THE PASSION
NARRATIVE (Matt 26:1-28:20)
We have on several
occasions spoken or the Gospels as passion narrative with an extended
introduction, implying that the real message of theme of the gospel
message is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
In this final narrative of the Gospel, we encounter the real theme or
purpose and theology of the Gospel, the suffering, death, burial, and
resurrection of Jesus, or to put it in other words, the fulfillment of
God's plan of salvation for mankind. In this section we see the heilsgeschichte
of God brought to its climax and fulfillment.
Hagner's Introduction to this section is so cogent that we include parts
of it for easy reference:
"In the
story of the passion and resurrection of Jesus we come to the
climax of the Gospel and by far the longest consecutive narrative
in Matthew. Here the goal of Jesus'
mission is realized. The death of Jesus on the cross
is no surprise, not does it indicate the failure of Jesus'
mission. From the evangelist's point of view, it
is the fulfillment of scripture (26:54, 56), the fixed will
of God, and the deliberate choice of the obedient Son of
God. This, indeed, is the unique time
(kairos) of Jesus (26:18). Therefore,
the tone of the narrative is not one of tragedy or defeat but one
of accomplishment and victory even before we reach the triumph of
the resurrection in chap. 28....
The passion narrative is a literary masterpiece. It
contains gripping drama that cannot but move the reader, yet there
is nothing maudlin here. The crucifixion is snot
described but is referred to in the briefest way. Pervading
the narrative is a deep sense of irony. Though sinful men do
their best to thwart the mission of Jesus, they accomplish the
very purpose for which he came and thus fulfill God's will.
It is this that primarily accounts for the paradoxical tone of the
narrative. But the plot is full of lesser ironies. One
of the twelve betrays Jesus while the other disciples, who had
profusely insisted upon their loyalty to Jesus, abandon their
master in the moment of crisis. The hearings before the
members of the Sanhedrin and before Pilate are at best travesties
of justice that condemn on e who was truly innocent of
death. Yet it is the Roman prefect who knows Jesus'
innocence (27:23-24).... The final and
correct assessment of Jesus, which caps the crucifixion narrative,
comes not from the Jews but from a most unlikely source, a Roman centurion
and his soldiers, who conclude what the reader has been led to
conclude throughout, namely, that "this was truly the Son of
God" (27:54)." |
JESUS IS DELIVERED TO
PILATE BY THE SANHEDRIN (MATT 27:1-2, 11-26)
Early next morning, our
Friday morning, but still 14 Nisan which began the previous evening with
the Passover meal being eaten, the Sanhedrin met in full session to
confirm the decision in Caiaphas' palace that Jesus should be put to
death. The conclusion that this was now was a full meeting of the
Sanhedrin is based on Lk 22:66-71:
| "When day
came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together,
both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away to their
council, and they said, 67 "If you are the Christ,
tell us." But he said to them, "If
I tell you, you will not believe; 68 and
if I ask you, you will not answer. 69 But
from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of
the power of God." 70 And they all said,
"Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You
say that I am." 71 And they said,
"What further testimony do we need? We have heard it
ourselves from his own lips." |
Because the Jews by Roman
law could not condemn a person to death and execute that judgment, it was
necessary for the Jewish leaders to take Jesus before the Roman
authorities. Pilate who was governor over Judea, was in conveniently
in Jerusalem at that time. Technically, Pilate's title was praefectus
- prefect. Matthew refers to him as the hgumenos
- hegumenos - governor of Judea. It is Luke (Lk 3:1) who informs
us that Pilate's name was Pontius, "In the fifteenth year of the
reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and
Herod being tetrarch of Galilee..." Pilate was governor of
Judea from 26/27 - 36 AD. Pilate's official residence was in
Caesarea Maritima (beside the sea). While visiting in Jerusalem
for the Passover, possibly to maintain stability and Roman control
during the feast, the rulers of the Sanhedrin brought Jesus before Pilate,
hopeful that he would confirm their judgment.
Judas' Suicide (Matt 27:3-10)
At this point in the narrative, Matthew, for some reason inserts the
narrative of Judas' suicide (Matt 27:3-10). We will briefly break
into the trial of Jesus before Pilate and look into the narrative of
Judas' suicide.
For some reason Judas' conscience works against him, and when he hears
that Jesus has been condemned to death, he is deeply troubled and attempts
to return the 30 pieces of silver to the Chief Priests. Judas
confesses he has sinned and betrayed an innocent man, but the callous
Chief Priests would have nothing to do with taking back the money.
Matthew records that Judas "repented" (RSV and NRSV), the NIV
records this as "he was seized with remorse", Hagner
translates this as "he regretted..." Both Hagner and the NIV
grasp the meaning of the Greek
metamelomai
- metamelomai - "regret" better than the RSV and NRSV,
although the RSV translation is marginally permissible! We prefer
the NIV which in this context we believe provides a sounder translation,
Judas" was seized by remorse." The Greek word normally
translated "repent" is
metanoeo
- metanoeo
.
What is fascinating and tragic about this whole affair is that betraying
another for money was "blood money", and the Chief Priests
recognized it as such (Matt 27:6)! They knew they could not
put the money into the treasury since "dirty money" was
condemned in the Torah, and could not be brought into the treasury (Deut
23:18)! But they had knowingly provided the money for
this very reason, to betray Jesus! Their duplicity apparently did
not trouble them! It was no wonder Jesus condemned them as whitewashed
tombs full of dead men's bones (Matt 23:27)!
Matthew merely reports that Judas went out and hanged himself (Matt
27:5). Luke relates this as follows, Acts 1:18: "Now this man
bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling
headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so
that the field was called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of
Blood." Some scholars see in the different descriptions of
Judas' death a probable contradiction, but what we have here are merely
two different accounts of what happened. Judas committed suicide for
his betrayal, and the field where he died was called the field of blood
since he had betrayed Jesus for blood money, and the field had been
purchased by the Chief Priests with blood money.
Matthew clearly sets Judas' betrayal in the context of God's heilsgeschichte
by referring to the fulfillment of prophecy in Zech 11:12, 13. It is
only by a stretch of imagination that one can see Matt 27:9 as a
fulfillment of Zech 11:12,13, but to Matthew and his audience this stretch
of imagination was within the Midrashic use of OT scripture with which use
they were familiar. This is the last of
the ten Midrashic fulfillment passages Matthew uses in his Gospel to
demonstrate that Jesus' life and death was within the eternal purpose (heilsgeschichte)
of God. Matthew takes the reference to
30 pieces of silver in Zech and finds typological or analogous fulfillment
in Judas' suicide. This is fully within the Midrashic hermeneutic of
Rabbinic style with which a Jew of Jesus' day would be familiar and
comfortable. The seeming incongruity of context would not have
troubled them. The would have "got the point"! This
seeming stretch of imagination is another instance of Matthew's skilful
use of Midrashim and Rabbinic hermeneutic to achieve his theological
purpose.
Back to Jesus before Pilate (Matt 27:11-44)
Pilate asks Jesus if he is the King of
the Jews. Notice he did not ask Jesus if he was King over
Israel. His political sensitivity to Roman concerns, and his ability
to see that this was a Jewish matter, framed the question! Jesus'
answer to Pilate "You have said so!" literally in Greek is
"You say!" This is a euphemism which is a simple
affirmative, "Yes!"
The Gospel of John elaborates briefly on this exchange with Pilate:
| Pilate entered the praetorium again
and called Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the King of the
Jews?" 34 Jesus answered, "Do
you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about
me?" 35 Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew?
Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me;
what have you done?" 36 Jesus answered, "My
kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world,
my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the
Jews; but my kingship is not from the world." 37 Pilate
said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You
say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have
come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who
is of the truth hears my voice." 38 |
When Pilate questioned Jesus further, he remained silent, not giving a
single answer, "not even to a single charge..." This would
remind those who were sensitive to Isa 53:7 "He was oppressed,
and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led
to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he
opened not his mouth" that Jesus was truly the promised Suffering
Servant of God, the Messiah.
At the feast, Matthew informs us, it was the governor's practice to
release a Jew from prison. Although we have no external evidence for
such practice other than the Gospels, this seems in accord with what the
governor would have done in order to show some sort of clemency to the
Jews. The person to be released would be someone
meeting the Jews request. At the time there was a
"notorious" prisoner, by name, Barabbas in Roman captivity. The
term "notorious" could be understood to mean an insurrectionist,
a bandit, or murderer. The name Barabbas is derived from the Aramaic
bar - abba meaning "son of the father" and may be
no more than patronymic (named for the father). A textual variant at
this point suggests that Barabbas' first name was Jesus, a common name
among Jews of the day. There may have been a play on names in
Pilate's mind as he suggests two persons by the name of Jesus, hoping that
the Jews would see the vast difference between Jesus, the son of Joseph,
and this Jesus, the insurrectionist, the "son of his father
". However, the Jews saw through this and were so determined
that Jesus must die that they requested Barabbas be released! Pilate
knew that it was "out of envy" that they had condemned Jesus and
wanted him dead.
In a dream Pilate's wife had a warning about Jesus, "that righteous
man" and warned her husband to have nothing to do with him.
Romans paid much attention to warnings from dreams and
divination. At this point the chief priests and elders stirred
up the people and when Pilate asked again who they wanted released they
cried "Barabbas!" When Pilate then asked what he should do
with Jesus the crowd cried "let him be crucified!" Again
Pilate spoke up, "Why, what evil has he done?" The crowds
"shouted all the more, 'Let him be crucified'"
Realizing that he was getting nowhere with the crowd and that a riot was
beginning, Pilate symbolically washed his hands as a declaration of his
innocence at the condemnation of Jesus. In the act and his
statement of Jesus' innocence, Pilate was indicating publicly that he did
not find Jesus worthy of death. The crowds promptly accept the full
responsibility for Jesus' death, making a statement that the blood
of Jesus would be on their hands, and that of their children. This
was a well accepted expression from the OT that spoke to "full
responsibility" in an act (see Josh 7:24; 2 Kings 24:3,4; Lam 5:7).
After having Jesus scourged, Pilate released him to the Jews for crucifixion.
Pilate was not violating any Roman law by handing Jesus over to the Jews
to crucify, for Jesus was not a Roman citizen which would have prohibited
Jews from killing him had he been a Roman citizen. the scourging
with the Roman lash which contained sharp objects for tearing the flesh
was commonly administered to those about to be crucified, possibly to so
weaken them that they would not linger on the cross indefinitely.
The Crucifixion of Jesus (Matt 27:27-56)
What is striking in al of the Gospel accounts of Jesus is the brevity of
the account of Jesus on the cross! We full recognize the agony of
Jesus and the suffering both emotionally and physically that he endured on
the cross, but this is not played up in the Gospel accounts. In the
light of the Gospel theology, this death of Jesus is pictured as dramatic,
but it is to be seen as a victory, the victory of God and Jesus over Satan
and sin, and the victory of God's heilsgeschichte.
| We recently read an account of
Jesus' crucifixion that was extracted from an article in a medical
journal that had been published on a web page. the article
covered over 9 pages of description in detail of the agony and
suffering of Jesus, replete with medical terminology of the
suffering and cause of Jesus death. Very dramatic!
However, we were surprised at the difference between the article
and the Gospel account which is so powerful in its
simplicity! As Hagner has commented, there is nothing
maudlin about the Gospel account of Jesus crucifixion, only a
triumphant victory for God and mankind! Without wanting to
trivialize the death of Jesus on the cross and make light of his
suffering which we all realize was awful in the extreme, the
Gospels do not trivialize the atoning death and victory of Jesus,
but simply describe it as a fact of history and God's divine plan.
Hagner observes (p. 835) that Matthew refused to dwell on the
details of the crucifixion, focusing not on Jesus' suffering but
on the soldiers at the foot of the cross who unknowingly fulfill
what was anticipated in scripture of Jesus death. He adds
that Matthew's account of the death of Jesus was "simple,
sober, and restrained in character". (Hagner, p. 843) |
After mocking Jesus in the worst manner the Roman
soldiers take Jesus out to Golgotha, the place of the skull to crucify him
between two robbers ( possibly "insurrectionists" or
"bandits." Luke refers to them as
"criminals"). On the way to Golgotha a man from Cyrene
(North Africa) was compelled to carry the cross for Jesus. Simon was
in all probability a Jewish pilgrim to the Passover Feast. Tradition
has it that Simon later became a Christian. Layers of church
tradition has obscured the precise location of Golgotha, but it must have
been just outside the city walls and on a well traveled thoroughfare, for
it was the practice of Roman crucifixions to carry them out in full view
of people, and a road into Jerusalem would have served the Roman publicity
purpose well.
When offered "wine to drink, mingled with gall," Jesus refused
to drink it. The "gall"
colh
- chole - bitter drink, gall, was sometime a poisonous
substance, which might explain why Jesus refused to drink it when he
tasted it. Later, when offered vinegar on a sponge (Matt 27:48) he
drank it. The vinegar was a form of "sour wine" or
"cheap wine" (oxous
- ochous - sour wine) which was known to relieve thirst
better than water.
All four Gospels record that Pilate had an inscription
nailed to the cross proclaiming that Jesus was "The King of the
Jews," John adds that it was in all three languages of the
area, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, and that the Jews objected to the
inscription proclaiming Jesus as the King of the Jews. They wanted
it to be ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’ Pilate rejected
their objection.
Matthew records that the crowds and the chief priests, elders, and scribes
mocked (blasphemed) Jesus as he hung on the cross. The robbers, too,
joined in the mocking of Jesus. Luke (23:39-43) records the following
interesting exchange between those hanging on the cross:
| One of the criminals who were hanged
railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself
and us!" 40 But the other rebuked him, saying,
"Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence
of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we are
receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done
nothing wrong." 42 And he said, "Jesus,
remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 And
he said to him, "Truly, I say to you,
today you will be with me in Paradise." |
Hagner observes that the death of Jesus
involves impenetrable mystery. It is difficult for any interpreter
to fathom all that went on in the death of Jesus on the cross. It
certainly was attended by supernatural occurrences and some remarkable
events. The death of Jesus was not only the climax of the Gospel
narrative, but more so it was the climax of the purpose of God for the
person of Jesus. To die for man was precisely what he came for!
From the sixth to the ninth hour (Roman time, our time from noon to 3 pm)
there was a darkness over all the land (gh
- ge - earth, land), possibly meaning the region of Judea.
The darkness is similar in significance to that of apocalyptic darkness, a
divine judgment over the land.
Jesus cried out with a loud voice. Twice in this paragraph Jesus
cried out with a loud voice, here and in v. 50. This first time he
adds the words in Aramaic, but Matthew translates them for us into Greek
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Scholars have
been divided over exactly what Jesus meant by this expression in which he
quotes Psalm 22:1. Matthew adds no explanation of the meaning of Jesus'
cry! Several proposals have been made regarding what Jesus meant:
| 1. |
Some feel that it is the cry over the fact that because of the enormity of
man's sins God abandoned Jesus in the moment of his death. We know
of no scriptures that predicted or claimed that God would abandon
Jesus on the cross because of man's sins. We do know that
Jesus took on himself man's sins, or became sin because of man's
sins, but that does not mean that God abandoned Jesus because he
took on himself man's sins. Reading this cry as an
abandonment by God because of man's sins is theology that is not
grounded in scriptural precedence.
See Hagner, p. 844 for a balanced discussion of this point. |
| 2. |
Others believe that
Jesus felt abandoned by God in his suffering. However, this
overlooks the nature of Psalm 22 as a Lament Psalm. |
| 3. |
Some feel that Jesus
understood the Lament meaning of Psalm 22 and used it as a prayer
for God's help in his moment of anguish. In such suffering
and aloneness at crucifixion he must have felt abandoned! He
was in fact abandoned by all; his people (Israel), the Romans, the
crowds, and his disciples.
Psalm 22 is a Lament Psalm, but also a Psalm of confidence in
God's deliverance and help. Lament Psalms are characterized
by 1) Address, 2) Complaint, 3) Trust, 4) Deliverance, 5)
Praise.
Psalm 22 is just such a Psalm, and Jesus would have understood it
as such.
Jesus' cry, "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?"
is in the sense of Psalm (which Jesus is quoting verbatim from the
LXX) is a cry of aloneness and for help from the god in whom he
trusts, not a cry of abandonment by God.
Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,
1999, PP. 682f presents a balanced discussion of this view, or one
that is close to this view. Keener observes, "Jesus had
to know that Psalm 22 went on to declare the psalmist's
vindication." |
| 4. |
We favor the third
alternative above in that it is truest to the nature of Psalm 22
and the aloneness of Jesus and sense of abandonment by everybody
but God. |
Some of the bystanders mistook Jesus' cry
as a cry to Elijah to come and rescue him. This is understandable
from the similarity of Eli and Elijah.
After this, Jesus cried out aloud again, and "yielded up his
spirit." Luke records the following saying of Jesus at this
point, "Father,
into thy hands I commit my spirit! And having said this he breathed
his last." (Lk 23:46). The Word "spirit" is a broad
term. Pneuma
- pneuma basically means wind, or breath, but in the religious
context can mean the "spirit" of man. Hagner translates
"yielded up his spirit" as "stopped breathing,"
The NRSV as "breathed his last," and the NIV as "he gave up
his spirit." It is uncertain whether one should take this in
the religious sense of "yielding his spirit" or in the normal
sense of :he stopped breathing." Luke seems to set this in the
religious sense of "committing his spirit to God."
However, whichever way we go it simply means that at that point Jesus
died!
Again Matthew describes the event of Jesus death in terms of supernatural
events! The temple curtain was torn in two, the earth shook, rocks
were split, tombs opened, and saints were raised from the tombs and went
into the city where they were seen by many! Matthew shares with Mark
the comment regarding the temple curtain being torn from top to bottom,
but the remaining supernatural events are found only in Matthew.
What is strange regarding these supernatural events is that neither
Matthew, nor Mark explains the theological nature of the torn curtain, the
earthquake, and the dead being raised! The interpretation of the
events is left to the reader, but to any Christian (especially in the 1st
century and to Matthew's community) they are loaded with
significance! Nevertheless, the meaning of the events is fairly
obvious. There can be little doubt that the
supernatural events support God's involvement in the death of Jesus, and
his approval of Jesus' atoning sacrifice. These
"miraculous" events can happen only by God's divine
intervention. The theological implication of the torn Temple curtain
signifies a new system of entry into the holiest of holies through the
death of Jesus (Heb 9:11-14; 10:19-23). The earthquake and split
rocks indicate apocalyptic judgments of God on Jerusalem,
and the dead
raised after the resurrection of Jesus indicate Jesus power over
death, source of life and resurrection, and guarantee of a future resurrection.
What is not explained or commented on by many
commentators on Matthew or Mark is the historicity of the events.
What complicates the problem of the historicity is that there are to our
knowledge no Roman or Jewish records of the 3 hour darkness, the Temple
curtain being torn, or the dead saints being seen in the city! There
are some late Christian and Rabbinic allusions, but since these all come
much later than the destruction of Jerusalem it is not possible to fix
these allusions to the crucifixion. They seem rather to be allusions
to what happened in the Temple at the destruction of the Temple and
Jerusalem.
Both Hagner, Matthew 13-28 and Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the
Gospel of Matthew, 1999, pp. 682 ff, have good comments on these
phenomena. We include some of their comments for the sake of easy
reference.
Hagner:
"More supernatural events take place...For any Christian
reader, these events are filled with obvious theological
significance...The events are apocalyptic in character and point
to the decisive importance of the death of Jesus not only for that
generation but for all subsequent history...the only conclusion to
be drawn is that of the centurion and his soldiers:
"Truly this man was the Son of God."
"This is a difficult and much discussed passage.
A straightforward historical reading of these verses must face
difficulties beyond those already mentioned.... A surprising
number of commentators sidestep the historical question
altogether. Stalwart commentators known for their
conservatism are given hesitance here:... Even those
disposed to accept the historicity of the passage can indicate a
degree of discomfort.... L. (Leon, IAF) Morris: "Since
there are no other records of these appearances, it appears to be
impossible to say anything about them. But Matthew is surely
giving expression to his conviction that Jesus is Lord over both
the living and the dead." The question of the
historicity of the event described in the present passage remains
problematic....
Keener:
Some commentators believe that this description is merely
symbolic, perhaps deduced from symbolic comments on fresh access
to God. They note that Josephus fails to mention clearly
this extraordinary sign (the rending of the veil, IAF)..., and
that only the priests ...would be privy to the rending of the
veil... Modern readers who wish to settle
their view of the event's historical probability may need to
resort to presuppositions of the miraculous and about the
reliability of the gospel traditions as a whole. |
The significant point Keener makes is
worthy of our attention and elaboration! The miraculous is often
without scientific, empirical, or historical verification, but to deny the
miraculous on such grounds is to deny the very existence of God and his
Holy Spirit! There are many instances of divine intervention for
which there are no reasonable empirical explanations, but they are
accepted by reliable testimony. The resurrection of Jesus is in fact
on such miraculous event of divine intervention that cannot be proven by
empirical means, yet based on reliable testimony is believed my most to be
historical. (See Wolfhardt Pannenberg, Jesus God and Man,
1968, and the theological program of Pannenberg and others of the
Pannenberg Circle, who argue for the historicity of the resurrection of
Jesus. Comment will be made below at Matt 28:1ff on the resurrection
of Jesus.)
At the root of questions regarding the historicity of certain acts of
divine intervention in human affairs is the question of the
miraculous. Scholars who have difficulty with the historicity of
divine intervention often have questions regarding the possibility of the
miraculous.
Keener is correct in observing that "Modern
readers who wish to settle their view of the event's historical
probability may need to resort to presuppositions (examine
their presuppositions, IAF) of the miraculous
and about the reliability of the gospel traditions as a whole."
Perhaps the salient point of this section of the Gospel narrative is the
comment of the Roman centurion who sees what the Jewish leaders do not
see: "Truly this was the Son of
God!" Luke adds the following
comment regarding the centurion, that he "praised God, and said, 'Certainly
this man was innocent!'"
Matthew records that there were women who had followed Jesus, watching
from afar, and names among them, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of
James and Joseph, and the mother of James and John, the sons of
Zebedee. Neither of the two Marys is mentioned in the Gospel prior
to this occasion, but later both witness to the risen Christ. We are
uncertain who James and Joseph are as both were common names. We are
not sure what Matthew means by their "ministering to him", but
in some fashion they were there with Jesus attempting to take care of
him. It is surprising that none of the 11 disciples are mentioned by
Matthew as being present! Neither Matthew, Mark, or Luke mention any
of the disciples, but John in his Gospel mentions that the disciple "whom
Jesus loved" was there with the women, and includes this brief comment:
| But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s
sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When
Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he
said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your
son!" 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold,
your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his
own home. (Jn 19:25-27.)
|
The Synoptic
tradition does not mention the piercing of Jesus with the spear, but John
adds this interesting aspect of the death of Jesus:
| Since it was the day of Preparation,
in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the
sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate
that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken
away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the
first, and of the other who had been crucified with him; 33 but
when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did
not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced
his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
35 He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is
true, and he knows that he tells the truth—that you also may
believe. 36 For these things took place that the
scripture might be fulfilled, "Not a bone of him shall be
broken." 37 And again another scripture says,
"They shall look on him whom they have pierced." (Jn
19:31-37) |
The Burial of Jesus (Matt 27:57-61)
On Friday evening, just before the
Sabbath began (Mark, Luke, and John inform us that it was on the day pf
preparation, just before the Sabbath began "And when evening
had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the
sabbath.." Mk 15:42), Joseph, a rich man from Arimathea, a disciple
of Jesus, asked Pilate for the body of Jesus, in order to bury
Jesus. Pilate gave the order for Jesus' body to be given to
him. We are uncertain where Arimathea was located, but it could have
been a town by name Ramathaim, a town in Judea. Joseph took the body
of Jesus, wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, and laid it in his own new
tomb. A great stone rock was rolled to the door of the tomb, sealing
it. "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting
opposite the sepulchre."
According to Deut 21:22, 23, it was a Jewish requirement that dead bodies
of executed criminals not be left hanging on a tree overnight.
| "And if a man has committed a
crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him
on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night upon
the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is
accursed by God; you shall not defile your land which the Lord
your God gives you for an inheritance. |
The Tomb Sealed
and Guarded (Matt 27:62-66)
This narrative becomes significant in view of charges made by many against
the resurrection of Jesus! This narrative is unique to Matthew
simply because it had greater significance to a Jew and Jewish Christians
than it would to Gentiles (Mark, Luke, and John were written for gentile
readers). On the Sabbath, the day after the day of Preparation
(Friday) the Chief Priests and Pharisees request that Pilate set a guard
at the tomb lest the disciples steal the body of Jesus and claim that he
was risen. Pilate gives them a guard of Roman soldiers (the word
used
stratiwths
- stratiotes was commonly used for Roman soldiers). The
expression ""You have a guard..." can, and possibly should
be taken as taken as an imperative, "Take a guard..." The
guard was to make the tomb secure "as secure as you can".
This was the Sabbath and by now Jesus had been in the tomb all of Friday
night. It is certain that the guard would have inspected the tomb,
and "making it as secure as you can" must have implied some sort
of official seal.
What is interesting is that the Chief Priests and Pharisees knew of Jesus'
prediction that he would be raised "on the third day" (Matt
16:21), but they did not believe it. The resurrection of Jesus was
not then something unknown, unexpected, or unpredicted. They Jewish
authorities knew about it, they did not believe it, and expected the
disciples to make some form of effort disciples to steal the body.
Any attempt to steal the body was, therefore, rendered highly improbable.
The duplicity of the Chief Priests and Pharisees can be seen by what
followed after the resurrection of Jesus when it was discovered that
Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb:
| 11 While they were going,
behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief
priests all that had taken place. 12 And when they had
assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of
money to the soldiers 13 and said, "Tell people,
‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were
asleep.’ 14 And if this comes to the governor’s
ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15
So they took the money and did as they were directed; and
this story has been spread among the Jews to this day. (Matt
28:11-15) |
The next lesson reaches the
climax of the Gospel story, the resurrection of Jesus and his triumph over
death and sin.
Click here to go to
Matt 28:1-20
|