WHILE HE WAS still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.” 49Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him.
50Jesus replied, “Friend, do what you came for.”
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
55At that time Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.
57Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.
59The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
Finally two came forward 61and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’ ”
62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
64“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66What do you think?”
“He is worthy of death,” they answered.
67Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68and said, “Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?”
69Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. “You also were with Jesus of Galilee,” she said.
70But he denied it before them all. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said.
71Then he went out to the gateway, where another girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
72He denied it again, with an oath: “I don’t know the man!”
73After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away.”
74Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!”
Immediately a rooster crowed. 75Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.
27:1Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. 2They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor.
3When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4“I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”
“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”
5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
6The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”
11Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied.
12When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13Then Pilate asked him, “Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?” 14But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor.
15Now it was the governor’s custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. 17So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him.
19While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”
20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
21“Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.
“Barabbas,” they answered.
22“What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”
23“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
25All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”
26Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
Original Meaning
IN THE LAST section of Matthew’s Passion Narrative (26:1–46), we looked at the celebration of the Passover and institution of the Lord’s Supper, the plotting of the Jewish leaders with Judas to have Jesus arrested, the woman anointing Jesus for his burial, and Jesus’ predictions of both Judas’s betrayal and the disciples’ denying their allegiance to him. That section concluded with the fateful trip to Gethsemane, where Jesus engaged in his agonizing prayers. In this present section we look at his arrest, trials, and conviction. The extended length of Matthew’s treatment of these events indicates the central place that Jesus’ death holds in God’s plan of salvation, which should alert us to the central place it should hold for us in the development of our theology, in the practice of our corporate worship and personal growth in Christ, and in the message we proclaim to a waiting world.
A crucified Messiah was an anomaly to common Jewish expectations, but it became one of the bedrock historical factors in the preaching and teaching in the early church. A crucified Messiah can also seem an anomaly to modern people, Christian and non-Christian alike, who want a more sanitized kind of “good news.” But the blood of Jesus’ cross is a fact of history that offers the only good news, that the incarnate Son of God willingly endured an ignominious death so that humanity can experience a glorious life that is liberated from sin’s death-grip.
Jesus Is Arrested (26:47–56)
AFTER JESUS’ THREE agonizing prayers to his Father in Gethsemane (26:36–44), in which he committed himself to obey his Father’s will, he returns to the inner trio of disciples to find them sleeping once again. The larger group of disciples is likely asleep in the cave they frequented before (see comments on 26:36). Jesus declares that the inexorable path to the cross is speeding up because of the arrival of his betrayer (26:45–46).
Judas and the armed temple troop (26:47). Judas left Jesus and the others during the Last Supper in the Upper Room to finish making arrangements for the betrayal (cf. John 13:26–30). The garden was a favorite meeting place for Jesus and the disciples (cf. John 18:2), so Judas knows where to find him. He arrives with a large crowd of armed personnel. Matthew highlights the treachery by referring to Judas as “one of the Twelve.” This is insider betrayal, an unbelievable exploitation of a trusted relationship.
The most heavily armed of those coming with Judas would be a contingent of Roman soldiers assigned by Pilate for temple security (cf. John 18:3, 12; see comments on Matt. 27:65; 28:11), who were authorized to carry swords (machairai), the short double-edged weapon used in hand-to-hand combat (cf. 26:51; Eph. 6:17). Levitical temple police and personal security guards of the chief priests and Sanhedrin carrying clubs also probably make up another large detachment in the arresting crowd. They have been sent by the chief priests and the elders, the ones with whom Judas made arrangements for the betrayal (Matt. 26:14–16); they represent the highest authority of the Jewish people and are endorsed by the Roman governor’s own forces.
The common people hoped at Jesus’ triumphal entry to Jerusalem that he was the messianic deliverer who would break the yoke of Rome’s oppression (cf. 21:8–11), so perhaps the temple authorities send the armed troop with Judas in case he does begin an uprising. This is consistently the misunderstanding of Jesus’ mission, reflecting the skewed perspective that comes from a misplaced comprehension of God’s purposes. But Judas also leads the armed troop in the dead of night to the secluded garden where they find Jesus away from the crowds of the city, who may otherwise have attempted to resist his arrest.
Judas’s kiss of death (26:48–49). Men in ancient (and modern) Palestine customarily greeted one another with a kiss to the cheek. Judas has arranged to kiss Jesus as a signal to the troops to identify him for the soldiers (26:48), since they do not know the Galilean pilgrim, and other groups of Passover pilgrims are probably camping on the hills surrounding Jerusalem. This was the customary way of greeting a venerable rabbi and would have seemed to the other disciples as a greeting of peace rather than shameless hypocrisy. In his typical manner, Judas greets Jesus as “Rabbi,” not “Lord” (26:49; see comments on 26:25). From this event onward, Judas is forever known in biblical and historical infamy for his betrayal of Jesus.1
An insider betrayal (26:50). Jesus offered a relationship to Judas, but Judas abused and manipulated it to his own ends. With a touch of sad irony Jesus says, “Friend, do what you came for.” The designation “friend” (hetairos) is found three times in Matthew. The preceding two times Jesus used it in parables to address a person who abused a privileged relationship (20:13; 22:12). Here Judas has violated the most privileged relationship with Jesus Messiah.2 He has scorned and taken advantage of the love and friendship Jesus extended to him.
Jesus’ response can be rendered as a question (RSV: “Why are you here?”), but the NIV appropriately renders it as a command, “Do what you came for” (cf. also NRSV), continuing the theme of divine inevitability that permeates the Passion Narrative (cf. John 13:27b). Judas manipulates friends and enemies to advance his goals, but within the deception Jesus maintains control of his own destiny to reconcile friends and enemies to God and to each other.
A disciple’s armed resistance (26:51–54). At the deceptive signal of a kiss of honor, the dishonorable betrayal is done, and the assembly of armed forces steps forward to arrest Jesus. One of Jesus’ disciples, whom John tells us is Simon Peter (John 18:10–11), tries to defend Jesus by taking the sword he is carrying (machaira, the same kind as the arresting troops) and striking Malchus, the high priest’s servant. But he only grazes him, cutting off his ear (Matt. 26:51). Luke records that Jesus heals the ear (Luke 22:51).
But Jesus tells Peter to put away his sword, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (26:52). The way of the world is to assert its will on others through human power, even violence, and the way of the world is to retaliate against violence with violence. The inevitable consequence of championing violence is often one’s own violent end. Jesus is not giving a blanket endorsement of pacifism, which would require broader scriptural support than this one saying.3 But he does reject the notion that God’s will is advanced or should be imposed on others through violent means. A general principle to guide the use of force is that allegiance should be given to the goals of the kingdom of God (cf. 5:38–42). Peter’s use of force is not guided by kingdom priorities but by the human desire to retaliate.
Jesus’ own life illustrates this principle, as he declares, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” Jesus has already indicated that angels will accompany him when he returns in glory as the Son of Man, who will do his bidding as they gather the elect (24:30–31). This is another picture that coincides with Jesus’ status as the sovereign Son of God, at whose disposal are the angelic beings of heaven. A Roman legion had six thousand soldiers, which means that Jesus could have called on 72,000 angels. The number may have symbolic value, but more importantly points to the enormous resources at Jesus’ disposal (cf. also 1 Kings 6:17). Circumstances may indicate that Jesus’ mission is thwarted, but events are not out of control.
Jesus has come to carry out God’s plan of redemption as prophesied in “the Scriptures” (26:54). Jesus does not point to a particular prophetic passage here but to the Scriptures as a whole that indicate the purpose of his earthly ministry, which “must” (dei) lead him to the cross. This is “divine necessity.”4 As was the point in the prayers at Gethsemane, obedience to the Father’s will for his life is Jesus’ ultimate desire, not pursuing his own will.
Jesus is no rebel (26:55–56a). Jesus mocks the contingent that has come out so heavily armed to arrest him, for he has been within their reach in the temple precincts teaching throughout the week. His teaching has been an obvious threat to the authority of the religious establishment. They could not counter that teaching since they had no answer for his divinely authoritative words. Yet they could not arrest him for fear of Jesus’ popularity with the crowds, so they come out to arrest him with the only power that they can muster—swords and clubs under the cowardly cover of night. The question in the NIV, “Am I leading a rebellion . . . ?” (26:55), clearly repudiates Jesus of any intention of being a militaristic insurrectionist.
Matthew uses the same word (lestes) here that he later uses to describe the two persons between whom Jesus is crucified (27:38; Mark 15:27); it is also the same word that describes Barabbas (John 18:40) as a rebel who resists the Roman occupation.5 Jesus consistently rejects violence as the method of establishing the kingdom of God. But the temple authorities cover their own rebellion against God’s will by accusing Jesus of exactly what he has rejected, and this will be the charge that they lodge against him when they take him to Pilate.
But even their clever manipulations cannot thwart God’s purposes. Jesus declares to these representatives of the religious authorities that God has ordained their deception long ago. In “the writings of the prophets,” an expression found only here in the New Testament (see esp. Isa. 53; Zech. 12–13), God’s spokespersons predicted their wickedness. His plan of redemption through the events of Jesus’ crucifixion is divinely foretold, but those who carry out the evil deeds bear their own responsibility. The evil deeds of the religious establishment will accomplish God’s plan, but it will be to their ultimate personal and national demise.
The disciples abandon Jesus (26:56b). Peter’s impetuosity and desire to retaliate with force by wielding the sword make the disciples vulnerable to arrest along with Jesus, so they all run away. Jesus’ pronouncement of the divine inevitability of these events should have caused the disciples to stand firm in their trust of God’s control. He predicted their cowardice (26:31–34), which they rebuffed with false bravado, but Jesus’ prophetic word comes to pass. Once again at Jesus’ greatest time of personal need for human support, his closest followers desert him. He faces the cross alone.
The Jewish Trial of Jesus (26:57–68)
AFTER JESUS IS arrested in Gethsemane, he is taken to “Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled.” The Jewish religious authorities have hastily gathered to interrogate Jesus, find him guilty of violating their laws, and then establish a case by which they can accuse him of violating Roman law. The Romans exercised control over all judicial proceedings but allowed some freedom to subjected peoples to try their own legal matters. However, they kept the death penalty under their own jurisdiction and reserved the right to step in on any case and take over the proceedings. The high priest apparently knew well how to frame anyone who was a threat to his power by staying in cahoots with the Roman governor.
Scholars have long noted the irregularities of the Jewish legal proceedings against Jesus according to later Mishnaic procedures (esp. m. Sanh. 4–7). Among the anomalies are that it is held at night, it is held in the high priest’s home instead of the temple courts, it is on the eve of a festival day, it begins with reasons for conviction instead of reasons for acquittal, the witnesses disagree and are false, and the verdict of conviction is confirmed on the same day instead of waiting until the next day after a night’s sleep. However, since the Mishnaic standards were compiled nearly two hundred years later, it is difficult to know exactly what the Sanhedrin’s practices were at the time of Jesus’ trial. Likewise, a trial controlled by a Sadducean high priest would not likely follow Pharisaic practices, which are those found in the Mishnah.6
The anomalies of this trial, therefore, do not invalidate the historicity of the Gospel records; rather, they point to the devious expediency by which the trial is conducted.7 The unexpected fortuitous betrayal of Jesus by Judas prompts the religious authorities to act quickly to take advantage of the chance to get rid of him while they have opportunity. The Sabbath is approaching, and the Roman authorities apparently support the chief priests’ attempts to quiet Jesus before he gains much more of a following. If they can convince the Romans that Jesus is a threat to national security, they can discredit him in the eyes of the people with a crucifixion.8
Matthew highlights the fraudulence of Jesus’ arrest and trial by pointing out that the teachers of the law and the elders have already assembled with the high priest, Caiaphas (26:57; see comments on 26:3). They are waiting to make a quick pronouncement of doom. None of the Gospel writers gives a full account of the judicial process leading to Jesus’ death, but the overall pattern that emerges is that the Jewish authorities first try Jesus and convict him of blasphemy. Jesus is taken first before Annas, the former high priest and Caiaphas’s father-in-law (John 18:13–24), then before the partially assembled Sanhedrin (26:57–68), and then after dawn before a fully assembled quorum of the Sanhedrin, which pronounces the verdict (27:1–2). Then they take him to Pilate and change the accusation to treason (see comments on 27:11).9
The house of Caiaphas (26:57–58). After his arrest in Gethsemane, Jesus apparently is taken to the home of the high priest, Caiaphas, which is a palatial mansion. Archaeological findings suggest that a mansion owned by a person of Caiaphas’s stature was large enough to house both Annas and Caiaphas along with offices, so that Jesus’ double appearance in a short period of time in the early morning hours is entirely within reason.10
As Jesus is taken before the Jewish religious authorities, Peter follows along at a distance behind the arresting troop. John’s Gospel informs us that Peter is accompanied by another disciple, presumably John himself (cf. John 18:15–16), who has some connection with the high priest. Peter demonstrates a personal courage that compels him to follow Jesus and the arresting delegation to the courtyard of the high priest, where he sits down incognito among the guards. Peter is able to watch as Jesus is shuffled from hearing to hearing.
False witnesses (26:59–60). For the first time Matthew notes that “the whole Sanhedrin” is assembled to try Jesus, which means that the necessary constituents are in place. Up until now the focus has been on the “chief priests and the elders of the people” (26:3, 47), probably a smaller, select group of Caiaphas’s allies. “Sanhedrin” (synedrion) denotes a gathered council, rendered loosely in Judaism to indicate both a local Jewish tribunal (5:22; 10:17) and, as here, the supreme ecclesiastical court of the Jews, which at this time meant the assembly of Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Later, the term became a title for the tractate in the Mishnah dedicated to the organization of the Jewish government and court system.
Although the Sanhedrin had seventy members plus the high priest, cases concerning theft or personal injury could be decided by as few as three members. When a capital case was involved, the sages required that twenty-three members must make up a quorum (m. Sanh. 1.1). The composition of the Sanhedrin at the time of Jesus is debated, but it probably was a mixture of the priestly nobility and the aristocratic elders of Jerusalem (i.e., dominated by the Sadducees), but with some elements of Pharisee influence through their legal experts, the “teachers of the law” (26:57).11
Instead of presuming innocence until proven guilty, the Sanhedrin tries to find false witnesses who will testify against Jesus that he has violated the law. There is no lack of false witnesses, because many come forward, but their testimony does not stand. Mark states the Sanhedrin is unable to convict Jesus because the witnesses cannot put together consistent testimonies (Mark 14:56). The entire proceedings are a sham, for the Jewish leaders are manipulating the events to get Jesus out of the way as quickly as possible.
Destroying and rebuilding the temple (26:61–63a). Finally, out of the pack of false witnesses are two who testify that Jesus made the declaration, “I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.” Their disdainful reference to Jesus as “this fellow” shows that they are not among Jesus’ followers, so they have a skewed perspective of his saying. They are apparently referring to a statement made by Jesus during the earliest stages of his ministry, in which Jews demanded from Jesus a “miraculous sign” to justify his actions in cleansing the temple. Jesus replied to them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19). This saying was difficult enough for Jesus’ own followers to understand, but easy to distort by those unsympathetic to its intention.12 Apparently the saying circulated among Jesus’ opponents in a variety of forms wherever stories about Jesus were told.
Matthew does not explain why this charge catches the attention of the high priest when the others have not, but he considers this a serious charge against Jesus, for he stands up and confronts Jesus: “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” (26:62). This may seem innocent enough, but in this charge the high priest apparently views Jesus as exalting himself over the temple of God.
Jesus’ audacious actions in cleansing the temple earlier in the week most likely still infuriate the high priest. Jesus’ actions were a symbolic statement of judgment against the religious leadership of Israel and a declaration of his authority over the purposes of the temple practices.13 Furthermore, as Jesus healed the blind and the lame in the temple (21:14–16), he displayed his authority to create purity in all those desiring to worship God. It was likely also communicated to the high priest that Jesus had earlier declared that he was greater than the temple (12:6), which would be a blasphemous claim, as it supplanted God’s prescriptions through Moses concerning temple practices. Such a charge would be worthy of death (cf. Acts 6:11–14).
Jesus is silent (26:63a). Such patently distorted charges cannot be answered, for whatever Jesus might say to defend himself will be further distorted. So he remains silent. But it is “a sovereign silence.”14 Throughout this long night Jesus has spoken of the divine inevitability of these events. The Scriptures have prophesied them, and the Father’s will superintends them. The theme of silence is noted at various times during the trials, fulfilling Isaiah 53:7 and placing the responsibility for his death back on his accusers.
Are you the Christ? (26:63b). Jesus’ silence frustrates the high priest since he cannot get Jesus to incriminate himself on the trumped-up charge from the two witnesses. So he goes to the source and places Jesus under a solemn oath by the living God: “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” At the heart of the controversies surrounding Jesus is whether he is the Messiah. In the minds of the common people the title Christ (Heb. Messiah) implies the hope of a deliverer out of the house of David who will liberate them. By leading the questioning this way, Caiaphas is trying to get Jesus to pit himself against the Roman rule, so that Caiaphas can take him to Pilate with charges of insurrection.
“Messiah” and “Son of God” are basically equivalent expressions in this context, emphasizing that the expected Messiah is both the son of David and the Son of God (16:16; cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; 89:26–27). The high priest is not thinking of Messiah in a Trinitarian sense that we know today to be true of Jesus. Rather, Caiaphas draws on the Jewish conception of Messiah as the Davidic king, God’s Anointed, who will rule his people forever.15
Jesus as the divine messianic Son of Man (26:64). Jesus replies dramatically, “Yes, it is as you say.” This NIV rendering accurately reflects the Greek expression, which is literally, “You yourself have said.” It is an indirect way of making an affirmation that places the responsibility back on the one making the inquiry. This is the way Jesus replied to Judas’s question of whether he was the betrayer (see comments on 26:25; cf. also 27:11). Jesus affirms that he is the Messiah, but it allows him to go beyond Caiaphas’s inadequate conception to give a further clarification of the kind of Messiah he is and in what way he is the Son of God. Jesus avoided those kinds of titles in his ministry because of the way that they could be misunderstood. Now is the time for clarification: “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Jesus declares that he is not just a human messianic deliverer; he is the divine Son of Man foretold in Daniel 7:13–14 and the object of the psalmist’s reference to the divine figure who sits at the right hand of God (Ps. 110:1–2), cited earlier in his debates with the Pharisees (see comments on Matt. 22:41–46). The very title that Jesus used throughout his ministry to clarify his identity, “Son of Man,” now unmistakably clarifies for Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin16 that the next time they see Jesus, he will come as the everlasting King who will reign forever. He is the Messiah, the Son of God, but in an exalted way they cannot possibly conceive. Jesus is making himself to be equal with God. The Jews did not believe that the Messiah would be divine, but here Jesus confounds them by showing that he sustains a divine relationship to Yahweh.17
The charge of blasphemy (26:65–68). Caiaphas does not miss Jesus’ point. He tears his clothes18 and says, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.” Blasphemy means to act or, more specifically, to speak contemptuously against God.19 Leviticus 24:11 tells of the stoning of a man who “blasphemed the Name with a curse” (cf. Dan. 3:29; 2 Macc. 15:22–24). The culpable act of blasphemy in Jesus’ case is not speaking against the name of God, but rather his assertion that he has divine status as the Son of Man. He claims for himself prerogatives that belong to God alone.20
After hearing Jesus’ blatant claim to divine status, Caiaphas pronounces that there are enough witnesses to the blasphemy. He turns to the Sanhedrin for their verdict, to which they reply, “He is worthy of death” (26:66). From the standpoint of the Jewish law (Lev. 24:10–23), as interpreted by the rabbis as well (m. Sanh. 7.5), Jesus deserves death because he has made himself to be divine. The sad irony is that Jesus is speaking the truth and will be sentenced to death for telling it.
From the standpoint of Roman law, however, blasphemy is not a crime deserving of death. Therefore, they will have to manipulate the charges and focus on Jesus as a common messianic pretender, who is dangerous to Rome as an insurrectionist and is gathering around himself men whom he will lead in an uprising against the military government (cf. 27:1–2, 11).
With what they perceive to be the height of blasphemy, the Sanhedrin officials spit in his face, strike him with their fists (26:67), and mock him almost as in a children’s game gone cruelly sour, attempting to humiliate this one who has declared himself to be the divine, all-powerful Son of Man (26:68).21 Spitting on him shows disdain for his claim to divine status, striking him shows how powerless he is, and slapping and mocking him for not knowing who has hit him attempts to demonstrate that he has no prophetic gift to know the future.22
Peter’s Denials of Jesus (26:69–75)
DURING JESUS’ INQUISITION at the hands of the Sanhedrin, Peter waits in the inner courtyard. Peter stays here throughout the various phases of the trial, making him increasingly obvious to the various personnel serving there and to others awaiting the end of the trial. His three denials are likely spread out over a lengthy period of time. Compressing them into just a few verses makes their impact on the reader all the more striking.
First denial—a servant girl (26:69–70). Peter is first accosted by a servant girl on duty at the entryway (cf. John 18:16) to the courtyard: “You also were with Jesus of Galilee.” This is the least threatening of the three confrontations, because it is directed to Peter, not to those around him. She charges that he was “also” with Jesus of Galilee, perhaps including the other disciple with whom Peter initially came to the courtyard (John 18:15–16) or Judas.
Peter has courageously stayed through the early morning hours in that hostile environment. But when his own personal safety is threatened by public exposure of his affiliation with Jesus, Peter’s courage deserts him. He does not deny her charge but evades it by denying to all within hearing range that he does not know what the girl is talking about (26:70). Obviously, he misses the chance to declare his allegiance to Jesus.
Second denial—another girl (26:71–72). Peter recognizes that the threat to his safety is increasing, for he leaves the warmth of the fires in the openness of the inner courtyard for the cold and shadows of the entryway. But another servant girl confronts him. This confrontation escalates from the previous one because she speaks out loud to the people surrounding them, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.” The designation “Jesus of Nazareth,” when used by his followers, was an expression of faith in him as the messianic deliverer (Acts 2:22; 3:6; 10:38). But used by his enemies, it was a title of scorn to deny his messianic identity (see comments on Matt. 2:23). Referring to Peter as “this fellow” may also be contemptuous (cf. 26:61).
This second girl’s confrontation escalates from the first, and Peter’s denial also escalates. “With an oath” he denies his affiliation with Jesus: “I don’t know the man.” The oath is not vulgar swearing but the invocation of something sacred (e.g., the name of God) to affirm the truthfulness of one’s statement. Jesus warned earlier about invoking these kinds of oaths, since they are often attempts to hide one’s deception (cf. 5:33–37). Peter is sinking deeper into personal denial as he denies his allegiance to Jesus. In Caesarea Philippi, Peter had given the most profound declaration of Jesus’ identity to that point in his ministry as “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16:16). Now, however, Jesus is nothing more than “the man” (26:72).
Third denial—those standing there (26:73–75). Another period of time elapses (Luke 22:59 says about an hour), which by now may parallel the final stages of Jesus’ interrogation by the high priest and the Sanhedrin. Jesus declares openly his divine identity, which will result in the sentence of death. Peter’s interrogation likewise intensifies, but with an accompanying intensity of denial of any relationship to Jesus, in order to save his own life.
Some bystanders intentionally come up to Peter with certainty in their identification and accost him by saying, “Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away.” Jesus’ disciples were mostly from Galilee (except Judas), where Jesus had restricted the majority of his ministry. This causes his disciples to stand out among the Judeans in the Jerusalem region. Judeans were contemptuous of the way Galileans pronounced certain words.
This third and final confrontation escalates the threat to Peter, so he intensifies his own denial by calling down curses on himself and swearing, which are most likely a doubling up of emphatic invocations of God’s wrath on himself if he is lying. The more likely to others that Peter is lying, the more emphatic become his attempts to dupe the crowd with his deceptive sincerity—a well-known tactic of flagrant liars. His third and final denial takes the same form as the second, “I don’t know the man!”
Peter’s denial of his Lord was prophesied. He may try to hide his denials even from himself, but the prophesied signal resounds, “Immediately a rooster crowed.” Peter then recalls Jesus’ prediction: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” The vehement promise he made to stand up for Jesus is now thrust on him most deeply. He knows how phony he is. “Intent cannot always be judged when a thing is done once. But this is not true of something done thrice: repetition reflects resolution. This is why Peter’s multiple denials are so damning.”23
The brutal poignancy of Peter’s self-revelation is stated starkly, “And he went outside and wept bitterly.” The bitter weeping is recognition of his nothingness, because he has thrown away all that has given him a new identity as Jesus’ disciple. But the weeping is perhaps also the first sign of his repentance. “Peter’s example warns us to be ready for testing; but it also summons us to start afresh if we have failed, and to show mercy to those who have already stumbled but wish to return to the way of Christ (compare 18:10–35).”24 This is the last time Peter is mentioned by name in Matthew’s Gospel, but he will surface again among the Eleven (28:16) and becomes the prominent leader in the early church (cf. Acts 1–10).
Jesus Condemned by the Sanhedrin and Delivered to Pilate (27:1–2)
THE DELIBERATIONS DURING the early morning hours rendered a verdict of death for blasphemy (26:57–68). Now at daybreak on Friday morning, probably a larger number of the Sanhedrin assemble with a quorum so that they can give, during daylight hours, a more formal ratification of the earlier pronouncement to put Jesus to death. According to later Mishnaic criteria, when a capital case was involved, the sages required twenty-three members to make up a quorum (m. Sanh. 1.1). However, Matthew has made it clear that the Sanhedrin is not hindered by legal protocol, since they are intent on finding Jesus guilty at any cost.
Since the Jewish religious leaders at this time did not have the liberty under Roman law to perform capital punishment, they bind Jesus and take him to Pilate. Pilate may have been concerned about the commotion surrounding Jesus in the temple and pressures Caiaphas to take care of him in a religious court. When that produces a guilty charge, Jesus is taken to Pilate, who also finds him guilty and has him executed. The working relationship between the high priest and Roman governor appears to be harmonious for each one’s politically motivated ends.
Pilate was the Roman prefect and governor of Judea under Emperor Tiberius. When he first became governor, he attempted to impose Roman superiority throughout Israel. He hung images of the emperor throughout Jerusalem and had coins bearing pagan religious symbols minted. But Pilate was exposed to increasing criticism from the Jews for such acts, which may have encouraged the religious leaders to capitalize on Pilate’s vulnerability, leading them to align themselves with him in his attempt to maintain peace. Their demand for a legal death sentence on Jesus, a falsely accused rival to Caesar (27:11–14; John 19:12), would not have been an unwelcome way of putting down a popular uprising.
Judas’s Remorse and Suicide (27:3–10)
JUDAS LAST APPEARED in Matthew’s narrative at his betrayal of Jesus in Gethsemane. Presumably Judas accompanied Jesus and the temple troop to Caiaphas’s palatial compound, where he remained through the hours of the Jewish trial.
Judas’ remorse (27:3–4). Only Matthew records Judas’s feelings of remorse and his attempt to reject the blood money, although Luke records a parallel account of the suicide in Acts 1:16–19. Matthew shows the magnitude of his “remorse” but appears careful not to suggest that Judas repents of the sin. The word “remorse” (metamelomai) is different from the normal word for “repentance” (metanoeo). “Repentance” means a change of heart either generally or in respect of a specific sin, whereas “remorse” means to experience feelings of regret. The terms can overlap, because a person who repents and chooses a different pattern of behavior will also often experience regret. However, “remorse” here indicates that Judas’s pain of guilt produces an act of restitution but does not produce true repentance (cf. 2 Cor. 7:8–10).
Judas confesses that he sinned by betraying innocent blood (27:4); the enormity of his act of betrayal rests heavily on his conscience.25 Had he truly repented of his pattern of rebellion, he would have been impelled to seek forgiveness of his sin from God.26 Instead, he turns to the chief priests and the elders, who are just as guilty of Jesus’ blood and who respond, “What is that to us? That’s your responsibility” (27:4). Their hearts are even more hardened than Judas’s.
Judas tries to return the thirty pieces of silver he received when making arrangements for the betrayal (cf. 26:14–15), but he cannot relieve himself of the guilt of the sin, even though he throws the “blood money” into the temple (27:5). It is unlikely that he goes into the inner sanctuary, so presumably he gets as near as he can to the restricted area of the priests and throws the coins over a separator.
Judas’s suicide (27:5). Then Judas “went away and hanged himself.” This is the only incident of suicide in the New Testament (cf. 1 Sam. 31:4–5; 2 Sam. 17:23; 1 Kings 16:18). Rabbinic Judaism considered suicide morally wrong, a rebellion against God, who gave life and who alone may choose to take it (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 18a). The early church also regarded suicide as a kind of murder (murder of oneself) and was therefore prohibited by the sixth commandment.
The discussion in Acts 1:15–25 of Judas’s replacement among the apostles includes the comment, “which Judas left to go where he belongs” (1:25; cf. John 6:64). This is ominous language, which suggests that Peter knows Judas’s final outcome—being consigned to the place of eternal judgment for which he was responsible. The act of suicide itself is not the focus of condemnation but rather the act of turning away from Jesus and betraying him. He was controlled by the devil himself (Luke 22:3; John 6:71; 13:26–27). He was an unbeliever who chose suicide in order to escape the daily horror of facing his actions, for which he would not repent.
The traditional reconciliation of the accounts of Judas’s death by hanging in 27:3–10 and by falling headlong in Acts 1:18–19 is that the priests used the money of Judas to acquire the field, whereupon Judas hanged himself out of remorse (either in this field or elsewhere). Part of the structure on which he was hanging (perhaps the branch of a tree) broke, resulting in his falling headlong on some obstacle (perhaps rocks), when his insides spilled out.27
The religious leaders purchase the potter’s field (27:6–10). After Judas leaves, the chief priests collect the coins and say, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money” (they based this on the principle found in Deut. 23:18). They are fixated on scrupulous adherence to religious custom but hardhearted about their unscrupulous complicity in the betrayal of Jesus to death. The irony is that they are careful not to defile the temple treasury with blood money, but they are the very ones who earlier schemed to provide the money that shed the blood of an innocent man.
Thus, they decide to “use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day” (27:7–8). “Field of blood” occurs in transliterated Aramaic as Akeldamach in Acts 1:19, variantly spelled Akeldama or Acheldama. Apparently the chief priests find an area previously known to provide materials for making clay pots. They purchase it with the thirty silver coins and make it into a burial ground for travelers to Jerusalem who die prior to returning to their homeland. It came to be called “Field of Blood” since it was associated with violent death (i.e., of Jesus and Judas).28
Matthew summarizes his narration of Judas’s death and the chief priests’ hardhearted business deals with his final fulfillment quotation. “Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ‘They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.’ ” Note, however, that this quotation is largely from Zechariah 11:11–13.29 This is similar to the way that Matthew earlier conflated messianic “branch” themes of several prophets (see comments on Matt. 2:23), and the way that Mark conflates quotations from Isaiah and Malachi but only cites Isaiah (Mark 1:2; cf. Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1). Jeremiah is the more prominent of the two prophets, especially in Matthew’s Gospel, where he is named three times (Matt. 2:17; 16:14; 27:9).
Drawing on a combination of Jeremiah and Zechariah, Matthew demonstrates that the events surrounding Jesus’ fateful journey to the cross are not the random tragedies of history but prophesied actions in which God superintends the redemption of humanity. As repulsive and tragic as the betrayal and demise of Judas and the duplicity and hardhearted manipulations of the chief priests are, they have been foreseen by God. The betrayal price figures prominently as a theme of judgment on Israel’s leadership.30 Whether it is in the days of Jeremiah, Zechariah, or Jesus, Israel rejects good leaders and suffers under bad ones, but the bad leaders who refuse to act justly will experience God’s justice.
The Roman Trial of Jesus (27:11–26)
MATTHEW RETURNS TO the center stage of his narrative of Jesus’ journey to the cross: “Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor.” The Jewish officialdom has tried Jesus and found him guilty of blasphemy, for which they sentence him to death. However, without the final authority to impose a death penalty, they must take Jesus to Pilate the Roman governor to have the verdict carried out. The religious charges are not sufficient to impose the death penalty under Roman rule, so they change the charges when they hand him over to Pilate. The high priest knows well how to frame Jesus by collaborating with the Roman governor, but there is veiled double-dealing below the surface of their relationship.
Just as the Jewish trial developed in three phases (see comments on 26:57–68), so the Roman trial also develops in three phases: Jesus first appears before Pilate (27:2, 11–14), then he is sent to Herod Antipas (only in Luke 23:6–12), and finally he appears for a second and last time before Pilate, who condemns him to death (Matt. 27:15–26).
Jesus before Pilate (27:11–14). Pilate carried the title “procurator,”31 which in the Roman imperial administration indicated the financial officer of a province but was also used as the title of the “governor” (hegemon; 27:11) of a Roman province of the third class, such as in Judea. A governor was a “legate” with control over the military legions. Pilate also originally carried the title “prefect,” a title that designated various high officials or magistrates of differing functions and ranks in ancient Rome and carried administrative, financial, military, and judicial functions. Tiberius had created a hybrid of responsibilities in Judea in Jesus’ time, so that Pilate had a combination of duties as prefect and procurator/governor.
The significance of the change of legal venues is evident in Pilate’s first question posed to Jesus: “Are you the king of the Jews?” (27:11). This is similar to the question asked by Caiaphas, “Are you the Christ, the Son of God?” (26:63), though Caiaphas had a different emphasis—a charge of blasphemy deserving death under Jewish law but not under Roman. This new charge focuses on treason and insurrection, that Jesus claims to be a rival king to Caesar. Jesus replies in the same indirect manner that he responded to Judas (26:25) and to Caiaphas (26:64), “Yes, it is as you say” (27:11). His answer affirms the question but places the responsibility back on Pilate to discern properly what the question implies.
Jesus affirms that he is the king of the Jews, but it is incumbent on Pilate to get to the heart of what this means. But just as Jesus remained silent when accused by the chief priests and the elders (see comments on 26:63), so Jesus remains silent before Pilate, for the false testimony is brought by the high priest and the Sanhedrin, who will concoct whatever charges they believe will convince Pilate of Jesus’ threat to the Roman occupation. As the Messiah of Israel, Jesus is indeed the king of the Jews (cf. 2:1–6), but the Jewish leaders have loaded the charges to make him a rebel and a rival king to Tiberius Caesar.32
Jesus has answered Pilate’s original question and needs to say nothing more, so he does not respond to the concocted charges, “to the great amazement of the governor.” Pilate has certainly heard of Jesus prior to this encounter, but he is not prepared for the sovereign silence that Jesus maintains in the middle of these threatening circumstances. Jesus recognizes the trial is a sham, so he does not grace the charade with a reply. His refusal to speak may bring to mind among Matthew’s readers the servant of Isaiah 53:7: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”
The crowd, Barabbas, and Jesus (27:15–18). Pilate’s position as prefect gave him the authority to acquit a prisoner, whether or not already convicted and condemned. In an ingenious way of attempting to enfold the people to his favor, he apparently initiated a custom in earlier years in which he released a prisoner at Passover whom “the crowd” (ochlos) favored. The people of Jerusalem have just a few days prior shouted “Hosanna!” at the entry of Jesus to Jerusalem. Perhaps if he offers to release Jesus to them, this will be a way of quelling any social unrest by ingratiating the crowds to himself.33 There is evidence of widespread customs of prisoner releases at festivals in the ancient world,34 and the Gospel account of a custom of reprieve of a prisoner at the Passover echoes the practice.
Matthew calls the prisoner Barabbas “notorious,” evidently for his reputation as a freedom fighter esteemed by the people. His name does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament outside of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial, and there is no extrabiblical account of his activities. But he occurs in all four Gospels as the criminal chosen by the crowd—at the prompting of the religious leaders—for Pilate to release on the feast of the Passover.
The terms used to describe Barabbas (27:16; Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19; John 18:40) closely resemble the characteristics of social banditry that have been examined in recent studies of the social history of first-century Palestine.35 As a “bandit” (lestes), Barabbas may have belonged to one of the rural bands. Social unrest was common, instigated in part by these guerillas. The two criminals between whom Jesus was crucified are also called by this same term (see comments on 27:38). These bandits were popular with the common people because they preyed on the wealthy establishment of Israel and created havoc for the Roman government (similar to the twelfth-century Robin Hood, who robbed from the rich to give to the poor).
The Roman trial before Pilate would have begun in the quiet of the early morning hours (assuming the Jewish trial ended at daybreak, 27:1). Pilate may have thought he could conduct the trial relatively quickly and dispatch Jesus before the crowds of the city are stirred with the knowledge that the popular Jesus has been arrested. But now they arrive. Pilate sees that this may be his chance to gain more public support, so he asks the crowd, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”
An interesting variant occurs in 27:16–17, where Barabbas is called “Jesus Barabbas.” While extant manuscript evidence is weak, Origen implies that most manuscripts in his day (c. A.D. 240) included the full name. Many scholars today accept the full name as original, and suggest that it was probably omitted by later scribes because of the repugnance of having Jesus Christ’s name being shared by Barabbas.36 If this is so, Matthew’s text reads more dramatically with two holders of the same name: Which do you want—Jesus the son of Abba, or Jesus the self-styled Messiah?37
Matthew gives a subtle commentary on Pilate’s motivation for asking the crowds to choose between Barabbas and Jesus: “For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him.” Pilate knows that the high priest and Sanhedrin have not indicted Jesus because they care about the potential threat to Roman rule. Rather, they are envious of Jesus and his popularity with the people (see 7:28–29; 9:8, 31, 33–34; 21:8–16), and they want him out of the way. Moreover, his authoritative ministry threatens their entire way of life. If what he says is true, they must repent and follow Jesus, as John the Baptist warned them to do long ago (3:7–10). But they have hardened their hearts throughout the months and years of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus’ threat to their religious establishment has come to a climax, so now they know that they must get rid of him.
Pilate is wise to their maneuverings, and he thinks that he has found a way to ingratiate the crowds to himself while subtly putting the Sanhedrin back in their place. The old expression is true: Politics makes strange bedfellows. But it is also true that political plotting can come back to bite the hand that attempts to manipulate the other.38
The dream of Pilate’s wife (27:19). Matthew records an intriguing aside about Pilate’s wife that occurs while her husband is sitting on the judge’s “seat” or tribunal (bema, the platform on which a Roman magistrate sat, flanked by counselors, to administer justice). The bema was traditionally erected in some public place, as apparently here, because Pilate is able to address the assembled crowd (cf. John 19:13). The location where Pilate adjudicates Jesus’ case is debated (options include the Fortress of Antonia, at the northwest corner of the temple; the old Hasmonean royal palace, on the west slope of the Tyropean Valley; and the magnificent palace of Herod the Great, built on the western edge of the Upper City); the best candidate is the third option. Pilate stayed at this palace, which was newer and more opulent than the other places.39
Matthew alone records the incident of Pilate’s wife attempting to dissuade him because of her dream. Dreams have figured prominently in Matthew (see esp. chs. 1–2), so perhaps this dream is a supernatural one used by God to make clear to Pilate that Jesus is innocent of any crime. Nevertheless, the Romans often took dreams as omens. Since there is no indication that Pilate’s wife is either a God-fearer or a disciple of Jesus, this dream may be a natural, though profound premonition. In any case, whether supernatural or natural, her plea to her husband is an exoneration of Jesus for Matthew’s readers. But Pilate does not heed his wife’s warning.
The chief priests and elders persuade the crowd (27:20). The same religious leaders who plotted Jesus’ arrest, conspired his betrayal, manipulated his Jewish trial, and bound him to Pilate now arrive at the Roman trial to persuade the crowd to ask for Jesus’ crucifixion. Most likely they try to convince them that Jesus is a blaspheming charlatan and not their expected liberator. Throughout Jesus’ ministry, the “crowd” (ochlos again) has been the object of his offer of salvation and discipleship, but all along it was an either-or matter (see comments on 5:1–2). A person is either with Jesus or against him (12:30); there is no middle ground. If a person responds to his invitation, he or she will come out of the crowd to become Jesus’ disciple. But now the religious leaders attempt to persuade the crowd to join them and go against Jesus. They are simply that—a crowd. They have shouted with amazement and enthusiasm at his teaching (7:28–29), miracles (9:7), and triumphal entry to Jerusalem (21:8–16). But when something better is offered, they give up their shallow allegiance.
Matthew does not tell us the means that the chief priests and elders use, but it is not hard to imagine that they persuade the crowds that Barabbas is the kind of freedom fighter who will lead the nation in an uprising to finally throw off the yoke of Rome’s oppression.40 They probably recount to the crowds how Jesus has consistently preached peace, mercy, and forgiveness, even of their enemies, which certainly hasn’t improved their material lot. The governor has given them only two options, and at this point their hope is directed by the religious authorities to go with a known notorious insurrectionist. They want a kingdom on earth now. So with escalating clamor they demand that Barabbas be released to them and that Jesus be crucified (27:21–22).
The crowd turns ugly (27:21–23). The wily Pilate recognizes that the chief priests and the elders have tried to dupe the crowd and take away his maneuvering against them, so he tries to reverse the logic. He asks the crowd, “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate understands that Jesus is not the dangerous hero whom the religious leaders are trying to portray. But he also understands that Jesus has claimed the title “Christ” as one who offers spiritual hope. That seems harmless enough to Pilate, so he tries to get the crowd to recall that many of them, even recently, have pinned their hopes on Jesus.
But the crowd is unifying into a mob, and they “all” answer, “Crucify him!” This is the first time that this verb is used in the Passion Narrative, though it will recur six more times as the climactic events move inevitably forward. The crowd is well aware that the alternative fate for the one not chosen to be released will be death on a cross.
As Jesus demonstrated in his parables, when the crowd refuses to allow the message of the gospel to penetrate to their hearts, they become increasingly hardened to his mission and are unable to repent and believe in him (13:10–17). That time has now come. Pilate tries to get them to think rationally about Jesus’ innocence by asking why they should want him crucified and to spell out the crime he has committed (27:23). But they are losing any semblance of order and shout louder and louder, “Crucify him!”
Pilate’s charade (27:24). The crowd is getting into a frenzy that may get out of control and erupt into a riot, something that has happened before during the Passover.41 Not wanting to bring more suspicion on his shaky rule, Pilate washes his hands with water in front of the crowd and says, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. . . . It is your responsibility!” There is abundant background from Jewish as well as Hellenistic sources for the practice of washing one’s hands as a way of showing public innocence. This is a virtual admission that Pilate has not found anything in Jesus deserving of the death penalty. But his duplicity cannot force the full responsibility of Jesus’ death on the crowd or the religious leaders, for he still could have, and should have, released Jesus for lack of any evidence of insurrection and treason.
Israel’s responsibility for Jesus’ blood (27:25). The term “crowd” (ochlos) has been the normal word Matthew has used to designate the masses of people who have been witnessing the trial and who have asked for Jesus’ crucifixion (27:15, 20, 24). Matthew now switches to a different word, “people” (laos), in the expression “all the people answered” (27:25). In doing so, he emphasizes that the crowd and the religious leaders have had their opportunity—now they must bear responsibility for not repenting and for asking for Jesus’ death. Laos is the word that Matthew normally uses to designate Israel as a nation (e.g., 1:21; 2:6; 4:16; 15:8). Used here, the implications are ominous. The Jewish leaders and the crowds claim responsibility for Jesus’ death as they declare boldly, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”
Blood on a person (or “on the head”) was a common idiom to indicate responsibility for someone’s death42; “on our children” indicates the familial solidarity of generations within Israel (e.g., Gen. 31:16). These people are so convinced that Jesus deserves death that they brashly proclaim their responsibility for his death and extend that responsibility to their descendants. This statement has been called “the darkest and hardest verse in this gospel,”43 because Matthew puts the responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion directly on the Jewish nation. Pilate tries to escape the blame, but he cannot wash his hands of the matter. By not finding any guilt in him and still ordering Jesus to be executed, Pilate is just as guilty as they are.
But even though they ignorantly crucify their own Messiah, God takes their grievous deed and provides salvation for them and for the world (Acts 3:17–19). In his first public sermon at Pentecost, the apostle Peter indicts the religious leaders, the Jewish crowds, and the Romans for Jesus’ death (cf. Acts 2:23, 36). But to those who acknowledge their guilt, he also extends an offer of forgiveness of sins and salvation (2:37–41; cf. 3:19–4:4). Thousands of Jewish people, including many priests, received that offer in the first days after Pentecost (2:41; 4:4; 6:7). In their ignorance they called down responsibility on their children, but this does not in any way excuse any form of anti-Semitism, then or now. Everyone is responsible for his or her own actions, but God’s forgiveness awaits any who repent.
Jesus is flogged and sent for crucifixion (27:26). This section of the Passion Narrative ends on a heart-breaking note: “Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.” Flogging was a beating administered with a whip or rod, usually on the person’s back. It was a common method of punishing criminals and of preserving discipline. Flogging is endorsed in the Old Testament (Deut. 25:1–3), and later rabbinic tradition gave extensive prescriptions for flogging offenders in the synagogue (cf. Matt. 10:17; 23:34).
But Roman flogging was different from Jewish flogging. The word Matthew uses for flogging (mastigoo) in the Jewish synagogue is different from the word used here (phragelloo). This is a horrific method of torture. Whereas flogging in the Jewish synagogue was limited to forty lashes (see Deut. 25:3), no such restrictions limited Roman flogging. A condemned man (women were not flogged) was tied to a post and beaten with the cruel flagellum, a leather strap interwoven with pieces of bone and metal that cut through the skin, leaving it hanging in sheds.44 The repeated flaying often exposed the bones and intestines, and in many cases it was fatal. Flogging weakened the accused before crucifixion. With the Sabbath approaching, the Romans flog Jesus nearly to death so he will not be left on the cross after sundown.
Bridging Contexts
THROUGHOUT MOST OF his Gospel, Matthew spotlights Jesus at center stage. Other figures come on and off the stage and share the spotlight momentarily for what they reveal about Jesus. However, in both the introductory and concluding chapters, other figures share much more of the narrative focus. In the opening chapters the spotlight was on the infant Jesus, but his parents Joseph and, to a lesser degree, Mary moved to center stage. The Magi and Herod the Great came in for special focus, as did John the Baptist. Each of these supporting figures had much to say about Jesus’ identity and mission, from a positive or negative example.
Likewise, in his narration of the final chapters of Jesus’ life, Matthew continues to feature Jesus as the primary figure on the narrative stage, but in the passion scenes other figures come forward for special attention. Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, and Pilate, the Roman governor, are on either end of the narrative stage. Their politically motivated manipulations result in the execution of Jesus, but their verdicts unknowingly stand for all of history as testimonies to Jesus’ true identity as the divine messianic Son of Man and the king of the Jews. Their actions also tell us much about them as individuals who compromised their divinely ordained responsibilities because of their flawed character.
Between Caiaphas and Pilate, Peter the denier and Judas the betrayer flank Jesus even more closely. Their actions tell us much about them as individuals who abandon their divinely initiated calling as Jesus’ disciples because they do not draw upon the transformational realities that Jesus made available to them. Their differing responses and their consequences are stark lessons for all of humanity.
Judas. The event for which Judas is known in biblical and historical infamy is his betrayal of Jesus.45 He was under the direction of Satan (Luke 22:3; John 13:2), and his greed, which had prompted him to steal (John 12:4–6), may have motivated him to betray Jesus for the paltry amount of thirty pieces of silver (Matt. 26:14–16). Although Jesus anticipated the betrayal (John 6:71; 12:4), the treacherous act apparently came at the Last Supper as a surprise to all except Jesus (Matt. 26:20–25). Securing a band of soldiers from the chief priests and Pharisees, Judas leads them to where Jesus is alone with the disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane, away from the crowds, and kisses Jesus to identify him for the soldiers (26:47–56).
Judas is a complex individual. Since he was the treasurer for the apostolic band, we may assume that he displayed some positive characteristics recognizable by the others. This office is not usually given to one known to be greedy and irresponsible. It was a respected position and probably indicates the degree of esteem in which the Twelve held him.46
However, love of money has contributed to the downfall of more than one person, and Judas appears to have fallen victim to it. According to John, Judas’s objection to Mary’s anointing of Jesus with costly ointment was not because of his concern for the poor but his greed. During his time as treasurer, he had become a thief, pilfering from the treasury funds (John 12:6). Jesus indicates elsewhere that Judas never believed in him but only appeared to be a believing disciple/apostle (John 6:64, 70–71). “Thus to covetousness there is added the trait of deceit.”47
This leads to the complexity behind Judas’s betrayal of Jesus. Why does Judas betray Jesus, whom he faithfully followed and served? A wide spectrum of possible explanations have been advanced to explain his betrayal (see comments on 26:14–16). But underlying all attempts to understand Judas’s motivation is a clear recognition of his spiritual state.
While the predetermined plan of God includes Judas’s betrayal, clearly Judas bears spiritual responsibility for his actions. Jesus’ call of Judas to be a disciple and an apostle was sincere, and all appearances indicated that Judas responded sincerely. Yet, as with others who responded to that call and then turned and walked away, Judas never truly believed (John 6:64). Inwardly he was always a part of the devil’s corps (6:70) while on the surface he followed Jesus. It was finally at the end that his true inner nature was revealed as a “son of perdition” (17:12), a tool of Satan (13:2, 27–30). Judas enters into a plot to betray Jesus because Satan has entered him (Luke 22:3). Judas’s eternal verdict is solemnly declared in Acts 1:25: “this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go to where he belongs.” Ralph Martin declares vividly:
Judas was never really Christ’s man. He fell from apostleship, but never (so far as we can tell) had a genuine relationship to the Lord Jesus. So he remained “the son of perdition” who was lost because he was never “saved.” His highest title for Christ was “Rabbi” (Mt 26:25), never “Lord.” He lives on the stage of Scripture as an awful warning to the uncommitted follower of Jesus who is in his company but does not share his spirit (cf. Rom 8:9b); he leaves the Gospel story “a doomed and damned man” because he chose it so, and God confirmed him in that dreadful choice.48
Judas’s spiritual state is the true underlying motivation for the betrayal; he who is not truly with Jesus is against him. Judas stands as a dreadful example of the outcome for a person whose apostasy stems from spiritual deficiency.
Peter. Peter’s denials of Jesus are ominously juxtaposed next to Judas’s betrayal and suicide. Peter holds a prominent place in Matthew’s Gospel up to this point. Matthew narrates five incidents in which Peter figures prominently that are found nowhere else in the Gospels: walking on the water to Jesus in the storm (14:28–31), asking for an explanation of one of Jesus’ parables (15:15), confessing Jesus as the Christ, evoking a statement from Jesus about his foundational role in the church (16:17–19), recommending to build shelters on the Mount of Transfiguration (17:24–27), and asking how many times he should forgive a brother (18:21). Now Peter denies three times that he knows Jesus.
Matthew does not whitewash Peter, even though he will become the courageous leader of the church. Instead, he focuses on Peter as an example of the way in which Jesus takes everyday men and women, with all of their strengths and weakness and all of their successes and failures, and transforms them into his kind of disciples. Matthew also focuses on Peter as an example of the way that Jesus takes everyday disciples and transforms them into his kind of leaders—leaders who stumble and fall but who, when they learn to fix their eyes of faith firmly on Jesus, are able to lead Jesus’ people.
This leads to the complexity of the reasons behind Peter’s denials of Jesus. Why does Peter deny Jesus, whom he vowed he would follow even to his own death (26:35)? He is probably in some danger, because he used force against the high priest’s servant during Jesus’ arrest in Gethsemane (26:51). The accusations against Jesus grow increasingly hostile in the courtyard of Caiaphas’s home while Peter waits in the shadows. But none of this is certain to end in his arrest. I suggest that Peter and the other disciples abandon and deny Jesus because of the profound transitional period in which they find themselves. But once they experience the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus and the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost, they are forever transformed and become the example of our own potential for transformation.
So why specifically does Peter deny and abandon Jesus? (1) Peter does not yet clearly understand who Jesus is.49 Throughout the time the disciples followed him, they have an increasing understanding of who Jesus is. However, their own preconceptions often get in the way. Because they do not clearly understand who Jesus is, they are not able to let him be who he really is in their lives. The Jesus whom they have followed does not seem to offer much to them now. He is led away to a Jewish trial and will be crucified just like other insurrectionists. What can he possibly offer now? All of their hopes are dashed with Jesus’ arrest and forthcoming crucifixion. Peter must think that this is the end of the dream, and there is no sense risking anything more for a dream turned nightmare.
It will take the most radical miracle in all of history, the resurrection, to demonstrate to Peter that Jesus is more than he has imagined and that he is now able to bring about the change in his life that he has promised. Knowing that he serves a risen Lord will give Peter the vision and the courage to give himself unreservedly.
(2) Peter does not yet believe who he is as Jesus’ disciple. Jesus all along promised transformation to his disciples with the arrival of he kingdom of God. Although they have made a commitment to be his disciples, they do not yet clearly believe that they will be forever changed by God from the inside out. But the danger of the hour causes Peter and the others to lose sight of Jesus’ radical new vision of who they are to be as his disciples. So they scatter and deny him.
Peter tries desperately to live up to his calling, but he is notorious for his inconsistency, including his denials. But it is this same Peter who later encourages exiled believers to be faithful during their persecution by writing, “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). He now understands clearly that discipleship is an inner work in which God produces resurrection life and that transforms him in such a way that he will courageously confess Jesus for the rest of his days.
(3) Peter does not yet know what is available to him to live courageously as Jesus’ disciple. Those trembling disciples have looked to Jesus for strength and leadership. Now with him arrested and crucified, they have nowhere to turn. Jesus’ promise to send another Counselor must seem like vague wishful thinking (John 14:15–27; 16:5–16). All the disciples flee in Gethsemane, and Peter scurries away from a young girl’s questioning. And he will hide when Jesus is led to the cross. Even after they hear of his resurrection, they hide away in fear for their own lives (John 20:19). They do not yet know fully what is available to them to live courageously and victoriously in a hostile world.
But soon they will know. With the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost the ancient promise of the prophet Joel and Jesus’ own promise are now a reality (cf. John 14:15–17; Acts 2:16–36). The Holy Spirit is the gift to everyone who calls on the name of Jesus for salvation (Acts 2:38–39), which now provides the boldness to preach and heal, the courage to stand up under persecution, and the power to be transformed in their personal characteristics and values.
(4) Peter does not yet grasp his calling as Jesus’ disciple. The disciples heard Jesus declare that the kingdom of God was at hand (4:17), but they often turned this around to mean privilege and position for themselves (cf. 18:1; 20:20–28). Peter and the others do not yet understand fully that Jesus has not called them simply for their own comfort and benefit. Peter is called to be an ambassador of the kingdom. He will bring a message of transformation to a lost and dying world. But as Jesus is led away to die for that world, Peter’s hopes and vision seem to die with him. Peter and the others do not yet grasp the calling of God on their lives.
But when they encounter their risen Master, they look with a new light upon the cross. Yes, it is a symbol of suffering and pain, but now it also is a symbol of sacrifice and service. Jesus has not come to be served but to serve, and to give his live as a ransom for many (20:28). His purpose in coming to earth is to go to the cross to bear the sins of a lost and hopeless world. Thus, Peter and the other disciples will understand in a new way Jesus’ call to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow him. They also must deny their own will for their lives in exchange for the Father’s. In doing so they will actually find real life (cf. 16:24–27).
Contemporary Significance
THE INTRIGUE OF these passion scenes reveals the undoing of those who come on and off of Matthew’s narrative stage—Caiaphas, Pilate, the crowds who demand Jesus’ blood, and Peter. All fail the responsibility that is their lot in life. Although their actions are motivated by humanly contrived means of achieving success, each ultimately fails. By contrast, one solitary life maintains his divinely ordained course—Jesus. Although his ultimate end seems to be a failure, his perseverance brings about ultimate victory.
As these various figures come in for special focus in Matthew’s Passion Narrative, the spotlight reveals character deficiencies that both warn and instruct us. Their contrast to Jesus’ faithful confession tells us much about him—which is in the end Matthew’s purpose.
Caiaphas—religious conviction forced by a leader. During the Jewish trial Jesus declares that he is Daniel’s prophesied divine Son of Man, which infuriates the religious leaders and compels them to have him executed. Caiaphas is driven by the conviction of what he believes to be right—Jesus cannot possibly be who he claims to be—so he manipulates the Sanhedrin and the witnesses to get the guilty verdict he wants. Not only is his religious conviction misguided, but his blindness to the truth and his own lack of integrity prevent the nation from receiving the Messiah, the task for which he as high priest is ultimately responsible.
Religious leaders today have responsibility to understand God’s message and with it to shepherd God’s people for him. Their certainty about biblical truths must be their unwavering passion, but there is always the temptation to believe that their convictions equal the truth itself. On his own, Caiaphas had reason to doubt the claims of Jesus to be Israel’s Messiah. Jesus did not conform to his Sadducean party’s expectations, which did not believe in a personal messianic deliverer. Since they derived doctrine from the Pentateuch, which did not give them enough evidence of a prophesied Messiah,50 Caiaphas rejected Jesus’ messianic claims. But how tragic that Caiaphas did not have the courage to buck his religious party’s trend and look to the entire Old Testament, which would have led to his understanding of Jesus’ claims. Instead, he turned to manipulation and falsehood to deny the truth of the broader canon of revelation.
I have recently watched unfold a church situation that illustrates how we can learn from Caiaphas’s negative example. The pastor of a local church was convinced of a particular form of church government, which was the opposite of the church’s constitution. He knew that the church held that form of government when he took the position, but he felt that with his guidance the church would be swayed. The intriguing situation was skewed by the fact that the pastor derived primary support for his ecclesiology and polity from Old Testament models, in particular, Moses. The church, however, based their understanding of church organization and leadership on New Testament models, primarily Paul’s Pastoral Letters, which led them to emphasize a plurality of elders in leadership for the church.
The pastor and the elders studied the positions seriously for six months. In the end both sides became more convinced of their own position. With the constitutional position in place, the elders argued to continue with their model. Ultimately, the pastor was asked to resign, and the church was spared an ugly drawn-out fight between the two sides. There was a desire for true dialogue and prayerful examination of the biblical teachings and the needs of the church.
This is a positive example where equally held convictions were aired appropriately and all maintained their integrity. The pastor did not try to manipulate the church to get his way. In fact, the church body and even the rest of the pastoral staff were not informed of the impasse until the very end. I believe that the pastor held misguided convictions, but to his credit he believed that his personal integrity was a higher priority than his convictions on this matter.
These are tough issues. I personally felt that an even better conciliation would have been for the pastor to continue to concede on the issue, as he did when he originally took the position, and submit to the church elders and the church’s long-established constitution. But nonetheless, God’s work in the church continues.
Pilate—political conviction compromised by a leader. Historian Paul Maier in his historical novel of Pilate’s life states:
Pilate could never know it—he would have been astonished to know it—but, apparently insignificant ex-prefect that he was, his would eventually be the most familiar name in all of Roman history. For uncounted masses in future ages, who knew little about a Caesar or Augustus or even Nero, would confess in The Creed: “I believe in Jesus Christ . . . who . . . suffered under Pontius Pilate.”51
Pilate’s infamous act of ordering Jesus’ execution was carried out in the political backwaters of first-century Palestine. His actions were conducted in relative obscurity, with no thought that they would have historical and spiritual consequences for all of humanity for all time. But Pilate is known forever as one whose political machinations perverted his integrity. Yet in spite of his maneuverings, God’s will was accomplished. A pagan leader like Pilate does not consciously seek God’s will, but the clear statement of Proverbs is that “the king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD” (Prov. 21:1). God has established all authorities to exercise justice according to the conscience with which they are born as humans created in God’s image (cf. Rom. 13:1–5). Pilate’s responsibility as a leader, whether he consciously considered God’s will or not, was to maintain integrity that accords with the highest ideals of human nature.
It is impossible to get into Pilate’s head to understand all that he experienced and all the options that he considered, but it is obvious that he operated out of a political frame of reference. He was trying to appease too many sides. He was trying to manipulate people and circumstances. In this backwater region of the Roman Empire, he thought that he could get away with maneuverings with his reputation intact and the peace maintained.
By contrast, Jesus’ resolve to maintain the “good confession” (1 Tim. 6:13) was expressed with silent witness to what his entire life had expressed. He did not resort to double-dealing or compromise to accomplish his life’s ambitions. His silence before Pilate is a booming testimony to his unwavering commitment to God’s calling. As the writer to the Hebrews proclaims in Hebrews 12:2–3:
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
It is Jesus’ steadfast pattern that contrasts the weakness of Pilate’s concession.
They may not be many, and they may not come often, but there are hills that are worth fighting and dying for, even when they may come in the relative obscurity of our own little worlds. We may be far from centers of power and acclaim, but the responsibilities allotted to us have untold consequences. They are a test of our character. Pilate compromised at his life’s most important moment, knowing that the sentence of crucifixion he pronounced was on an innocent man. The intriguing feature of the narrative is that God supplied trustworthy advice from his own wife that could have given him the courage to buck his politically motivated intuitions. Instead, he decided to go it alone, and his attempt at political negotiation marks him for all of history as a man of weakness and failure.
When the opportunity presents itself, each of us must contend for what we know to be right and for those for whom we are responsible, regardless of whether we think that the outcome will ever be known by others. A dramatic example is found in the experience of John McCain, U.S. senator from Arizona. He spent seven horrific years in a North Vietnamese prison camp after being shot down over Hanoi while on a bombing run. But early in his captivity he was given an offer that many of us would consider too good to refuse. One year after his capture, an English-speaking North Vietnamese officer, whom the prisoners called The Cat, asked him, “Do you want to go home?” When McCain realized he was hearing a legitimate offer of freedom, the prospect of returning home lifted his emotions like an activated ejection seat. He was given three days to think over the offer.
During that time, the reality of what his decision would mean to his fellow prisoners sank in. Unbeknownst to McCain, his father, an Admiral, had just been promoted to be Commander over all United States forces in the Pacific. The North Vietnamese captors saw an opportunity to offer the younger McCain the chance to go home, which would immeasurably harm the morale of the other prisoners. The captors would mock those left behind. “Your father’s not an admiral. You’ll never get out of here. Give up now and denounce your country.” A positive decision by McCain would have greatly distressed his band of fellow prisoners left behind.
Three days later, McCain shocked The Cat when he declined to the offer. The result was six more brutal years in that prison camp. But God has redeemed those years multiple times over in McCain’s life today. He couldn’t know that in the obscurity of a North Vietnamese prison camp, one decision would inspire millions of people to maintain their own integrity.
Family counselor John Trent tells of Jim, a senior vice-president on a fast track for the CEO position. When his kids hit high school, he was asked to take a promotion necessitating another move. He sat down and counted the cost, recognizing that he had promised the family that his present position would be a long-term stay. After much thought and prayer, he said no to the promotion. As is often the case, when a person bucks the corporate will, Jim was unceremoniously “downsized.” For five months he was unemployed, but he maintained his trust that he had made the best decision. God honored Jim’s commitment to his family with an incredible job offer—a position that has kept him close to home, furthering his relationship with his wife and children.
A yes decision to a great offer isn’t always in the best interest of those to whom we are closest. Sometimes saying no will gain us better ground. Writing to give advice to men who face similar challenges, Trent offers helpful words to all who may be facing a decision.
1. Where is your spiritual life today? If you are not spending time in God’s Word or prayer, how can we expect to make a God-honoring decision about a move or transition?
2. How much more time will be taken away from your family? Be ruthlessly honest in answering this question. Will your new position require 10, 15, or 50 percent more time away from your family? Ask your spouse what percentage she (or he) would pick.
3. Is your spouse warning you away from this new opportunity? If your spouse’s “warning lights” are flashing about this change, don’t ignore her (or him). God often speaks through our spouses.
4. Have you broken previous promises about your job? Did the last move or job come with the promise, “This will just be a short-term thing”? Promises that never materialize can undermine your family’s trust in you.52
These are sound words of advice. Pilate should have listened to his wife, and he should have listened to his own intuitive read that Jesus was innocent. But his political machinations perverted his integrity. Even pagan leaders are accountable to God for the integrity of their conscience. Our decisions require accountability to God’s calling in our lives, regardless of the obscurity or seeming insignificance of its impact.
People—responsibility claimed does not deserve discrimination. The crowd that demanded the release of Barabbas turned ominously ugly at Jesus’ trial before Pilate. They wanted the kingdom on earth now, and when Jesus did not live up to their expectations, they wanted a freedom fighter with a proven track record for bucking the Roman occupation. They had had enough of Jesus’ announcement of the arrival of the kingdom that had not materialized in the way they wanted. So the Jewish leaders and the crowd, as representatives of the people of Israel, demanded Jesus’ execution and declared that they would accept responsibility for his death: “Let his blood be on us and on our children!” (27:25).
We noted above that this statement has been called “the darkest and hardest verse in Matthew’s Gospel.” One of the reasons is because it has been used throughout history as a basis for persecuting Jews. Anti-Semitism is a cancer that has plagued humanity for much of history, and Matthew’s narration of the people’s statement has been wrongly interpreted to condone, and even promote, anti-Semitism. But Matthew is not invoking a self-curse by the Jews, nor is he making an oblique reference to God’s eternal curse on Israel. Matthew records the statement to show how the religious leaders and some of the Jewish people at that time offered to take the blame for Jesus’ death. They believed him to be a blasphemer and wanted him executed for it.
These words reflect the same accusatory statements elsewhere in the narrative, when Jesus placed the blame squarely on the religious leaders for not receiving him as the Messiah of Israel and for their role in turning the people away from him (e.g., 23:13–15). Israel bears responsibility for rejecting her Messiah and has had her functional responsibility as caretakers of the kingdom of God taken away from her in this present age (cf. comments on 21:43). But this certainly does not mean that later Jews should be labeled with racist titles like “Christ-killer,” or that Christians should abuse Jews in the name of seeking revenge for God.
The sad and painful tragedy of this verse is that Israel has rejected their Messiah. The apostle Paul weeps for his countrymen because he knows they have suffered the consequences of that rejection—they do not participate in the blessings they would be enjoying had they accepted him (e.g., Rom. 9:1–5; 10:1–4). Israel is at this time experiencing a hardening because they have rejected the Messiah, a hardening that they will continue to experience until the fullness of God’s timetable with regard to the Gentiles has come in (Rom. 11:25). But God’s love for Israel continues, and he will remain loyal to the covenants he made with the nation. There still awaits a time when Israel will return to the one whom they have rejected and will experience a national awakening (Zech. 12:10–13:1; Matt. 23:39; Rom. 11:26–32).
Those who reject Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, will suffer the consequences. Today each individual Jew must consider the claims of Jesus and the message that the apostles bring. Only days after the crucifixion, thousands of Jews do repent at Peter’s preaching about the Jesus whom they put to death (Acts 2:23, 37–41), and even many of the priests will become believers (Acts 6:7). The responsibility of Christians today is to love the Jewish people as God does, to recognize the special place they enjoy in God’s plan for the ages, and to share the gospel with them as we would any other people.53 No one can support racial bigotry toward Jews by appealing to Matthew’s record.54
Peter—personal defeat requires intentional restoration. During the intimacy of the final night that he spent with the disciples—sharing the Passover and the institution of the Lord’s Supper—Jesus ominously predicted that they would all deny him. To Peter’s brash declaration that he would never deny him, even to the point of death, Jesus directed an even more ominous prediction of a threefold denial that very night (26:31–35). But preceding Jesus’ prophetic statements, Luke records a profound statement of Peter’s restoration: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31–32).
Little does Peter know the immensity of Jesus’ prediction. It holds out promise for all of us to know that within any temptation is Jesus’ sustaining prayer. Furthermore, it holds out to Peter the promise of his recovery and the responsibility he has to strengthen his brothers who will also falter. Owning his responsibility is a key to Peter’s repentance, recovery, and transformation.
J. Glyn Owen followed Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones as the minister of Westminster Chapel in London, England. Over the course of several years he preached a series of messages about Peter. The special concentration of the series of messages, which was later transcribed into book form, was on the transformation of Simon into Peter—from an eagerly rambunctious fisherman into the rock-solid foundational character of the church. The encouraging nature of this transformation is that it has much to offer us as an example for our own. Owen states:
I believe that the story of this transformation is one of the great epics of history. It is a remarkable story made all the more remarkable because Simon represents all of us. Impetuous, impulsive, unstable, he is so human and so obviously made of the same stuff as we are that his character symbolizes ours. We all see ourselves in him at some point. For this reason we cannot help but take courage as we see how the Lord teaches and transforms Simon. We learn what the grace of God can do for us, too.55
In the Bridging Contexts section we considered several reasons that may explain why Peter and the rest of the disciples denied Jesus. Later, after the resurrection and Pentecost, each of these issues is reversed in their lives. They willingly become courageous leaders in the church, and many of them became martyrs for their allegiance to Jesus as the divine Messiah of Israel. They now know that discipleship is far more than a functional relationship—it entails their ongoing transformation into Jesus’ image. They now know what is available through the ministry of the Holy Spirit in their lives to maintain their discipleship to Jesus. And they now know their calling is more than their comfort—they are driven by Jesus’ commission to make disciples of all the nations.
From our historical perspective, we have a clearer understanding of all of these issues, which today are essential for the realistic carrying out of our own faithful discipleship to Jesus.56 But have we willingly given ourselves to the full realization of these issues in our daily lives? That is what responsible discipleship is all about.
Two young Christian women discovered the reality of these issues in a most unexpected way. Dayna Curry and Heather Mercer served as short-term missionaries in Afghanistan during 1998. That trip convinced them that God was calling them to serve among these needy people. In Dayna’s words: “I felt as if God told me to go and lay down my life for them.”57 Like Peter’s boldness, Dayna’s words would be tested.
She went to Afghanistan with Heather, where they served with Shelter Now as relief workers especially among the poor and starving children. They were soon arrested by the ruling Taliban for showing the Jesus film to an Afghan family. While imprisoned, the allied forces invaded Afghanistan following the tragedies of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. Many innocent people got trapped in the military operations—among them Dayna and Heather. But through events that were followed live by an international audience, the young women and the other missionaries with them were rescued.
Unlike Peter, when it came to their moment of testing, these young women stood firm. They live in the blessed period where they knew Jesus’ true identity and his enabling presence, they knew who they were as his disciples, they knew the resources available to them to stand firm in the Spirit, and they knew their calling to bring the good news of Jesus Messiah. In an interview after they returned home, Dayna recalled her earlier bold statement about going to Afghanistan, and she recalled a later reaffirmation of that conviction as she and Heather were in prison, perhaps awaiting their execution. She had prayed, “Lord, if it’s the best for me to die and be a martyr so that there will be a breakthrough in Afghanistan, then that’s okay.” In the face of that prayer, she went on to say, “But I just had a supernatural peace most of the time.”58
Dayna and Heather are normal Christians who were abnormally persecuted as well as supernaturally strengthened. The apostle Peter will experience that supernatural strengthening after he repents and returns to his Master. He later writes to other young leaders of the church, much like you and me or Dayna and Heather, who likewise must learn of the abundant provision available to all of Jesus’ disciples. His prayer for them is a prayer for all of us.
Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 5:6–11)
Peter learned his lesson and stands as a powerful example of one who denied his Lord, but he was courageous enough to allow Jesus to restore him so that in turn he could help to restore others.