everyone: 155.
Comments
Post a Comment