3. JESUS TO JERUSALEM: KINGDOM ENACTMENT THROUGH DEATH AND RESURRECTION (16:21–28:20)
In 16:21–28:20, Matthew narrates Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem to fulfill his mission to be “a ransom for many” (20:28). After repeated predictions of his death and extended teaching that his disciples are to follow his example of service without thought of personal status (16:21–20:28), Jesus rides into Jerusalem as Messiah, symbolically enacting Zechariah’s vision of a peaceable king (21:1–11). He indicts the Jerusalem leadership for their mismanagement of the temple and demonstrates his authority to do so by virtue of his identity as Messiah and Lord (21:12–22:46). His predictions of the fall of the temple and about his reappearing and final judgment call his followers to live faithfully and mercifully in preparation for what is to come (23:1–25:46). Matthew narrates in detail the events leading up to Jesus’s execution by Rome influenced by the Jerusalem elite. Jesus embodies his mission to be Israel’s Messiah-King through self-sacrifice rather than assertion of his rightful authority (26:1–27:66). His identity and mission are vindicated at his resurrection, which sees him enthroned with authority over all and enacting his mission to reach all nations through his presence with his people (28:1–20).
A. Journey to the cross and teaching on discipleship (16:21–20:28). This section, focusing on Jesus’s journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, is structured around Jesus’s three predictions that he will soon suffer and be crucified in Jerusalem (16:21; 17:22–23; 20:17–19). The culminating moment provides the purpose for Jesus’s journey—to become “a ransom for many” (20:28). Woven between these predictions and this purpose statement are teachings and object lessons on the nature of discipleship.
16:21. Immediately after Peter confesses Jesus to be the Messiah (16:16), Matthew narrates Jesus’s first passion prediction (16:21). Jesus explains to his disciples the necessity of his impending suffering and death at the hands of Jerusalem leaders. In two subsequent passion predictions, Jesus indicates that he will be betrayed into human hands (17:22–23) and be crucified by Gentiles (20:17–19), demonstrating Matthew’s emphasis on wide-ranging culpability for Jesus’s execution (see 27:26).
16:22–23. In response to Jesus’s prediction, Peter rebukes him, denying that execution will be Jesus’s lot (16:22). Peter’s response demonstrates two things. First, he has not heard Jesus’s prediction of being “raised the third day” in any meaningful way. This is understandable from the perspective of first-century Jewish expectations. Though a majority of first-century Jews would have believed in bodily resurrection, they would not have conceived of resurrection as a series of individual resurrections. Instead, Jewish hopes focused on a corporate resurrection of God’s faithful people at the time of final restoration (e.g., Dn 12:1–3). So Peter likely did not hear Jesus’s statement here as referring to Jesus’s resurrection ahead of the final, general resurrection (cf. 1 Co 15:20–23).
Second, Peter does not understand the kind of Messiah Jesus is. For Jesus (and Matthew), suffering and death are central for defining the kind of Messiah Jesus comes to be. Though Rome executed any number of would-be messiahs for their pretensions, Jesus is not predicting his death based on such likelihood but on necessity (16:21). Peter’s words, though probably well meaning, function as a stumbling block to the fulfillment of Jesus’s mission; they do not represent the divine perspective (16:23).
16:24–28. Matthew follows this passion prediction with a teaching on discipleship that echoes the call to sacrifice that Jesus models. Self-denial and carrying one’s cross provide the pattern for discipleship (16:24; cf. 10:38), just as they are definitional for Jesus’s role as Messiah. Yet the paradox of discipleship is that losing one’s life (Gk psychē) results in finding it. Since psychē can refer to both earthly and transcendent life (often translated as “soul” for the latter), a wordplay is operative in 16:25–26. Jesus defines losing one’s life (and so self-denial) in terms of tangible actions (16:27), which Matthew will illustrate in subsequent chapters (Mt 18 particularly). [Discipleship in the New Testament]
Reference to “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (16:28) points ahead to the foretaste of Jesus as king at his transfiguration (17:1–9) as well as to his enthronement at his resurrection (Mt 28). The vision of the Son of Man coming in his kingdom derives from Dn 7:13–14 and is a picture of Jesus’s vindication of his claims and his mission (see 10:23; 24:30–31). When Matthew references Jesus’s second coming, he uses a different and quite specific term (24:3, 27, 37, 39).
17:1–13. The transfiguration and the subsequent debriefing with Peter, James, and John reveal more clearly who Jesus is. Mountains are key locations for revelation, in Scripture generally and in Matthew specifically (cf. Mt 5–7; 17; 24–25; 28). The central moment is when the divine voice affirms Jesus and his mission (17:5). The same words are spoken by God at 3:17, with only John the Baptist privy to them. The disciples now learn of the intimate relationship between God and Jesus, the Son. The added words—“Listen to him!”—emphasize Jesus’s teaching role with the disciples in this part of Matthew.
The appearance of Moses and Elijah with Jesus (17:3) precipitates the disciples’ question about the scribal understanding that Elijah must “come first” (17:10). The scribes reflect Malachi’s prophecy that Elijah’s appearance would precede the “day of the LORD” (Mal 4:5–6). Given the disciples’ recent confirmation of Jesus’s messianic identity and experience of him in glorified form, it is not difficult to see why they would be wondering about the imminent arrival of that final day (Matthew’s “end of the age”; e.g., 13:39; 24:3; 28:20). Jesus affirms the truth of this expectation but with a twist: Elijah has already come and been rejected, as will be the Son of Man (17:12). The disciples make the connection between this prophesied Elijah and John the Baptist (see 3:4; 11:7–14).
Just as Jesus comes down from the Transfiguration to find the disciples struggling to cast out a demon (Mt 17), so Moses too came down from a mountain to discover that the people below were struggling spiritually (Ex 32).
17:14–21. Matthew narrates the healing of a demon-possessed boy whose father has sought his healing from the disciples while Jesus was away. When the disciples fail, the father comes to Jesus (17:14–16). Jesus’s response echoes his words against “this generation” in 12:39–45, where Jewish leaders inappropriately ask Jesus for a miraculous sign. In this case, Jesus reacts against the general unbelief of the present generation as exemplified by the disciples’ inability to heal the boy (17:17).
After Jesus heals him, the disciples privately ask why they were unsuccessful (17:18–19). Jesus attributes their inability to their “little faith” (17:20; see also 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8), distinguishing the disciples from and connecting them to the current generation, whom Jesus characterizes as lacking faith (“unbelieving,” 17:17). The disciples do not adequately trust in the authority Jesus has already given them (cf. 10:1). With faith as small as a mustard seed, the disciples could do miraculous things (17:20). Yet their little faith falls short of the small amount of faith necessary for doing the impossible.
17:22–27. Jesus predicts his execution and resurrection to his disciples a second time, yet they grieve at this news, indicating that they do not understand what Jesus means (17:22–23; see 16:21).
The final passage of 16:21–17:27 narrates Jesus’s pronouncement on paying the temple tax while also introducing the motif of stumbling that will be explored in Mt 18. The two-drachma temple tax (equivalent to the half-shekel of Ex 30:11–16) was levied on all adult Jewish males annually, though there is debate on how rigidly this was followed in the first century. When questioned by the collectors of this tax whether his teacher pays it, Peter responds in the affirmative (17:24–25a).
Tyrian shekels were coins originally minted in the city of Tyre. They were worth four drachmas each; thus, one was enough to cover the temple tax for Jesus and Peter (Mt 17:27).
© Baker Publishing Group and Dr. James C. Martin. Courtesy of the Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Jesus then takes the situation as a teaching opportunity and uses the analogy of human kingship: while kings levy taxes, they do not tax their own offspring (17:25b–26). In the same way, those who are children of the kingdom are exempt from taxation (17:27). Yet Jesus’s teaching and practice go further: he will pay the tax to avoid offending others and causing them to stumble (cf. 11:6). Kingdom freedoms are constrained by concern for others (cf. 18:6–7). The amount miraculously provided is just enough to pay for Peter and Jesus (a four-drachma coin for both two-drachma payments; see the CSB footnote for 17:27).
18:1. The messages of Jesus’s fourth discourse, the Community Discourse (18:1–35)—embedded in 16:21–20:28, with its focus on defining Messiah and discipleship—center on the need for the messianic community to renounce status concerns, to care for their most vulnerable, and to restore and forgive those who stray. The community of disciples must deny self and live a cross-shaped existence (16:24) empowered by Jesus’s presence within the community.
Chapter 18 may be divided into two sections, each beginning with a question posed to Jesus (18:1, 21). In 18:1–20, Jesus begins by addressing the disciples’ question about who is greatest in God’s kingdom (18:1). This is a status question—an understandable one in the context of ancient conventions that clearly spell out honor and status levels based on birth, family, title, wealth, and relationship with others. As their daily conventions revolve around status, the disciples assume that the inauguration of God’s reign will set up a new set of status criteria. They are hopeful that they will rank higher in God’s status system than in that of the Greco-Roman world (cf. 20:20–21).
18:2–5. Jesus’s response indicates that the disciples’ assumptions about God’s kingdom are mistaken. He brings a child to them to signal their need for change regarding status concerns (18:2–3). Instead of being preoccupied with their status in the kingdom, they need to become like children to enter the kingdom. Jesus then indicates it is the humble status of children that the disciples should emulate (18:4).
While today’s readers of Matthew often hear “humble” (18:4) as an internal disposition, the original audience (and the disciples) would have understood this as a term indicating social status. In that cultural context, children did not possess status inherently; they did not have the rights and honor that modern Western society gives them. Instead, they were considered weak and irrational and as possessing little status until they reached adulthood. As such, they are ideal examples for the disciples, who are preoccupied with status concerns.
Jesus aligns himself with those marginalized in the status systems of his day, and he calls the disciples to do the same: anyone who welcomes a child welcomes Jesus (18:5)!
18:6–14. Jesus expands his discussion about those in the messianic community who, like children, possess little or no status. Jesus defends these “little ones” against those who would cause them to fall away (Gk skandalizō; 18:6) or who look down on them (18:10). Warnings are given against bringing about the sin and stumbling of others (18:5–6) or of oneself (18:7–9). Using hyperbole to great effect, Jesus teaches that it is better to lose a hand, foot, or eye if it causes sin than to risk “eternal fire” (18:8). Jesus grounds the value of these persons of low status in their access to his Father and in God’s concern for them.
We see an example of church discipline at work in how the apostle Paul deals with an offender in the Corinthian church (see 1 Co 5:3–5; 2 Co 2:6–8).
To illustrate God’s deep care for little ones, especially those who stray, Jesus tells a parable of a shepherd who leaves his ninety-nine sheep in safety to seek and find the one that has strayed (18:12–13). His joy is greater over the restoration of that single sheep than over the rest that never strayed. Jesus applies the parable (18:14) to the Father’s great concern over losing even a single little one.
18:15–20. The theme of restoration initiated in the parable finds further emphasis and clarity in the next paragraph, where the restoration of a sinning community member is paramount. The goal of the process described in 18:15–20 is to win over one’s brother or sister (18:15). The restorative process involves (1) bringing the purported sin to the person privately; (2) if the first action does not result in restoration, bringing one or two witnesses along in line with the OT command to protect the accused from false testimony (18:16; not to aid the accuser; cf. Dt 19:15); and (3) if neither action results in restoration, bringing in the church as a whole to advocate for restoration (18:17). As a last resort, the church is to treat the erring member as an outsider (with tax collectors and pagans connoting outsiders in Matthew’s social context; cf. 5:46–47). Though it is not explicit, the reader is right to presume that this final action (as with the rest) is also for the purpose of restoration.
Jesus’s words at 18:18 echo his earlier promise concerning binding and loosing (cf. 16:19). Jesus then uses language of “two or three” (from 18:16, reflecting Dt 19:15) to promise that God will hear and answer when the Christian community agrees in prayer (18:19), based on Jesus’s presence with them (18:20). At the thematic center of the Community Discourse, Matthew emphasizes Jesus’s presence with his people as the hope for their common life (cf. 1:23; 28:20).
18:21–35. The second half of Mt 18 is introduced by Peter’s question regarding the appropriate number of times that forgiveness is warranted (18:21). Although generous in his suggestion, Peter’s sevenfold forgiveness contrasts with Jesus’s answer of “seventy times seven” (18:22). His answer alludes to Gn 4:24, where Cain’s son Lamech claims that God will avenge him “seven times over” (cf. Gn 4:13–15).
Jesus’s call to his messianic community is to live out a reversal of escalating vengeance through unlimited forgiveness. To illustrate, Jesus tells a parable of a servant who is released from an astronomical debt of ten thousand talents by a compassionate king (with a talent being roughly equivalent to six thousand denarii, 18:23–27) only to refuse release of a debt of one hundred denarii for a fellow servant (with a denarius representing about a day’s wage, 18:28–30). The king’s reversal of debt forgiveness and his punishment of the servant at the parable’s conclusion (18:31–34) is compared to God’s treatment of “you unless every one of you forgives his brother or sister” (18:35). This teaching echoes 6:14–15, where God’s forgiveness is predicated on one’s forgiveness of others. The parable clarifies that the warning is issued to those who have already experienced God’s forgiveness, so that human forgiveness arises from an experience of God’s forgiveness.
19:1–9. Signaling the conclusion of the fourth discourse, Matthew includes the familiar formula “When Jesus had finished saying these things” (19:1a; see 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 26:1). The next section takes place to the east of Judea, across the Jordan River (19:1b). After summarizing Jesus’s ministry of healing to the crowds (19:2), Matthew narrates a legal debate between the Pharisees and Jesus (cf. 12:1–14). The Pharisees use a question about legal reasons for divorce to test Jesus (19:3). Jesus answers by citing Gn 1:27 and Gn 2:24, indicating the basis for the permanence of marriage in God’s creational intention that husband and wife be “one flesh” (19:4–6).
In turn, the Pharisees cite Dt 24:1 (19:7), which may have been used in Jewish debates for both wide latitude and a narrow understanding of permissible divorce. Jesus argues that Deuteronomy provides a concession rather than a command (19:8). His own teaching on divorce, according to Matthew, allows for it only in cases of unfaithfulness, fitting the more conservative interpretation of Deuteronomy (19:9; see also 5:32; cf. Mk 10:11).
19:10–12. The debate with the Pharisees recedes into the background as Jesus debriefs with his disciples, who misconstrue his teaching as a reason to avoid marriage altogether (19:10). Jesus takes the opportunity to teach that choosing celibacy for God’s kingdom is the right course for those “to whom it has been given” (19:11), while not undermining the importance of marriage. Jesus’s teaching affirms both lifelong marriage and singleness as being part of the design of God.
The Pharisees appeal to Deuteronomy to challenge Jesus about his interpretation of the law on divorce (Mt 19:8), but Jesus bases his views about marriage and divorce on God’s original blueprint for marriage “from the beginning,” found in Gn 1–2.
Using this story, Matthew continues to subvert prevailing status expectations about the kingdom (cf. 18:1–5). Jesus limits the power of husbands to divorce their wives “for any and every reason” to only cases of marital unfaithfulness (19:3–9) and, in a culture in which they were socially marginalized, elevates the status of eunuchs in the kingdom perspective (19:12).
19:13–15. Matthew highlights status issues by reiterating Jesus’s perspective on children (cf. 18:5). The disciples attempt to keep children from Jesus, showing that they have not assimilated Jesus’s teaching at 18:1–5. Jesus corrects the disciples, inviting children to come to him and indicating the central place that children have in God’s kingdom.
19:16–22. In counterpart, Matthew narrates a story illustrating how persons of great status, the rich, do not have priority in God’s reign or kingdom. In fact, the story of the rich man who comes to Jesus asking the way to eternal life (19:16–22) concludes with Jesus teaching his disciples the difficulty the rich will have entering God’s kingdom (19:23–24). Jesus’s initial response to the man’s question is that obedience to God’s commandments brings life (19:16–19; with his examples drawn from Dt 5:6–21). The man says that he has kept these but indicates he still lacks something (19:20). Jesus calls him to complete loyalty by selling his possessions, giving the proceeds to the poor, and then following Jesus (19:21). Jesus calls this man to give up precisely that which stands in the way of discipleship—his “many possessions” (19:22)—something he is not yet willing to do.
19:23–26. Jesus’s debriefing with his disciples points to the great difficulty of the rich in entering God’s kingdom (with the image of a camel going through a needle’s eye emphasizing this difficulty, 19:23–24). The disciples are astonished by this statement (19:25), indicating that they consider the rich to have great status and advantage in God’s kingdom (as they do in ancient society). Jesus’s concluding statement intimates the leveling of the playing field in God’s scheme of things, since what is humanly impossible (salvation) is quite possible for God (19:26). God can save both rich and poor, though Matthew shows that those who are poor and of lesser status are closer to the kingdom than the rich and powerful (e.g., 5:3–6).
19:27–30. Peter’s subsequent question provides opportunity for an extended teaching on status and reward (19:27–20:16). In contrast to the rich man, the disciples have “left everything and followed [Jesus]” (19:27). Peter’s question about what they will have elicits Jesus’s two-pronged answer.
First, Jesus assures his followers that their faithful discipleship will result in their vindication at the “renewal of all things” and a role in that final judgment (“thrones” likely connote a judging role; yet see 25:31–46 for disciples also being judged in that final day) (19:28). All followers of Jesus who have left home and family (cf. 12:48–50) will be rewarded with blessing and eternal life (with hundredfold language used to indicate abundance of blessing, 19:29).
Second, Jesus also warns against presuming on one’s kingdom status or reward (19:30). With language that clearly connotes status (first/last), Jesus qualifies his promise of reward and status. This same warning is repeated at 20:16, after the parable of the workers, which addresses status presumption.
20:1–16. In the parable of the vineyard workers, Jesus compares God’s reign to the payment of groups of day laborers working in a vineyard for a landowner. After hiring laborers throughout the day, the landowner pays those hired during the last hour a full day’s wage (a denarius)—the same amount he has promised to those who began working in the early morning (20:1–9). Seeing this, those hired first expect to receive more than a denarius, yet they receive just what was promised them (20:10–11). They grumble to the landowner, accusing him of the inequity of equal pay for unequal work (20:12). The landowner counters that he paid them an agreed-on and fair wage (20:13–14). They resent not his fairness but his generosity (20:15).
Jesus’s parable warns against presuming reward and status in the kingdom (20:16; cf. 19:30), especially for those who are “first” (in story context, the Twelve—who expect higher status in the kingdom; cf. 18:1; 19:27; 20:20–21). The parable also hints at a surprising (and offensive!) equality within the kingdom.
20:17–19. Here Matthew provides Jesus’s third passion prediction to his disciples, this time making explicit that Jesus’s death will be crucifixion at the hands of the Gentiles (20:19). Without narrating a specific response of the disciples (as he does at 16:22 and 17:23), Matthew implies a continuing incomprehension on the part of the disciples as to what Jesus’s mission is really about by telling the story of a bid for status in the kingdom by James and John.
20:20–27. The request for second and third positions in the coming kingdom (to sit at Jesus’s right and left) comes through the mother of James and John (20:20–21). Yet it is clear that James and John are involved in the plan since they answer Jesus’s question about drinking the cup he will drink (20:22; with cup language used in the OT to signal God’s judgment; e.g., Jr 25:15; 49:12). That they think they will be able to drink that cup, which refers to Jesus’s execution, indicates that they have not understood either Jesus’s passion predictions (16:21; 17:22–23; 20:17–19) or his expectations for their role in his mission, which is rooted in self-sacrifice for others (16:24–26; 18:1–35).
When the other disciples are angered by James and John’s request (20:24), Jesus counters their perspectives on status with a series of sayings that culminate Jesus’s kingdom teachings in 16:21–20:28. Jesus first contrasts their relationships within the believing community with the way rulers of the Gentiles take the role of absolute master over others (20:25). The disciples, by contrast, should take the position of servants and slaves in relation to one another (20:26–27). Living out the metaphor of a slave is much like living out the child analogy Jesus has used in 18:1–5. In both cases, Jesus holds up as an example one with little or no status. His disciples should emulate those of little status rather than one who holds and maintains power and status. Jesus corrects those who seek to be “great” (20:26; cf. 18:1) and “first” (20:27; cf. 19:30; 20:16) in a kingdom that is about not status pursuit but status renunciation.
20:28. Jesus’s own mission is the example to emulate. Jesus’s words very likely evoke Isaiah’s servant of the Lord (Is 53:11–12). Matthew signals here for the first time in his narrative that it is Jesus’s death that will bring Israel’s redemption (cf. 1:21; 26:28) and God’s kingdom. God’s reign is inaugurated by God’s servant, who pours out his life for others rather than dominates as the Gentiles do. An inversion of power redefines kingdom and discipleship to such an extent as to be almost unrecognizable. [Ransom]
B. Final proclamation, confrontation, and judgment in Jerusalem (20:29–25:46). In this section, Matthew narrates Jesus’s arrival and early actions in Jerusalem, the ensuing controversies with the Jerusalem leaders regarding his authority, and Jesus’s subsequent prophetic judgment of the temple and its leadership. Through these Jerusalem encounters, Matthew emphasizes Jesus’s identity as Davidic Messiah and his rightful authority and lordship over the temple and its present leadership as well as all humanity at the end of the age. Matthew also highlights the importance of living out covenantal faithfulness, mercy, and justice for all who would follow Jesus as king.
Jesus came to demonstrate that greatness is found in humble service (Mt 20:28), as Paul describes in Php 2:1–8.
20:29–34. Jesus’s healing of two blind men is a transitional story between Jesus’s teaching of the disciples (16:21–20:28) and his arrival in Jerusalem (21:1–11). A link occurs between the calls of the blind men to Jesus as “Son of David” (20:30, 31) and the cries of the Jerusalem crowds, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” (21:9), and the crowds are reintroduced to a central place in Matthew’s story (20:31; cf. 21:9, 11). The healing story emphasizes Jesus’s messianic compassion and authority and ends with the two men following Jesus (20:34)—language used by Matthew to signal discipleship (e.g., 4:19; 16:24).
21:1–11. For Matthew, Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem enacts Zechariah’s prophetic announcement that Israel’s king would arrive in Jerusalem not as a warrior on his horse but on a donkey—as in times of peace (Zch 9:9–10; see also 1 Kg 1:33, 38). Just as Zechariah’s prophecy anticipates a “gentle” king (21:5; see the Greek Septuagint of Zch 9:9), Matthew’s Jesus has already identified himself as gentle and humble (11:29; see also 5:5). Matthew emphasizes Jesus’s symbolic appropriation of the peaceable and gentle king by narrating Jesus’s instructions to procure a donkey (21:1–3), by quoting Zch 9:9 as fulfilled in Jesus’s arrival in Jerusalem (21:4–5), and by concluding with the response of the crowds to Jesus’s royal entrance (21:8–11).
The crowds accompanying Jesus hail him as “the Son of David”—a messianic title. They choose a blessing from Ps 118:26, which may have been understood to have royal connotations (21:9). When questioned by the people of Jerusalem, these crowds who have followed Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem identify him as “the prophet” (21:11; a possible reference to Dt 18:15–19; cf. Jn 6:14).
21:12–13. Matthew immediately turns to Jesus’s clearing the temple upon his arrival in Jerusalem. The selling of sacrificial animals was a necessary accommodation for pilgrims traveling long distances to Jerusalem for Passover (26:2), as was the changing of money from Greek and Roman currency (with their pagan images/inscriptions) to the prescribed temple currency of coins from Tyre in Phoenicia. Jesus’s complaint in his symbolic action is likely about the location of such transactions within the temple confines (probably the Court of the Gentiles, which accommodated large crowds during festivals) rather than a rejection of these practices altogether (21:12). He cites Is 56:7 to indicate the temple’s purpose as a “house of prayer,” not a “den of thieves” (an allusion to Jr 7:11) (21:13).
21:14–17. Jesus’s action in the temple signals (implicitly but clearly) his messianic identity and anticipates his prophetic judgment on the temple in 23:37–24:35. Jesus, as the Messiah, has the right to call the temple’s leadership to account for its administration. Jesus demonstrates the purpose of the temple as a place of prayer, welcome, and healing (21:14). His identity as “Son of David” is reaffirmed in the shouts of children, to the consternation of the chief priests and teachers of the law (21:15–16; cf. Ps 8:2).
21:18–22. In the third of three symbolic acts, Matthew’s Jesus curses a fig tree that has no figs (21:18–19), evoking OT prophetic critique of Israel’s fruitlessness (Mc 7:1; cf. Jr 8:13). Matthew uses this account to emphasize Jesus’s critique of the current temple administration (in combination with 21:12–13, with the most immediate referent for mountain in 21:21 being the Temple Mount) and to call disciples to faith without doubt (cf. 17:20).
21:23–27. The question the chief priests and elders raise about Jesus’s authority (21:23) sets the terms for a series of controversies between Jesus and the Jerusalem leadership (Mt 21–22). Jesus agrees to answer their question about the source of his authority for his recent actions if they will identify John’s baptism as divine or human in origin (21:24–25a). Their dilemma: if they say divine, they will have no excuse for rejecting his message; if they say human, they will antagonize the crowds, who believe John was God’s prophet (21:25b–26). They claim ignorance, and Jesus does not answer their question (21:27). Yet, in the ensuing controversies, Jesus asserts his God-given authority powerfully and effectively, so that, in the end, no one dares to ask him any more questions (22:46).
© Ritmeyer Archaeological Design.
21:28–32. Jesus first addresses the Jerusalem leaders with three parables that indict them for abdicating their leadership role in guiding Israel in righteousness (21:32). In the parable of the two sons (21:28–30), Jesus contrasts the son who, though initially disobedient, repents (“changed his mind,” 21:29; cf. 21:32) and obeys his father with the son who says he will obey but does not. In regard to believing John the Baptist’s message, the tax collectors and prostitutes are like the first son, the chief priests and elders like the second (21:31–32). According to Jesus, the wayward of Israel enter God’s kingdom ahead of its leaders, because the latter didn’t change their minds and believe John (21:32).
21:33–46. The harsh indictment of 21:32 leads into a parable of judgment on the same leaders. Jesus draws on the OT portrayal of Israel as a vineyard (e.g., Is 5:1–7) and tells a story of a vineyard entrusted by a landowner to local tenants (21:33–39). When he sends his servants to collect the fruit, the tenants beat or kill them. Even when he sends his son, they do the same. The judgment on the tenants is the vineyard’s removal from them and its transfer to other tenants (21:40–41). Jesus cites Ps 118:22–23 to indicate God’s vindication of the rejected one (21:42; cf. 28:18) and declares that God’s kingdom will be taken away from Israel’s current leaders and given “to a people producing its fruit” (21:43; with the singular noun “a people” likely referring to faithful Jews and Gentiles).
The judgment of this parable, as well as the previous one, is aimed specifically at the Jewish leaders, who have failed to lead and care for the Jewish people as they ought. Their failure is seen precisely in their rejection of both John and Jesus (the son of the parable). The chief priests and Pharisees know that Jesus has referred to them in these two parables (21:45), so they seek to arrest him secretly (21:46).
22:1–14. The third parable Matthew includes is likely also intended for the Jewish leadership, though the ending is not specific to them as at 21:31–32, 45. God’s kingdom is likened to a wedding banquet held by a king for his son. Those invited refuse to come, even killing the king’s servants who bring the invitation (22:1–6). In response, the king sends his army to destroy these murderers and burn their city (22:7; with a possible reference to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70). Since the original guests refuse the king’s invitation, he opens the banquet to anyone his servants can find, “both evil and good” (22:8–10; cf. 13:40–43, 49–50). Jesus’s parable up to this point emphasizes the affront of refusing God’s kingdom invitation and the judgment that will fall on those who reject that invitation, as the Jewish leadership has been doing.
The final scene of the parable strikes closer to home. A man who is at the banquet is discovered without the proper wedding garments and thrown out (22:11–13). This scene warns those who have responded to the kingdom invitation (offered by Jesus) of judgment if they do not bear fruit (with “weeping and gnashing of teeth” [22:13] being a common image for judgment in Matthew; cf. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 24:51; 25:30). Though the wedding garment is an ambiguous image, in context it seems best interpreted along an ethical line, since both good and bad enter the parable’s banquet (22:10) and since the previous two parables emphasize ethical behavior (21:32, 43; for similar warnings to insiders, see 7:21–23; 16:27).
22:15–22. After Jesus’s parables prophesying judgment on Jewish leadership, various groups of leaders go on the offensive by bringing difficult questions to Jesus. The first group is a coalition of Pharisees and Herodians (with the Herodians likely representing the interests of Herod and other clients of Rome within his circle) who ask Jesus whether it is “lawful to pay taxes to Caesar” (22:15–17). Knowing that they intend to trap him, Jesus denounces their hypocrisy, possibly for bringing a coin with Caesar’s image into the temple area (22:18–19; cf. 6:1–18). Jesus asks them to identify whose portrait and inscription are on the denarius they produce (22:20). When they reply, “Caesar’s,” Jesus gives an answer that defies the no-win situation they think they have created (22:21).
Jesus appears to concede payment of the census tax (requiring a denarius per person) to Rome, while intimating God’s ownership of all things (a bedrock of Jewish theology; cf. Ps 24:1). By a rather ambiguous answer, Jesus subverts the reach of the emperor—a reach that would claim to extend to all of life—by signaling that what belongs to God must be given to God. Jesus’s questioners are rightly amazed at his answer (22:22).
22:23–33. The next group of leaders questioning Jesus is the Sadducees, who pose a question meant to reveal the absurdity of belief in bodily resurrection (22:23). They hypothesize a woman widowed seven times from the death of seven brothers (22:24–27). Their question (22:28): At the resurrection from the dead whose wife will she be? Jesus answers that they are (dead) wrong, because they are ignorant of both the Scriptures and God’s power (22:29)! At the renewal of all things there will be no need for marriage as context for procreation, since the power of God will ensure that the resurrected faithful will never again die (in this, they will be like the angels; 22:30).
Jesus argues from the Scriptures (Ex 3:6) that the dead will be raised: if God can still be referred to as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob long after these men have died, then the implication is that God will raise them to life again at the final resurrection (22:31–32). In his defense of the promise of future resurrection, Jesus implicitly affirms that God’s rule will arrive in spite of the current Roman regime. As with his teaching on Roman taxation, Jesus’s message here has a subversive element.
22:34–40. The final question asked of Jesus again comes from the Pharisees, who send one of their torah experts to ask Jesus about the greatest commandment (22:34–36). Matthew has already emphasized Jesus’s torah interpretation through the lens of love and mercy (5:43–48; 9:13; 12:7), and Jesus’s answer at 22:40 fits this theme: “All the Law and the Prophets depend on” the commands to love God (Dt 6:5) and love neighbor (Lv 19:18) (22:37–39). Given previous accusations that Jesus was lax in his torah observance (12:1–14; 15:1–20), these Jerusalem Pharisees may have hoped to discover a problem with Jesus’s torah interpretation. If so, Jesus gave them nothing to fault. His answer falls well within the parameters of Jewish teachings.
The Ten Commandments are summed up by Jesus in the two commands to love God and love people (Mt 22:37–40). Both Paul and James echo the same teaching, in particular summarizing the commandments relating to other people as “love your neighbor as yourself” (Rm 13:8–10; Gl 5:14; Jms 2:8).
22:41–46. While the Pharisees remain assembled, Jesus turns the tables to ask his own question, which silences the entire Jewish leadership after their litany of questions (22:46; cf. 21:23–27; 22:15–40). His query answers their questions of his authority by addressing the issue of his messianic identity. When he asks them whose son the Messiah is, they answer in expected fashion: the son of David (22:42). While their answer is accurate (see 1:1; 12:23; 21:9), it is not fully adequate. Citing Ps 110:1, Jesus asks how David could call his own son “Lord” in a psalm that clearly elevates and vindicates this “Lord” (22:43–44). Jesus concludes with a riddle: How can David’s “Lord” be his son? (22:45).
Although no one in the story can answer the riddle, the reader of Matthew knows its solution. Matthew has shown Jesus to be the Messiah and has defined the Messiah both as Davidic in ancestry (1:1–17) and as “Lord”—a title used for Jesus throughout Matthew’s Gospel (e.g., 7:22; 8:2, 25; 17:4; 20:30–31; 25:44), which signals Jesus’s authority over all things (cf. 28:18). The riddle requires a double affirmative: Jesus as the Messiah is both David’s son and his Lord. Matthew concludes this section in which Jesus’s authority is questioned by affirming that Jesus derives his authority from his identity as Messiah and Lord.
23:1–12. The judgments issued by Jesus on the Jerusalem elite in Mt 21–22 lead into a more extended section of judgment in Mt 23–25, with chapter 23 focused on scribes and Pharisees specifically. Yet the story audience of these woes consists of the crowds and Jesus’s disciples (23:1). Matthew intends this chapter to shape the discipleship and leadership of the Christian community, focusing on themes of avoiding hypocrisy and right teaching of and adherence to the law.
Jesus begins by calling the crowds and disciples to respect the teaching role of these leaders but warns against following their actions since “they don’t practice what they teach” (23:2–3; cf. 15:3–6; 23:23). The indictment that these leaders put heavy loads on people (23:4) provides the counterpoint to Jesus’s claim that his “burden is light” (11:30). The second warning Jesus gives is to avoid their example of seeking human attention and honor (23:5–7; cf. 6:1–18). Phylacteries were small leather boxes containing portions of Scripture that were bound to the upper arm and the forehead in literal observance of Ex 13:9, while tassels were worn on the corners of one’s outer garment to remind Jews of God’s commands (Nm 15:37–39). Jesus’s criticism is that the Pharisees and scribes increase the visibility of these symbols in order to gain recognition from others. In contrast, Jesus’s followers are to humble themselves and serve others, rejecting the desire and pursuit of human exaltation and honor (23:8–12; cf. 18:1–20:28).
Jesus describes the scribes and Pharisees as those who are “seated in the chair of Moses” (Mt 23:2). This likely describes a seat at the front of a synagogue in which a teacher would sit. This synagogue chair is from the third or fourth century AD.
© Baker Publishing Group and Dr. James C. Martin. Courtesy of the Israel Museum. Collection of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, and courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, exhibited at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.
23:13–15. After calling his followers to a contrasting way of discipleship, Jesus directs seven “woes” or judgments at the Pharisees and scribes (23:13–36). The first six woes are arranged in thematic pairs, focused on mission (first and second woes), law (third and fourth), and incongruity between the outside and inside person (fifth and sixth), with the final woe culminating the other six. [Scribes in the New Testament]
The first (23:13) and second (23:15) woes condemn the Pharisees and scribes for their hypocrisy in closing the kingdom to others and themselves, even as they win converts. A convert who follows their lead in rejecting God’s kingdom as announced and embodied in Jesus would become “twice as fit for hell.”
23:16–24. The third and fourth woes focus on hypocrisy in Pharisaic interpretation of the law and traditions associated with it. In the third woe (23:16–22), Jesus critiques any attempt to distinguish between binding and nonbinding oaths, since all are binding before God (though see 5:33–37). Jesus’s interpretation is consistent with OT teaching that oath making is not required but does bind any oath made as an oath to God (cf. Dt 23:21–23). Jesus’s interpretation critiques traditional commentary on the law when it abrogates the law itself (cf. 15:1–9).
The fourth woe (23:23–24) judges these teachers for their detailed obedience in tithing but their neglect of what Jesus calls “the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness” (23:23). These values are central to Jesus’s torah interpretation in Matthew (e.g., 5:17; 9:13; 12:7, 20).
23:25–28. The fifth (23:25–26) and sixth (23:27–28) woes charge the Pharisees and scribes with the hypocrisy of an outward appearance of piety without a corresponding inward righteousness. The accusation is that inside they are full of greed, self-indulgence, hypocrisy, and wickedness (23:25, 28). The antidote is to “clean the inside” so that the outside can be clean (23:26).
23:29–36. The final woe judges the hypocrisy of these leaders in commemorating martyrs of the past and claiming that they wouldn’t have taken part in their deaths (23:29–30). Jesus accuses them of being descendants of those who murdered the prophets, in two ways. First, they have called those murderers their “ancestors” (23:30) and have thus testified to their own complicity (23:31–32). Second, Jesus claims that they will persecute and murder those of his followers whom he will send to them (23:34).
Jesus sums up the OT martyrs from the first (Abel, Gn 4:8) to the last (Zechariah of 2 Ch 24:20–22 is the last martyr of the OT, with Chronicles being the final book in the order of the Hebrew Bible) (23:35). Jesus indicts “this generation” (23:36) in his conclusion to the woes to Pharisees and scribes, as he has done earlier (12:38–45).
23:37–39. In the conclusion of chapter 23, Matthew describes Jesus’s lament over Jerusalem and his desire to gather the people of Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks (23:37). The unwillingness to be gathered by Jesus echoes the unfaithfulness of this generation that Jesus has already lamented (17:17; cf. 23:36). Jesus’s prediction of judgment in 23:38 is a reference to the Jerusalem temple (destroyed by Rome in AD 70; for “house” as temple, see Jr 7:1–8; Lm 2:7; cf. Mt 21:13; 24:1–2).
Yet the final moment of this prophetic judgment offers a word of hope (23:39), quoting from Ps 118:26. The temple (and redemptive) overtones of Ps 118 (cf. 118:19–20, 26–27), as well as the acclamation of Jesus by the Galilean crowds with these same words (21:9), suggest that the judgments predicted in this chapter need not be final. Jesus envisions a time after the temple’s desolation when his appearing may produce not only judgment but also restoration if only Jerusalem will welcome him as the Lord’s blessed one—the Messiah.
24:1–2. Matthew’s fifth and final extended section of Jesus’s teaching, the Eschatological Discourse (24:1–25:46), continues with the theme of judgment on Jerusalem leaders and the temple. Regarding the temple’s destruction, Jesus warns his followers against confusing precursor signs (24:4–35). The opposite warning is given for Jesus’s reappearing: there will be no anticipatory signs, so the disciples should always be prepared (24:36–41). The last half of the discourse consists of five parables exhorting Jesus’s disciples to be prepared by living lives of faithfulness and mercy (24:42–25:46).
Matthew 24:1–2 transitions between Jesus’s prophecy of the temple’s desolation (23:38–39) and the Eschatological Discourse, which begins with the disciples’ questions (24:3). As Jesus departs from the temple to the Mount of Olives, he predicts, “Not one stone will be left here on another” (24:1–2).
24:3. In response to Jesus’s statement (24:2), the disciples ask two questions: (1) When will the destruction of the temple occur? and (2) What will be the sign of Jesus’s reappearing and the end of the age? The rest of the chapter answers these two questions. Matthew 24:4–35 addresses the first question of the temple’s destruction, with 24:36–51 (along with Mt 25) turning to the question of Jesus’s reappearing and the end of the age. In this chapter, Matthew uses the Greek term parousia (24:3, 27, 37, 39) in a technical sense (as do other NT writers; see 1 Co 15:23; 1 Th 3:13; 4:15) to indicate Jesus’s “coming” or reappearing at the final consummation (the “end of the age”).
24:4–14. Jesus’s words concerning the temple’s destruction (24:4–35) begin by warning his disciples that they will be tempted to misinterpret various events as signaling the temple’s destruction when those signs are actually precursors to it. Matthew’s reference to “the end” (Gk telos) at 24:6, 13–14 uses language distinct from his Greek phrase for “the end of the age” (24:3; also at 13:39–40, 49; 28:20), possibly indicating that with telos he is referring to a more immediate “end”—namely, the temple’s destruction. Precursor signs of the temple’s end include false messiahs (24:5; cf. 24:23–26); wars, famines, and earthquakes (24:6–7); and persecution of the disciples (24:9–13). The preaching of the gospel “in all the world” (cf. Ac 11:28 and Col 1:6, where this phrase delimits the Greco-Roman world) will be penultimate to the temple’s destruction (24:14).
24:15–28. Jesus moves to describe the horror of the temple’s (and Jerusalem’s) destruction. The reference to “the abomination of desolation” (24:15) derives from Daniel (Dn 8:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) and refers generally to the transgressing of the temple confines by Gentiles (Romans, in the case of AD 70). When this occurs, there will be no more time for preparation, as was the case with the precursor signs of 24:4–14; it will be time to flee (24:16–20). Only the brevity of this time alleviates its horror (24:22).
Jesus briefly contrasts the destruction of the temple with his parousia (“coming,” 24:27; cf. 24:3). The temple’s destruction will be accompanied by enticements to find the Messiah in obscure places, such as the desert or inner rooms (24:23–26). In contrast, the “[parousia] of the Son of Man” will be as visible as lightning flashing across the breadth of the sky (24:27).
24:29–35. Jesus gives three final pictures about the temple’s destruction: the first from OT prophets, a second from Daniel specifically, and a third from the image of a fig tree. The words of 24:29 echo common OT language to signal God’s actions of judgment or salvation within human history (e.g., Is 13:10; 34:4; Ezk 32:7; Hg 2:6, 21). Therefore, the cosmic activity of 24:29 signals the future destruction of the temple as judgment from God.
The quotation of Dn 7:13–14 pictures the vindicated Son of Man approaching the heavenly throne of God and receiving glory (with “coming”—Gk erchomai, not parousia—indicating a heavenward coming in Matthew as in Daniel; 24:30–31). Matthew has already used this image of Jesus’s vindication from Dn 7 (Mt 10:23; 16:28). For Matthew, Jesus in his message and mission will be vindicated first at his resurrection and again when his predictions concerning the temple come to pass.
The final image of this section is that of a fig tree (24:32–33; cf. 21:18–22), used to emphasize that discernible signs will precede the temple’s destruction and that Jesus’s predictions about it will come true before the passing of “this generation” (in AD 70; 24:34).
24:36–51. Jesus’s words in 24:36–41 turn to address his parousia or reappearing (“coming” in 24:37, 39 translates parousia). In contrast to the signs that will attend the destruction of the temple, Jesus’s reappearing will be characterized by suddenness (24:37–41), with no one except the Father knowing its timing (24:36). The resulting admonition is to be prepared—the point of the two brief parables about a thief’s unexpected arrival (24:42–44) and a servant at his master’s delay and unexpected return (24:45–51).
25:1–13. This theme of preparedness for Jesus’s reappearing at the end of the age is the center point of the parable of the ten virgins and the bridegroom. Though not enough is known about first-century Jewish wedding customs, it may be that these young, unmarried women leave the groom’s home to welcome and accompany the couple back to the groom’s household (25:1). When the bridegroom is “delayed” (25:5), five virgins run out of lamp oil because they neglected to bring extra (25:3). They miss the opportunity to join the bridegroom and enter the wedding banquet (25:10). Jesus’s parable calls all his followers to be ready for his reappearing, since they “don’t know either the day or the hour” (25:13; cf. 24:36, 42).
25:14–30. The second parable of Mt 25 illustrates what preparedness looks like. Three servants are entrusted with large sums of money from their master (25:14–15) and expected to use it to gain more during his long absence (25:19). The first two do so (25:20–23), while the third servant simply buries the money and so makes no profit (25:24–27). The master takes away the money given to this third servant and commands that he be thrown into the darkness (25:28–30; cf. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51). This parable points to faithfulness as the key to preparedness for Jesus’s reappearing and final judgment.
25:31–46. The concluding parable of Jesus’s final discourse illustrates what faithfulness should look like by painting a portrait of the final judgment of humanity. Though this teaching is often called a parable, its only parabolic aspects involve the image of a shepherd separating sheep from goats (25:32). Matthew draws on imagery from Dn 7:13–14 again (25:31), indicating that the ultimate vindication of Jesus as God’s chosen one will occur at the final judgment (with the picture of Jesus enthroned pointing to his judging role; cf. 19:28). At the final judgment, “all the nations” will appear before Jesus, the king (25:32, 34). The criteria for judgment are not surprising in light of Matthew’s earlier themes. Mercy and justice practiced on behalf of “the least of these” is what ultimately separates those who enter life and those who do not (25:40, 45). Matthew has demonstrated the importance of these qualities for Jesus’s ministry (9:13, 27, 36; 12:7, 15, 18–21; 14:14; 15:32; 20:31, 34) and for his expectations of disciples (5:7, 10; 23:23).
At issue is the identity of the “least of these.” They are described as brothers and sisters (25:40, though not at 25:45), which would indicate that they are the needy and least among Jesus’s followers (cf. 12:49–50; also “least” is the superlative form of “little ones,” identified as Jesus’s followers at 10:42; 18:6–10). In Matthew, Jesus clearly teaches on the solidarity between himself and his followers (10:40–42; 18:5, 20). But the sense of surprise here (25:37–39) may stem from Jesus’s identification with all human need.
C. Jesus’s execution by Rome and resurrection/vindication by God (26:1–28:20). Matthew 26–28 narrates Jesus’s final days and hours as he willingly suffers and goes to his execution to restore his people and usher in God’s reign. Though the disciples desert Jesus, and Rome and the Jerusalem leaders crucify him as a criminal, God vindicates Jesus as Messiah and Lord at his resurrection.
26:1–5. Matthew signals the conclusion of the fifth discourse with the familiar formula “When Jesus had finished saying all these things,” this time referencing “all these things” to signal the final of the five blocks of Jesus’s teaching (26:1). Immediately afterward, Matthew narrates another passion prediction by Jesus (26:2; cf. 16:21; 17:22–23; 20:17–19) and the intensifying plot by the Jewish leadership against Jesus (26:3–5; cf. 21:46). Jesus’s prediction connects his crucifixion—a Roman form of execution—to the Passover feast, which is two days away (26:2; cf. 26:17–29). Passover, one of three central Jewish festivals, celebrated Israelite freedom from bondage to Egypt. As such—and given the great numbers of Jewish pilgrims attending—Passover could become the locus of political foment, as the chief priests and elders fear (26:5; see 27:24 for Pilate’s similar concern). No one in power—the Jerusalem leaders or Rome—wanted a messiah to arise during Passover!
26:6–16. In 26:6–13 (set in Bethany, just east of Jerusalem), an unnamed woman anoints Jesus with expensive perfume—an act Jesus commends and the disciples decry. Jesus interprets her act as preparation for burial (with perfumes often used in embalming) and praises her deed as one that will be recounted along with the spread of the gospel itself (26:12–13). Her action contrasts Judas’s act of betrayal in 26:14–16. As one of Jesus’s inner circle (“one of the Twelve”), Judas will have opportunity to lead the chief priests to Jesus when he is away from the people, who might rise to Jesus’s defense (cf. 26:5).
26:17–29. Matthew 26:17 marks the beginning of the Passover celebration, with “the first day of Unleavened Bread” signaling its inception or the day anticipating it (as in Mk 14:12; for the combining of the two festivals, see Dt 16:1–8). Jesus tells his disciples to prepare their Passover meal by going into Jerusalem and meeting a man with whom Jesus has presumably made room arrangements (26:18).
In the later evening, Jesus celebrates the Passover meal with his disciples (26:20). Matthew emphasizes two moments: Jesus’s identification of Judas as his betrayer (26:21–25) and his interpretation of their Passover meal around himself and his forthcoming death (26:26–29). The bread and wine of the Passover meal are reinterpreted to signify Jesus’s sacrificial death “for the forgiveness of sins” (cf. 1:21) as the means of covenant renewal (“my blood of the covenant,” 26:28; cf. Ex 24:8; Is 53:12; Jr 31:31–34). Jesus connects his enactment of the renewed covenant with the still future consummation of God’s kingdom (26:29; cf. the kingship theme at 27:33–56).
26:30–35. After moving east from the city to the Mount of Olives (across the Kidron Valley from Jerusalem, 26:30), Jesus predicts that not only Judas but also all his disciples will “fall away” (Gk skandalizō; cf. 11:6), citing Zch 13:7, concerning the scattering of the flock at the striking of the shepherd (26:31). Though Peter protests, Jesus predicts Peter will disown him before morning arrives (26:33–35; cf. 26:69–75).
26:36–46. Jesus and his disciples move to a nearby olive grove called Gethsemane, where Jesus prays repeatedly that the necessity of his impending death be removed (26:39, 42, 44; for cup language, see 20:22), though he submits to his Father’s will (for obedience to God’s will, see 7:21; 12:48–50). The disciples, whom Jesus asks to keep watch as he prays, fall asleep at each turn (26:40, 43, 45).
By saying he will celebrate again with his disciples in the future (Mt 26:29), Jesus alludes to the future messianic banquet (Is 25:6; Lk 14:15; Rv 19:7–9).
The stairs that Jesus likely descended after leaving the upper room when traveling with the disciples to the garden of Gethsemane. Following his arrest, the return trip to his hearings with Annas and Caiaphas would have likely been via the same steps.
Although privy to Jesus’s predictions and teaching about his imminent death, the disciples continue to show that they do not understand the full import of his words. They do nothing to prepare for his death (26:6–13); they boldly protest Jesus’s prediction about their falling away (26:31–35); and yet they succumb to sleep when they should be watching for Jesus’s enemies and praying that they will resist temptation (26:38, 41). Jesus announces the arrival of his betrayer before they show any awareness of the danger (26:46).
26:47–56. Jesus’s arrest begins with a kiss from Judas (26:49), who has brought an armed crowd gathered by the chief priests and Jewish elders (cf. 26:3), which includes their servants, who attempt to arrest Jesus (26:50–51). When one of Jesus’s disciples strikes the high priest’s servant with his sword, Jesus rebukes his violent response (26:52). Jesus, according to Matthew, is not the leader of a human rebellion against Rome (26:55). Though he could call on angels to rescue him (26:53; cf. 4:6, 11), he will submit to the Father’s will for his mission, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (26:54, 56). Since Matthew does not cite a particular scriptural text but refers to “Scriptures” (26:54) and “the writings of the prophets” (26:56), these statements likely indicate Jesus’s fulfillment of the OT Scriptures generally. In contrast to Jesus’s command of the situation, his disciples flee the scene, deserting him as predicted (26:31).
26:57–61. Upon his arrest, Jesus is brought before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council that, according to Matthew, comprised chief priests, Jewish elders, and some scribes—in other words, the Jerusalem elite (26:57). The high priest Caiaphas (whose tenure spanned AD 18–36) leads the proceedings, which consist of a search for and examination of testimony against Jesus by others and by Jesus himself (26:59–61). Their intent is to bring charges against Jesus to Pilate, the Roman governor (the prefect of Judea; cf. 27:1–2). Evidence from later rabbinic sources indicates that those convening Jesus’s “trial” did not follow the (ideal) legal parameters for Jewish trials before the Sanhedrin. This is not surprising, given the sudden nature of Jesus’s arrest and the concern over arresting Jesus in Jerusalem during the Passover festival (26:5). [The Trial(s) of Jesus]
This last-minute trial eventually produces two witnesses who agree with each other (a requirement from Dt 19:15). Their testimony is that Jesus threatened, “I can destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days” (26:60–61), though Matthew has nowhere recorded Jesus’s speaking these words (cf. Jn 2:19). Yet Jesus’s temple action and his words of judgment against the temple and its current leadership (21:12–13; 23:37–39; 24:1–35) may have been conflated with Jesus’s predictions of being killed and then raised in “three days” (12:40; 16:21; 17:23; 20:19), producing the misconception that Jesus was threatening to destroy the temple (with these accusations repeated at 27:40). Jesus does not respond to this accusation with its mix of truth and falsehood.
26:62–68. Caiaphas then asks Jesus the messianic question: “Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God” (26:63). His question is a logical follow-up to the errant testimony about Jesus destroying the temple (cf. 21:12–13). Jesus answers in the affirmative and adds the implicit claim of his vindication as Messiah by God via allusion to Dn 7:13–14 (26:64; see 24:1–51). Jesus’s claim of future vindication necessarily implies that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin will be proved wrong in their assessment of Jesus. Between Jesus’s silence concerning the temple accusations, his claim to be Messiah and the future ruling one (Dn 7:14), and the implication that those trying him will be proved utterly wrong, it is not surprising that Caiaphas declares Jesus’s words blasphemy and the Sanhedrin calls for his death (26:65–66; 27:1), which will require Roman authorization.
26:69–75. Presumably during Jesus’s hearing before the Sanhedrin, Peter denies knowing Jesus (cf. 26:58). Three bystanders recognize Peter as one who was with Jesus, either by sight or by his Galilean accent (26:69–73). Peter in all three instances denies any association with Jesus. After his third denial, the rooster crows (26:74). Peter remembers Jesus’s pointed prediction (26:34) and weeps bitterly (26:75). All twelve disciples have deserted Jesus.
27:1–10. After the brief interlude of Peter’s denial, Jesus’s trial continues with the Sanhedrin turning him over to Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea (27:2), presumably to authorize and enact the death sentence they have deemed appropriate to his claims and perceived threats (27:1; for Roman jurisdiction of capital cases, see Jn 18:31).
The account of Judas’s regret and his suicide (27:3–5) concludes with the chief priest using the money returned by Judas to buy a burial field (27:6–8). For Matthew, the connections between the details of Judas’s demise and Zch 11:12–13 illustrate again OT fulfillment in Jesus’s story (27:9–10).
27:11–14. In Jesus’s hearing before Pilate, the charge against him has undergone a cultural translation: Jesus’s acknowledgment of his identity as the Messiah becomes a charge that he claims to be “the King of the Jews” (27:11a). Yet what the Sanhedrin expects of the Messiah is essentially the same as what Pilate understands by “King of the Jews.” Both claims are religious and political, so both charges imply sedition. They fear that this Jesus may be preparing to lead a rebellion against Rome, which both the Jerusalem elite and Rome (Pilate) would have been keen on suppressing. While Jesus acknowledges his kingship when asked by Pilate (27:11b), he does not defend himself when the Jerusalem authorities bring charges against him (27:12–14).
27:15–26. Pilate offers to release one prisoner (according to his custom, 27:15) and gives the crowd the choice of either Jesus or Barabbas (according to Mk 15:7, a murderer and insurrectionist) (27:16–17). Pilate offers this choice because of the Jewish leaders’ envy of Jesus (27:18). The descriptor “called Christ” makes most sense with the inclusion of “Jesus Barabbas” present in some manuscripts (see the CSB footnote for 27:16), so that “Barabbas” and “Messiah” distinguish the two men, who both have the (common) name Jesus. But the chief priests and elders incite the crowd to call for Jesus’s death (and Barabbas’s release; 27:20–23), which Pilate readily implements (27:26).
The warning from Pilate’s wife regarding Jesus’s innocence (27:19) heightens Pilate’s culpability when he decides to crucify Jesus. That she has received revelation from God is affirmed by the mode of her knowledge: dreams have been used by Matthew to emphasize God’s direction (cf. 1:20; 2:12, 19). Her presence in this narrative reminds the reader of other faithful Gentiles enfolded into Matthew’s story and contrasts with the injustice of Pilate’s decision to crucify Jesus. [Matthew’s Trial Scene and the Responsibility for Jesus’s Death]
27:27–31. The crucifixion scene begins with Pilate’s soldiers mocking and humiliating Jesus as they dress him in “kingly” fashion (robe and crown of thorns, 27:28–29a) and hail him as “King of the Jews” (27:29b). They intend these royal accoutrements and words to show Jesus’s messianic pretensions to be ridiculous. Matthew, however, wants his readers to hear irony. What the soldiers intend as ridicule, Matthew shows to be utterly true—Jesus truly is king of the Jews.
27:32–49. The theme of Jesus’s kingship permeates the crucifixion narrative (27:32–56), which takes place on Golgotha (27:33)—a location where other executions likely occurred. The charge written atop the cross reads, “This Is Jesus, the King of the Jews” (27:37). He is mocked by the Jerusalem leaders, who claim that if he is “the King of Israel . . . the Son of God,” he should be able to rescue himself from death (27:42–43). The title Son of God (27:41, 43) is used synonymously with king (Messiah), as elsewhere in Matthew.
Matthew also draws on Ps 22 in the crucifixion scene, a psalm that portrays the suffering of an afflicted man who nevertheless trusts God for rescue. The connections with Jesus’s situation include the following: (1) Jesus is mocked by Roman soldiers, passersby, Jerusalem leaders, and two robbers crucified with him (27:39, 41, 44; also 27:31; cf. Ps 22:7); (2) Jesus is crucified (27:35): his hands and feet are “pierced” (Ps 22:16); (3) Jesus’s garments are divided by lot-casting (27:35; cf. Ps 22:18); (4) Jesus’s trust in God is mocked using the words of Ps 22:7 (27:43); and (5) Jesus echoes the psalmist’s despair, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” (27:46; see Ps 22:1).
By interweaving motifs of Jesus’s kingship and faithfulness in suffering, Matthew redefines kingship and kingdom in terms of suffering and sacrifice. Jesus as God’s Messiah lives out his mission to Israel and the world in line with self-denial and willing sacrifice for others rather than in assertion of prerogatives and power.
27:50–54. Jesus willingly dies (27:50; cf. 26:42) as a ransom for God’s covenant people (20:28; 26:28), to save them from their sin (1:21). He is the king—the Messiah—inaugurating God’s kingdom by his life and death. Matthew confirms this vision of an inaugurated kingdom by his narration of events that follow Jesus’s death (27:51–54). An earthquake accompanies the tearing of the temple curtain (27:51), which is likely the inner curtain that separated the innermost, restricted area of the temple—the most holy place—from the rest of the temple (cf. Ex 26:31–36). Jesus’s death inaugurates a new kind of access to God’s presence (1:23; 18:20; 28:20) not tied to the temple or limited to the covenant with Israel. Earthquakes are part of apocalyptic imagery used to confirm God’s activity and the cosmic significance of historical events (cf. Ps 18:6–8; Is 29:5–6).
Matthew also connects Jesus’s death to a resurrecting of “many bodies of the saints,” who then make appearances in Jerusalem following Jesus’s resurrection (27:52–53). Matthew 27:52 may allude to Ezk 37:11–14, demonstrating that Jesus’s death ushers in return from exile (cf. Mt 1–4), anticipating the day when God will vanquish all enemies, including death. The final response to Jesus’s death and its accompanying signs comes from the Roman guards (27:54). Their exclamation affirms Jesus as God’s Messiah and Israel’s representative, as well as the favored Son in intimate relationship with the Father.
27:55–61. Matthew concludes the crucifixion scene by portraying the many Galilean women who remain with Jesus, even as his twelve disciples have deserted him (27:55–56; cf. 26:56, 75). Some women continue attending Jesus after his death, holding vigil at the tomb (27:61; cf. 28:1). The reader of Matthew’s passion narrative has seen other women providing a faithful contrast to their male counterparts: the unnamed woman who anoints Jesus for burial (26:6–13) and Pilate’s wife, who testifies to Jesus’s innocence (27:19). Joining these faithful women is Joseph of Arimathea, who was discipled by Jesus and who buries him (27:57).
27:62–66. Matthew indicates that the day after Jesus’s death and burial (which occurred on “preparation day”—the day preceding the Sabbath and/or Passover, 27:62), the chief priests and Pharisees ask Pilate to post guards at the tomb to prevent theft of Jesus’s body (27:64). They are concerned that Jesus’s followers may, in line with Jesus’s resurrection predictions, steal his body and deceive the people with such claims. Pilate tells them to secure Jesus’s tomb and place a guard (27:65–66).
28:1–10. Once the Sabbath is over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph (cf. 27:56, 61) return to the tomb of Jesus. Instead of finding it sealed and guarded, they experience an earthquake (cf. 27:51) and see an angel roll back the entrance stone (28:1–2). The guards faint in fear, while the angel comforts the two women and calms their fears with the news that Jesus has risen as predicted (28:4–6a). They are invited to see the evidence—the empty tomb—and instructed to tell Jesus’s (now eleven) disciples that Jesus has risen and will meet them in Galilee (28:6b–7).
A rolling-stone tomb similar to the one Jesus would have been laid in
Matthew’s portrait of the two Marys as the first witnesses of the empty tomb (and the resurrection, 28:9) would have surprised his original audience. Ancient perspectives prioritized male testimony over female and would have tended to view women’s testimony as less reliable (less rational and so less trustworthy). Yet, according to Matthew, not only are these women the first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus, but they are also the first to worship him in his resurrected state (28:9; cf. 28:17) and are commissioned to tell the disciples the news.
28:11–15. The sparse resurrection account (only 10 verses; compare this with the 125 verses devoted to Jesus’s death) is followed by the “cover-up” by the chief priests and elders, who bribe the guards to say that Jesus’s disciples stole his body (28:12–13). Matthew briefly steps from the story to indicate that this explanation continues to circulate when he writes his Gospel (28:15).
28:16–17. The Gospel’s final story shows Jesus meeting with his disciples on a Galilean mountain (28:16; for mountains as locations of revelation, see Mt 5–7; 17; 24–25). One of the Twelve has betrayed Jesus, Peter has denied knowing him, and the others have fled at his arrest (26:56). Yet Jesus summons the eleven to meet him in Galilee and refers to them as his “brothers,” signaling restoration of relationship (28:10). As they meet, they worship Jesus (28:17; cf. 28:9). Yet the disciples continue to doubt (see 14:31–33 for the same combination of worship and doubt). Matthew implicitly reintroduces the disciples’ “little faith” (synonymous with “doubt” in 14:31) at his story’s end. Fortunately, Jesus’s mission does not depend on the disciples’ response but relies on Jesus’s ongoing presence with them (28:20).
28:18–20. The Great Commission evokes Daniel’s vision of a vindicated Son of Man enthroned beside the Ancient of Days and given “dominion, and glory, and a kingdom” (Dn 7:14). For Matthew, this enthronement occurs first and foremost at Jesus’s resurrection, so that 28:18–20 establishes the significance of his resurrection as demonstrating his vindication by God as rightful king (Messiah).
The final words of Matthew’s Gospel are Jesus’s commission to his disciples to make other disciples from all nations—Jew and non-Jew alike. Jesus’s own mission, to the lost sheep of Israel (15:24; cf. 10:5–6), is expanded to all nations after his resurrection. Teaching and baptism are the two activities Jesus intends his disciples to accomplish (28:19–20). The trinitarian formula (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) distinguishes this baptism from John’s baptism in Mt 3. Disciples are to be taught “to observe everything [Jesus has] commanded” (28:20), continuing Matthew’s theme of obedience (see, e.g., 5:20; 7:15–27; 19:17–19).
The Great Commission (Mt 28:18–20) is based on OT prophecy (cf. Lk 24:44–49) promising the worldwide expansion of the gospel. As the Father has commissioned his Son with this mission, the Son in turn commissions his church with the same mission (Jn 20:19–23), and the Holy Spirit’s power is provided for its accomplishment (Ac 1:8).
The promise of Jesus’s presence with his disciples (28:20) grounds this commission. Though the disciples are authorized to go out in mission (see 16:19; 18:18–19), their authority is derivative. It is Jesus who has been given all authority (28:18). Instead of explicitly granting that authority to his disciples, Jesus promises his ongoing presence (see also 1:23; 18:20). They participate in his authority by participating in his presence. Disciples may be those who waver between worship and doubt, but Jesus will be with them until “the end of the age.”
