Matthew 26:57-75

Matthew 26:57-75

The Jewish trial and Jesus’s faithful confession is contrasted with Peter’s denial. This could hardly be called a trial, because "trial" implies a legal proceeding and these proceedings were hardly legal. Having an agenda the chief priests cared little about how they achieved their goals. They would have preferred truthful witnesses, but any would do as long as their goals were achieved. They must get two witnesses to agree in their testimony on a capital crime. They end up with, “This man stated, ‘I am about to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” This is hardly a crime that meets the criteria of blasphemy or capital punishment. Additionally, Jesus never said that. It is at best a distortion of what He said in the first temple cleansing in John 2:19. But this was the kind of charge the chief priest would be excited about. The temple was their power base and cash cow. It was Jesus’s denunciation of the temple practices that first excited their opposition. Zach 6:12 refers to one called “the branch”, “And He will build the temple of the Lord.” The priest would have seen in the charge of building a temple a Messianic allusion.

Jesus remained silent, doing nothing in His own defense, determined to move forward to fulfill the Father’s will. Jesus breaks His silence but it is almost as if to give them the evidence that they have failed to trump up. At this point, the high priest did not have enough to get an indictment not to mention a conviction. Had Jesus never spoken a word in His defense or even remained silent the chief priest would have had no case. The high priest charges Jesus under oath to testify if He is the Christ.

Jesus’s statement provides their grounds for a charge in a way their false witnesses never could. In verse 64, Jesus declares without any doubt who He is. Yes, He is the Messiah the Christ and they would see Him sitting on the right had of God and coming on the clouds. The two phrases allude to Dan 7:13, not two successive events but parallel descriptions of the vindication of the Son of Man. While not technically blasphemy, taking God’s name in vain, Jesus assumes the prerogatives of God and God alone. And would be a form of blasphemy. Unless of course it is true!

In contrast to Jesus who is willing and almost forcefully moving into the power of the chief priest, Peter hovers on the outer edges and tries to escape and his denial intensifies. First, he denies any knowledge of what is going on. But his accent gives him away; he is no local hanger-on. So, he takes an oath to reinforce his claim to ignorance. Finally, he curses and swears, directing the curse at Jesus. He has proved his point; he doesn’t act like a friend of Jesus. The crowing rooster sends Peter out to bewail his failure. Interestingly, Peter is never named in this Gospel again.

"Dear God in the frustrations and troubles of life, keep me from denying Jesus, with my actions and words. May there never be any doubt about my being friends with Him. AMEN."

Matthew 26:36-56

Matthew 26:36-56

Jesus leads the disciples to the place that was apparently their typical campsite. With Jerusalem being full for Passover such a rendezvous spot would have made sense. It, being known to Judas, would be a place to avoid if Jesus were trying to resist capture. Jesus is no victim, but rather, the Master of the situation.

The English translation of the Greek description of Jesus’s emotions does not do justice to the power of the language. Gethsemane means oil or olive press and is the appropriate symbolic location for this moment. The last time of preparation is over. Jesus now faces the reason for His coming to Earth. The sorrowful anticipation, the dread of the cross, while always there has been kept at bay as Jesus prepared, taught, healed and loved. In this moment it is as if Jesus gives His full attention to what is ahead and it causes Him grief unmatched in all of history. His soul is wretched and miserable to the point of death. This is the only time in the Gospels that we see Jesus face down in prayer.

We sometimes miss the connection between the disciples sleeping and their failure. In a matter of moments they will all desert Christ. Peter will both violently lash out at a guard and later deny Jesus. The weakness of the flesh manifested because he had not prepared in prayer. Do not think that the desertion and denial are unrelated to sleeping through prayers. The failure to prayer is the cause and the effect is his failure.

We get the picture of Judas's motivation for the betrayal in the betrayal itself. A disciple might kiss his rabbi’s hand or foot, but only if invited. To come up and presumptuously kiss a rabbi, on the face no less, was a calculated and studied insult. This was for Judas a repudiation of Jesus and an act of seething emotion. Later, Judas would regret but not repent of the action. But in the moment the emotion of Judas's issue is expressed in contempt and insult for Jesus. We have here a study in contrasts; a more radical difference cannot be imagined. Judas is holding Jesus in contempt and Jesus is calling Judas 'friend'. Jesus was never ironic, cynical or insincere. “Friend” expresses His true heart. Any hostility between God and us is solely and absolutely ours.

Jesus goes not as a victim, but as a commander of the powers of the universe, literally, an angelic army at his disposal, an army that is uncalled. He goes to take the cup from the Father's hand. These sinful men are mere extras in the drama of redemption.

"Lord, protect me from anything that might allow me to fail to love You with my whole being. AMEN"

Matthew 26:17-35

Matthew 26:17-35

Matthew closely links three themes: Judas' commitment to betrayal, the Lord's Supper and Peter's denial. We must never imagine that Jesus was a victim. He was, rather, the master of the circumstances. He informs the group of the betrayal and then in what appears to be a private moment informs Judas that He is aware that he is the traitor. Judas would have never left that room but for the permissive will of Jesus. Peter’s willingness to kill in the garden would very likely have extended to Judas in that room. Jesus’ statement to say that it would be better to have never been born was an extreme statement in Jewish culture.

The Lord's Supper was a day before the sacrifice of the Passover lambs and so this meal would not have included the lamb; rather, it focuses on bread and wine. In the same way, participation in a Passover meal was at the core of being Jewish. Jesus now sets up a new point of participation in Him. The bread is His body; the wine is His blood. In eating and drinking we participate in the new community of the Messiah. It is a great tragedy that much of the church in an effort to attract the crowd has focused the gathering on the wants and wishes of men and not on the Lord's Supper.

For the Lord this meal was a priority even with the cross only hours away. The burdens and the horrors squarely before Him, the Lord stops to share the bread and the cup. As disciples we ought to return to the table often. No doubt it requires a great effort to deeply engage in communion. But the problem is not the frequency of the celebration, but the laziness of the worshipers or participants. Some would say frequency robs the Lord's Supper of meaning. This is a mistake. It is laziness that robs it of meaning, either by those who participate rarely or those who do so mindlessly every week. Jesus promises the victory in and of the Father’s kingdom. No doubt this was a serious occasion, but it was also profoundly hopeful.

On the way to the Mount of Olives Jesus, while facing the horrors of the cross, encourages the disciples with the promise of the resurrection and a warning to Peter about his denial.

"Lord bring Your conviction on me that I will never, because of laziness, treat the Lord's Supper as secondary to my wants and wishes. AMEN"

Matthew 26: 1-16

Matthew 26: 1-16

We now come to the point of the Gospel. Someone once said that the Gospels are the drama of the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ with a very long introduction. That's not far from the mark. Jesus is not a hapless victim; but rather, the willing participant in the Father's plans. The circumstance rather than being the designs of men are the arrangement of God for His purposes. This section, verses 1-16, has three themes. The first and the third reflect the evil of men and in between the love of discipleship.

Theme one: the self-serving bias of the priestly delegation. Jesus’ repudiation of the temple convinces the priestly delegation that He is a threat and must be removed. They fear a rebellion. If He is not taken during the Passover, He might slip away or even start a rebellion. But his popularity makes a public arrest too dangerous.

Theme two: an act of simple, radical love. In contrast to the devious self-serving plots of the priests is a loving, extravagant gift of the woman. A careful study of the exchange might take weeks, but a few points are rather pronounced. Sincere, extravagant love for the Lord is a beautiful and noble thing. Judgment of another's worship is inappropriate. This woman was prompted to anoint the Anointed One in preparation for the burial of the Christ. Giving to the poor, while good, must not become a legalistic, mandated act. Of all the events surrounding the life of Christ, the simple act of extravagant love and great devotion is the one that is going to be told in and with the gospel’s proclamation.

Theme three: the betrayal of Judas. Whatever Judas' motivations were (all we can do is conjecture) it is set in contrast to the loving anointing. Judas provided for the priests the perfect solution: a secret arrest before Jesus could escape in the Passover throng. Once the deed was done it was only a matter of time until the conspirators could fulfill the purposes of the Father. Each step we take moves us in a direction and makes the next step in that direction all that much easier.

"Jesus, help me so that all of my motives and actions will be directed at loving You my Lord. AMEN"