Does jesus have a body?

[mikeboll64]

Hi Pierre,

Where did you come across this info about Nicodemus?

mike

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 14 2011,10:03)

Hi Pierre, Where did you come across this info about Nicodemus? mike

Mike

here it is;
ZONDERVAN NIV BIBLE COMMENTARY vol 1 and 2

Kenneth L. Barker & John Kohlenberger III

Pierre

[Baker]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Feb. 08 2011,07:14)

Quote (Baker @ Feb. 07 2011,20:49) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Feb. 07 2011,13:15) Irene said: Quote I don't believe that there is an in between, after Jesus rose from the death.  Also the doors were shut when he appeared to the Apostles, they thought they had seen a Ghost….and Maria Magdalene did not recognize Jesus either.  Would you not think that they would if He had the same flesh and blood body which He died in? Peace and love Irene That the disciples 'thought' they had seen a ghost proves nothing. You would think you had seen a ghost too if Georg had risen from the dead and came to you.  Jesus said, “A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” Jesus arose in His mortal body because He still needed it for the 40 days He was on earth after He arose. Then He was “quickened” when He went up to heaven. He now dwells in His immortal, invisible and spiritual body. Men must be resurrected AND quickened before they become immortal. Quote For as the Father raises the dead AND quickens them…. Lazarus was raised from the dead and not quickened. Lazarus died again. Jesus was raised from the dead and 'quickened' forty days later. He did not die again. In ad70 the saints were resurrected and quickened in the same moment. They never died again. KJ KJ Come on give me a better explanation then that.  They didn't recognize Him, just like Maria Madelene did not….You either believe that Scripture or not…..Time will tell…..til then I will leave it at that, there is no sense in debating that over and over again….To believe that there is an in between is not according to any Scripture….and I never ever heard of that….to me that is ridiculous….. Jesus can manifest Himself any time, and I believe He did, in order to show those who doubted it was Jesus……Also nobody addresses the ransom….if Jesus became flesh and blood again IMO the ransom could not take effect…and where does it state that men have to be what????quickened, before they become immortal?  Are you kidding me?  You are way out…… Peace Irene The women didn't recognize Him because it was still dark. The men on the road to Emmaus didn't recognize Him because their eyes were restrained (Lk. 24). Jesus said that a “ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see Me have.” Jesus was not “quickened” or made spiritual until He ascended to heaven. He needed His fleshly body for the 40 days after He resurrected until His ascension. Your denial that He came out of the tomb in His fleshly body is inexcusable. He showed Thomas the holes in His side and told him to thrust his fingers in His side. He ate food before them. The reasons that some did not recognize Him have natural explanations. If He was a ghost, then why did the women think He was a gardener? They thought He looked like a normal human being. But it was still dark and so they could not discern immediately that it was Jesus. KJ

I think that Jesus is a Spirit being now, and right after His resurrection. If you believe that Jesus is the ransom that He paid then, you also should believe that His body had to stay dead.

Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

The time to know is now….We know Jesus died for us, and He is the ransom for us, so we can live…..that is another reason why I believe that Jesus was resurrected in a Spiritual body….

Peace and Love Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 14 2011,05:56)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 14 2011,10:03) Hi Pierre, Where did you come across this info about Nicodemus? mike Mike here it is; ZONDERVAN NIV BIBLE COMMENTARY  vol 1 and 2 Kenneth L. Barker & John Kohlenberger III Pierre

Okay…………..where did THEY come across it?

I didn't read anything about this in the scriptures, did you?

mike

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 14 2011,17:41)

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 14 2011,05:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 14 2011,10:03) Hi Pierre, Where did you come across this info about Nicodemus? mike Mike here it is; ZONDERVAN NIV BIBLE COMMENTARY  vol 1 and 2 Kenneth L. Barker & John Kohlenberger III Pierre Okay…………..where did THEY come across it?   I didn't read anything about this in the scriptures, did you? mike

mike

this is part of it;;
VII. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (26:6-28:20)

A. The Passion (26:6-27:66)

1. Anointed at Bethany (26:6-13)

This story begins the sixth narrative-and-teaching division of Matthew (26:6-28:20). with the teaching to be done by Jesus' disciples after his ascension (see 28:18-20 and the introduction, under “Structure”). From another viewpoint the Passion and Resurrection must, as in all the Gospels, be seen as the climax toward which the earlier narrative has been moving.

6-7 This is the second time Jesus was anointed, the first time being recorded in Lk 7:36-50 (on Bethany, see comment on 21:1-2). Matthew sets the scene in the home of “Simon the Leper,” who was presumably cured–or else all there were violating Mosaic law. The action of the woman was not unprecedented: a distinguished rabbi might have been so honored. The evangelists stress the cost of the “perfume”; John suggests that it was worth approximately a year's salary for a working man (Jn 12:3). This perfume was possibly from the nard plant (native to India); it was extracted from the thin-necked alabaster flask by snapping off the neck.

8-9 With Judas as their spokesman (see Jn 12:4-5), the disciples fail to understand what is taking place, not only in the anointing, but also in who Jesus truly is and in the rush of redemptive events toward the Cross (see comments on 16:21-28; 17:22-23; 20:18-19). Doubtless there were thousands of poor people within a few miles of this anointing.

10-11 It is possible that Jesus' knowledge of the complaints is here supernatural; but perhaps they were whispered and came to Jesus' attention because they troubled the woman. Jesus begins his rebuke by accusing the disciples of “bothering” her. What they call waste, Jesus calls “a beautiful thing.”
Jesus distinguishes between giving to the poor and the extravagance lavished on himself on the grounds that he will not always be physically present to receive it (cf. 28:20). His followers will always find poor people to help (cf. Dt 15:11). Implicitly, the distinction Jesus makes is a high Christological claim, for it not only shows that he foresees his impending departure but also that he himself, who is truly “gentle and humble in heart” (11:29), deserves this lavish outpouring of love and expense.

12-13 The anointing does not designate Jesus as Messiah but “prepares” him for his burial after dying the death of a criminal, for only in that circumstance would the customary anointing of the body be omitted. Jesus' defense of the woman does not necessarily mean that the woman understood what she was doing, though it allows this. Jesus may well be using the anointing to intimate again his impending crucifixion (cf. v.2). Jesus ends this incident by stating that the woman and her deed would be remembered wherever the Gospel of the kingdom is preached.

2. Judas's betrayal agreement (26:14-16)

All the Gospels speak of Judas's important role in Jesus' death but none explains what motives prompted his treachery. Like most human motives, his were mixed and doubtless included avarice and jealousy combined with profound disappointment that Jesus was not acting like the Messiah he had expected.

14-16 In Judas's view Jesus was acting less and less regal and more and more like a defeatist on his way to death. Judas may also have been smarting from Jesus' rebuke over the anointing of the woman as recorded in Jn 12:4-8. He therefore approaches the “chief priests” with an offer to hand Jesus over. They “counted out for him thirty silver coins,” calling to mind Zec 11:12, to which Matthew will return in 27:3-10. In Zec 11, thirty pieces of silver is a paltry amount–the value of a slave accidentally gored to death by an ox (Ex 21:32). That Jesus is lightly esteemed is reflected not only in his betrayal but also in the low sum agreed on by Judas and the chief priests.
For a brief discussion of the chronology here, see comments on Mk 14:1-2, 12, as well as EBC 8:528-32.

3. The Lord's Supper (26:17-30)

a. Preparations for the Passover (26:17-19)

17 Toward midafternoon of Thursday, 14 Nisan (see comment on Mk 14:1-2), the lambs (one per “household”–a convenient group of perhaps ten or twelve people) would be brought to the temple court where the priests sacrificed them. The priests took the blood and passed it in basins along a line till it was poured out at the foot of the altar. They also burned the lambs' fat on the altar of burnt offerings. The singing of the Hallel (Pss 113-18) accompanied these steps.
After sunset (i.e., now 15 Nisan), the “household” would gather in a home to eat the Passover lamb, which by this time would have been roasted with bitter herbs. The head of the household began the meal with the thanksgiving for that feast day and for the wine, praying over the first of four cups. A preliminary course of greens and bitter herbs was followed by the Passover haggadah –in which a boy would ask the meaning of all this, and the head of the household would explain the symbols in terms of the Exodus–and by the singing of the first part of the Hallel (Ps 113 or Pss 113-114). Though the precise order is disputed, apparently a second cup of wine introduced the main course, which was followed by a third cup, known as the “cup of blessing,” accompanied by another prayer of thanksgiving. The participants then sang the rest of the Hallel (Pss 114-18 or 115-18) and probably drank a fourth cup of wine. Thus the preparations about which the disciples were asking were extensive.

18-19 The disciples (perhaps only two of them, Mk 14:13) are told to find an unnamed person, who would show them a room to prepare for Jesus' final Passover meal. His words “My appointed time is near” were probably purposely ambiguous. To the disciples and the owner of the house, they may have implied Jesus' timing for the Passover meal and prior arrangements for it. In the light of Easter, the words must refer to the now impending Crucifixion, the fulfillment of Jesus' mission.
The disciples do as Jesus has instructed them. He is quietly and consciously taking the necessary steps to complete his mission of tragedy and glory.

b. Prediction of the betrayal (26:20-25)

20-22 The Passover meal could not be eaten till after sundown; and for those living within Palestine, it had to be eaten inside Jerusalem or not at all. That is why we find Jesus reclining at a table in a room in the city “when evening came.” Once the meal began Jesus solemnly says, “I tell you the truth, one of you will bet
ray [GK G4140; cf. 26:2] me.” The disciples respond uniformly: one after another, as the enormity of the charge sinks in, each man asks, “Surely not I, Lord?”

23 Jesus' point in this verse is that the betrayer is a friend, someone close, someone sharing the common dish, thus heightening the enormity of the betrayal. If the main course, the roast lamb, was being eaten, the “bowl” would contain herbs and a fruit puree, which would be scooped out with bread.

24 For “woe,” see comment on 23:13; for “Son of Man,” see comment on Mk 8:31. Here the Son of Man is simultaneously the glorious messianic figure who receives a kingdom and the Suffering Servant. No single OT verse explains “as it is written of him”; but one may think of passages such as Isa 53:7-9; Da 9:26, or else suppose that an entire prophetic typology (see comment on 2:15; 5:17-20) is in view, such as the Passover lamb.
The divine necessity for the sacrifice of the Son of Man does not excuse or mitigate the crime of betrayal. Divine sovereignty and human responsibility are both involved in Judas's treason, the one effecting salvation and bringing redemption history to its fulfillment, the other answering the promptings of an evil heart (cf. Ac 2:22-23; 4:27-28). The one results in salvation from sin for Messiah's people (1:21), the other in personal and eternal ruin.

25 This exchange magnifies Judas's effrontery. Doubtless Judas felt he had to speak up; silence at this stage might have given him away to the others. In contrast to the other disciples (v.22), he uses “Rabbi,” a title for a respected teacher. As in v.22, the form of the question anticipates a negative answer, but the expected answer bears no necessary relation to the real answer. Jesus' response is affirmative but depends somewhat on spoken intonation for its full force. It could be taken to mean “You have said it, not I” (cf. NIV note); yet in fact it is enough of an affirmative to give Judas a jolt without removing all ambiguity from the ears of the other disciples.

c. The words of institution (26:26-30)

26 Matthew now records a second thing that takes place “while they were eating” (cf. v.21). Jesus takes an unleavened loaf (cf. Ex 12:15; 13:3, 7; Dt 16:3), gives thanks (see comment on Mk 6:41), breaks it, distributes it, and says, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Few clauses of four words have evoked more debate than the last one. But three things must be said. (1) The words “this is my body” had no place in the Passover ritual; as an innovation, they must have had stunning effect, an effect that would grow with the increased understanding gained after Easter. (2) Both the breaking and the distributing are probably significant. The sacrificial overtones are clearer in vv. 27-28, but the unambiguous sacrificial language connected with Jesus' blood requires that v.26 be interpreted in a similar way. (3) Much of the debate on the force of “is” is anachronistic. The verb itself has a wide semantic range and proves very little. But what must be remembered is that this is a Passover meal. The new rite Jesus institutes has links with redemption history. As the bread has just been broken, so will Jesus' body be broken; and just as the people of Israel associated their deliverance from Egypt with eating the paschal meal prescribed as a divine ordinance, so also Messiah's people are to associate Jesus' redemptive death with eating this bread by Jesus' authority.

27 Assuming this is a Passover meal, this “cup” is probably the third, the “cup of blessing.” Jesus again gives thanks (see comment on Lk 22:19-20). The wine was likely fermented grape juice, though it was customary to dilute the wine with a double or triple quantity of water. Matthew records the command: “Drink from it, all of you.”

28 This verse is rich in allusions. “Blood” (GK G135) and “covenant” (GK G1347) are found together in only two OT passages (Ex 24:8; Zec 9:11). Once again, we can penetrate near the heart of Jesus' own understanding of his relation to the OT (see comment on 5:17-20; 9:16-17; 11:9-13). Jesus understands the violent and sacrificial death he is about to undergo (i.e., his “blood”) as the ratification of the covenant he is inaugurating with his people, even as Moses in Ex 24:8 ratified the “covenant” of Sinai by the shedding of blood. Jer 31:31-34, with the word “new” before “covenant,” must also have been in Jesus' mind. The event through which Messiah saves his people from their sins (1:21) is his sacrificial death; and the resulting relation between God and the messianic community is definable in terms of covenant, an agreement with stipulations–promises of blessing and sustenance and threats of cursing, all brought here into legal force by the shedding of blood.
The words “which is poured out for many” could not fail to be understood as a reference to the Passover sacrifice in which so much blood had just been “poured out.” They also connote other sacrificial implications (e.g., Lev 1-7; 16), especially significant since at least Jesus' crucifixion did entail much bloodshed. The phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” alludes to Jer 31:31-34; Jesus' sacrifice provides the real basis for forgiveness (cf. 1:21).
One more OT allusion is worth emphasizing. Jesus is probably also portraying himself as Isaiah's Suffering Servant. This is based on three things: (1) “my blood of the covenant” calls to mind that the servant is twice presented as “a covenant for the people” (Isa 42:6; 49:8)–i.e., he will reestablish the covenant; (2) “poured out” may well reflect Isa 53:12; and (3) “for many” recalls the work of the Servant in Isa 52:13-53:12 (see comment on 20:28).

29 Just as the first Passover looked forward not only to deliverance but also to settlement in the land, so also the Lord's Supper looks forward to deliverance and life in the consummated kingdom. The disciples will keep this celebration till Jesus comes (cf. 1Co 11:26); but Jesus will not participate in it with them until the consummation, when he will sit down with them at the messianic banquet (Isa 25:6; see comment on Mt 8:11) in his Father's kingdom, which is equally Jesus' kingdom.

30 The “hymn” normally sung was the last part of the Hallel (Pss 114-18 or 115-18). It was sung antiphonally: Jesus as the leader would sing the lines, and his followers would respond with “Hallelujah!” Parts of it must have been deeply moving to the disciples when after the Resurrection they remembered that Jesus sang words pledging that he would keep his vows (Ps 116:12-13), ultimately triumph despite rejection (Ps 118), and call all nations to praise the Lord and his covenant love (Ps 117).

4. Prediction of abandonment and denial (26:31-35)

In laying out in advance much of the tragedy of the coming hours, this section shows that Jesus is not a blind victim of fate but a voluntary sacrifice; simultaneously he is preparing his disciples for their dark night of doubt.

31 “This very night” makes clear how soon the disciples' defection and Peter's denial will happen. The intimacy of the Last Supper is shortly to be replaced by disloyalty and cowardice. The disciples will find Jesus an obstacle to devotion and will forsake him. As the quotation from Zechariah makes clear, their falling away is related to the “striking” of the Shepherd. Jesus has repeatedly predicted his death and resurrection, but his disciples are still unable to grasp how such things could happen to the Messiah to whom they have been looking (16:21-23; 17:22-23).
Yet Jesus' words “for it is written” show that the disciples' defection, though tragic and irresponsible, does not fall outside God's sovereign plan. Zec 13:1-6 pictures a day when, owing to the prevailing apostasy, the Shepherd who is close to the Lord is cut down and the sheep scattered. In 13:8-9 most of the sheep perish; but one-third are left, after being refined, to become “my people”–those who will say, “The Lord is our God.” If Jesus&
#39; quotation of Zechariah in the Gospels presupposes the full context of 13:7, then the disciples themselves join Israel, the sheep of God, in being scattered as the result of the “striking” of the Shepherd. Their falling away “this very night” continues to the Cross and beyond. But a purified remnant, a “third,” will survive the refining and make up the people of God, “my people.”

32 The prediction that the shepherd will be stricken and the sheep scattered might suggest that the disciples would return disconsolate to their homes in Galilee, leaving Jesus behind in a grave in Judea. But this new word promises that after Jesus has risen, he will arrive in Galilee before they get there: he will “go ahead of [them].”

33 Peter responds to Jesus' prediction about all the disciples falling away, not to Jesus' prediction of going to Galilee. Though Peter later followed Jesus into the courtyard, he initially joined the other disciples in fleeing (v.56); his later following was only “at a distance” (v.58), and then he denied Jesus. At the end of the day, all the sheep were scattered; all had fallen away.

34 Apparently it was usual for roosters in Palestine to crow about 12:30, 1:30, and 2:30 A.M., so the Romans gave the term “####-crow” to the watch from 12:00 to 3:00 A.M. Despite Peter's claims of undeviating loyalty, Jesus says that Peter is within hours of “disowning” (GK G565; see also 16:4) him three times.

35 The language of Peter's protest shows that he does not really think that Jesus' death was likely; he still has visions of heroism. Nor is he alone in his brash protestations of loyalty–only quicker and more vehement than his peers.

5. Gethsemane (26:36-46)

Central in this section is the light shed on Jesus' perception of what he is about to do. The anguish in Gethsemane is not lightly to be passed over: three times Jesus prayed in deep emotional distress. He went to his death knowing that it was his Father's will that he face death completely alone (27:46) as the sacrificial Passover Lamb. As his death was unique, so also was his anguish; and our best response to it is hushed worship.

36-38 On “Gethsemane,” see comment on Mk 14:32. Taking three of his disciples with him, Jesus now faces deep, inner distress. His words “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow” reflect almost verbally the refrain of Pss 42-43. Jesus experiences a sorrow so deep it almost kills. Having revealed his deepest emotions and thus given his disciples the most compelling of reasons to do what he asks, he tells them to stay and “keep watch with me” while he goes a little farther on to pray alone. His words “with me” imply that he wanted them to keep awake and go on praying.

39 Jesus prays, prostrate in his intense anguish. He addresses God as “My Father” (see comment on 6:9). The “cup” (GK G4539) refers not only to suffering and death but, as often in the OT (Ps 75:7-8; Isa 51:19, 22; Jer 25:15-16; et al.), also to God's wrath; it anticipates 27:46.
In one sense all things are possible with God (see comments on 19:26; Mk 14:36); in another some things are impossible. Thus Jesus prays that, if it be morally consistent with the Father's redeeming purpose that his “cup” be taken from him, that is what he deeply desires. But more deeply still, Jesus desires to do his Father's will. His deep commitment to his Father's will cannot be doubted. But in this crisis, the worst since 4:1-11, Jesus is tempted to seek an alternative to sin-bearing suffering as the route by which to fulfill his Father's redemptive purposes. He prays in agony; and though he is supernaturally strengthened (Lk 22:43), he learns only that the Cross is unavoidable if he is to obey his Father's will.

40-41 Jesus returns to his disciples–i.e., the inner three–and finds them sleeping. Jesus' question is addressed to Peter but is in the plural and therefore includes all three (see comment on 16:16). On “watch and pray,” see comment on Mk 14:38.
It is doubtful that “so that you will not fall into temptation” means only “so that you will stay awake and not fall into the temptation to sleep.” Rather, he tells them that only urgent prayer will save them from falling into the coming “temptation” (GK G4280; see comments on 4:1; 6:13). Even in his own extremity, when he needs and seeks his Father's face, Jesus thinks of the impending but much lesser trial his followers will face. He speaks compassionately: “The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” Spiritual eagerness is often accompanied by carnal weakness–a danger amply experienced even by us today.

42-44 Jesus returns to pray “the same thing.” As Jesus learned obedience (Heb 5:7-9), so he became the supreme model for his own teaching. In the first garden “Not your will but mine” changed Paradise to desert. Now “Not my will but yours” brings anguish to the man who prayed it but transforms the desert into the kingdom.

45-46 Jesus' words here form a gently ironic command. The hour of the Passion is near: it is too late to pray and gain strength for the temptations ahead. His disciples may as well sleep. He who is the resplendent, messianic King takes the path of suffering. Doubtless Jesus could see and hear the party approaching as it crossed the Kidron with torches and climbed up the path to Gethsemane. The sleepers for whom he would die have lost their opportunity to gain strength through prayer. By contrast Jesus has prayed in agony but now rises with poise and advances to meet his betrayer.

6. The arrest (26:47-56)

47 Judas Iscariot (see comment on 26:14-16) arrives with armed men. What he received payment for was probably information as to where Jesus could be arrested in a quiet setting with little danger of mob violence. He may have first led the “large crowd” to the Upper Room and, finding it empty, surmised where Jesus and his disciples had gone (cf. Jn 18:1-3). The “large crowd” was comprised of both temple police and a detachment of Roman soldiers. Especially during the feasts the Romans took extra pains to ensure public order, so a request for a small detachment from the cohort would not likely be turned down. Thus Pilate might have had some inkling of the plot from the beginning, and if he shared it with his wife, it might help explain her dream (27:19).

48-50 The need for pointing out the right man was especially acute, not only because it was dark, but because, in a time long before photography, the faces of even great celebrities would not be widely known. To identify Jesus, Judas chose the kiss, thereby turning it into a symbol of betrayal.
“Friend” is an open-hearted but not intimate greeting. The next words are either an imperative (as NIV), in which case Jesus has regained his poise and sovereignty, or a question (NIV note), which administers a rebuke steeped in the irony of professed ignorance that knows very well why Judas has come.

51-54 Peter's response is scarcely unexpected, especially in the light of his earlier protest of loyalty (vv. 33-35). The crucial test of loyalty had arrived. He is magnificent and pathetic–magnificent because he rushes in to defend Jesus with characteristic courage and impetuousness, pathetic because his courage evaporates when Jesus undoes Peter's damage, forbids violence, and faces the Passion without resisting.
What of Jesus' response in v.52? The least we can say is that violence in defense of Christ is completely unjustified. Moreover, if Jesus wanted to use force, a simple request to his Father would bring twelve legions of angels to his assistance–perhaps one legion for Jesus and one for each of the Eleven. In addition, Jesus' stance regarding his own death is grounded on the fact the “Scriptures” must be fulfilled (see comments on vv.24, 31). Jesus is determined to obey his Father's will.

55-56 Every day for the preceding week, and presumably on earlier visits to the Holy City, Jesus had been teaching in the temple courts; yet the authorities had not
arrested him. Why then do they seize him now as if he were a rebel (see comment on 27:16)? The implication is that there is no need to arrest him secretly and violently, except for reasons in their own minds that reveal more about themselves than about him. And then Jesus again referred to the fulfillment of prophetic Scripture.
All the disciples then fulfill one specific prophecy (v.31) and flee. Probably at this time Jesus is bound (Jn 18:12).

7. Jesus before the Sanhedrin (26:57-68)

In assessing blame for the crucifixion of Jesus, one must admit that, from a theological perspective every Christian is as guilty of putting Jesus on the cross as Caiaphas. Thoughtful believers will surely admit that their own guilt is the more basic of the two; for if we believe Matthew's witness, and Jesus could have escaped the clutches of Caiaphas (v.53), then what drove Jesus to the cross was his commitment to the Father's redemptive purposes.
Regarding the hour-by-hour procedure of Jesus' trial, see comment on Mk 14:53-65.

57-58 Well-to-do homes were often built in a square shape with an open, central courtyard. If Annas (cf. comment on v.3) lived in rooms on one wing of the court, then it is possible that he interviewed Jesus (Jn 18:14-16) in one wing while the Sanhedrin was assembling in another. Not much time would be required.
Peter followed Jesus “at a distance,” midway between courage (v.51) and cowardice (v.70). He joined the servants (Jn 18:15-16) and temple police around the courtyard fire.

59-63a The Sanhedrin was composed of three groups: leading priests, teachers of the law, and elders. It had seventy members plus the high priest, but a mere twenty-three made a quorum. The “whole Sanhedrin” need not mean that everyone was present (cf. Lk 23:50-51). This group was looking “for false evidence” and obtained it from “false witnesses.” Already convinced of Jesus' guilt, they went through the motions of securing evidence against him. When people hate, they readily accept false witness; and the Sanhedrin eventually heard and believed just what it wanted. Matthew knew that Jesus was not guilty, so he describes the evidence as “false.”
The two men who came forward may or may not have been suborned. At least two witnesses were required in a capital case. Their witness had an element of truth but was evilly motivated, disregarding what Jesus meant in Jn 2:19-21 (see comment on these verses). Interpreted with crass literalism, Jesus' words might be taken as a threat to desecrate the temple, one of the pillars of Judaism. Desecration of sacred places was almost universally regarded as a capital offense in the ancient world, and in this Jews were not different from the pagans.
The high priest asks two questions in v.62. He probably hoped Jesus would incriminate himself. But, true to Isa 53:7, Jesus kept silent.

63b The high priest, frustrated by Jesus' silence, tried a bold stroke that cut to the central issue: Was Jesus the Messiah or was he not? The question had been raised before in one form or another (see comments on 12:38-42; 16:1-4). He boldly charged Jesus to answer “under oath by the living God.”
The outcome is now inevitable. If Jesus refuses to answer, he breaks a legally imposed oath. If he denies he is the Messiah, the crisis is over–but so is his influence. If he affirms it, then, given the commitments of the court, Jesus must be false. After all, how could the true Messiah allow himself to be imprisoned and put in jeopardy? The Gospels' evidence suggests that the Sanhedrin was prepared to see Jesus' unequivocal claim to messiahship as meriting the death penalty, and their unbelief precluded them from allowing any other possibility.

64 The answer Jesus gives is affirmative, though reluctantly so (cf. comment on v.25). Certainly Caiaphas understood it as positive. Jesus' follow-up comment is a qualification, spoken because Caiaphas's understanding of “Messiah” and “Son of God” is fundamentally inadequate. Jesus is indeed the Messiah and so must answer affirmatively. But he is not quite the Messiah Caiaphas has in mind; so he must answer cautiously and with some explanation.
That explanation comes in allusions to two passages–Ps 110:1 (see comment on Mt 22:41-46) and Da 7:13 (see comment on Mk 8:31). Jesus is not to be primarily considered a political Messiah but as the one who, in receiving a kingdom, is exalted at God's right hand, the position of honor and power (cf. 16:27; 23:39; 24:30-31; 26:29). This is Jesus' climactic self-disclosure to the authorities, combining revelation with threat. He tells the members of the Sanhedrin that from then on they would not see him as he now stands before them but only in his capacity as undisputed King Messiah and sovereign Judge.

65-66 Rending garments was an expression of indignation or grief (cf. 2Ki 18:37; Ac 14:14). Whether the Sanhedrin thought Jesus was blaspheming because he claimed to be Messiah, because he put himself on the Mighty One's right hand, or because God had not especially attested who Jesus was is uncertain. The decision of the assembled members of the Sanhedrin appears to have been by acclamation. Jesus is “worthy” of the death penalty, mandated for “blasphemy” (GK G1059-G1060; cf. Lev 24:16).

67-68 The messianic claims of the accused do not impress the Sanhedrin, and the indignities to which Jesus is now subjected are probably meant to deride his false pretensions. The true Messiah would vanquish all foes. But this man is spit on, punched, slapped, blindfolded (Mk 14:65), and taunted, without displaying any power. For “prophesy,” see comment on Mk 14:65.

8. Peter's denial of Jesus (26:69-75)

69-70 The remark of the servant girl to Peter reflects both an accusation and her curiosity, and “Jesus of Galilee” is the kind of derogatory remark one might expect from a Jerusalemite convinced of her geographical and cultural superiority. Peter denies her words “before them all,” implying that several people were listening and that some may have joined in the questioning.

71-72 Peter “went out” to the gateway, apparently retiring from the brighter light of the fire into the darkness of the forecourt. There he denies another accusation, invoking a solemn curse on himself if he is lying and professing his truthfulness by appealing to something sacred (see comment on 5:33-34).

73-75 A little more time elapses. In any age accent in speaking varies with geography, and Peter's speech shows him to be a Galilean. That one of those present at Peter's denial said that his accent proved him to be a disciple of Jesus shows how much Jesus' ministry had been in Galilee and how relatively few of his disciples were from Judea. Having lied twice, Peter finds himself forced to lie again, this time with more oaths. Immediately the rooster crows, a bitter reminder of Jesus' words (v.34). He who thought he could stand has fallen terribly (cf. 1Co 10:12).

9. Formal decision of the Sanhedrin (27:1-2)

1 Whether this formal decision was reached as a final stage of the first meeting or at a separate meeting held either in Caiaphas's house or the temple precincts, we cannot say with certainty. Luke 22:66 implies a meeting in the council chamber.
The religious authorities decided just how to present their case to Pilate. If their own concern was Jesus' “blasphemy” (26:65), they were nevertheless more likely to get Pilate to sentence him to death by stressing the royal side of messiahship rather than blasphemy, since to Pilate that would suggest treason.

2 Jesus is led to Pontius Pilate, prefect appointed by Tiberius Caesar in A.D. 26. Prefects held the power of life and death, apart from appeal to Caesar (see comment on Lk 23:1-5). Extrabiblical sources portray Pilate as a cruel, imperious, and insensitive ruler who hated his Jewish subjects and took few pains to understand them. He stole money to build an aqueduct; and when the population of Jer
usalem rioted in protest, he sent in soldiers who killed many. He defiled Jerusalem more than once (cf. Lk 13:1).
Both the Sanhedrin trial and the trial before Pilate were necessary for capital punishment. Without the Sanhedrin, Pilate would never have taken action against Jesus unless he had become convinced Jesus was a dangerous Zealot leader; without Pilate the Sanhedrin might whip up mob violence against Jesus, but it would not be a legally binding death sentence.

10. The death of Judas (27:3-10)

Matthew's prime interest in recording Judas's death is to continue the fulfillment theme–not only regarding Jesus' death but also regarding the major events surrounding his crucifixion as prophesied in Scripture.

3-4 Verse 3 looks back to 26:14-16, 20-25. Judas's “remorse” is not necessarily repentance. He recognizes not only that he is guilty of betrayal but that Jesus whom he has betrayed is “innocent.” The Jewish leaders' callous response condemns them, for Judas's comments should have meant something to them. He betrayed innocent blood; they condemned innocent blood.

5-8 Exactly where Judas threw the money is uncertain. He then went out and hanged himself. The chief priests refuse to allow the blood money to supplement the funds of the “treasury” (cf. Dt 23:18). Matthew again points out the propensity of the Jewish leaders for ceremonial probity even in the face of gross injustice (cf. 12:9-14; 15:1-9; 23:23; 28:12-13).
With this probity in view, the chief priests decide to buy the potter's field to meet a public need. This field, used for burying foreigners, probably did not belong to “the potter” but was a well-known place, perhaps the place where potters had long obtained their clay. If depleted, it might have been offered for sale. Regarding the relationship of this passage to Ac 1:18-19, see comments in Acts.

9-10 Three aspects of this complex quotation need discussion.

(1) The ascription to Jeremiah. On the face of it, the quotation is a rough rendering of Zec 11:12-13. The only obvious allusions to Jeremiah are 18:2-6; 32:6-15–Jeremiah did visit a potter and buy a field. It is difficult to imagine why Matthew mentioned Jeremiah instead of Zechariah, even though Jeremiah is important in this gospel (cf. 2:17; 16:14).
We should first note that no extant version of Zec 11 refers to a field; thus Matthew's attributing the quotation to Jeremiah suggests we ought to look to that book. Jeremiah 19:1-13 is the obvious candidate, where Jeremiah is told to purchase a potter's jar and take some elders and priests to the Valley of Ben Hinnom. There he is to warn of the destruction of Jerusalem for her sin, illustrated by smashing the jar. A further linguistic link is “innocent blood” (Jer 19:4); and thematic links include renaming a locality associated with potters (19:1) with a name (“Valley of Slaughter”) denoting violence (19:6). The place will henceforth be used as a burial ground (19:11), as a token of God's judgment. In other words, the quotation appears to refer to Jer 19:1-13, along with phraseology drawn mostly from Zec 11:12-13. Such fusing of sources under one “quotation” is not unknown elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Mk 1:2-3). Jeremiah alone is mentioned, perhaps because he is the more important of the two prophets, and perhaps also because Jer 19 is more important as to prophecy and fulfillment.

(2) Meaning . How did Matthew understand the OT texts he was quoting? The question is not easy, because the two OT passages themselves can be variously explained. It appears that in Zec 11 the “buyers” (v.5) and the three shepherds (vv. 5, 8, 17) apparently represent Israel's leaders, who are slaughtering the sheep. God commands Zechariah to shepherd the “flock marked for slaughter” (v.7), and he tries to clean up the leadership by sacking the false shepherds. But he discovers that not only is the leadership corrupt, but the flock detests him (v.8). Thus Zechariah comes to understand the Lord's decision to have no more pity on the people of the land (v.6).
Zechariah decides to resign (11:9-10), exposing the flock to ravages. Because he has broken the contract, he cannot claim his pay (presumably from the “buyers”); but they pay him off with thirty pieces of silver (v.12). But now the Lord tells Zechariah to throw this “handsome price at which they priced me” (probably ironical) to the potter in the “house of the LORD.”
The parallel between Zec 11 and Mt 26-27 is not exact. In Zechariah the money is paid to the good shepherd; in Matthew it is paid to Judas and returned to the Jewish leaders. In Zechariah the money goes directly to the “potter” in the temple; in Matthew, after being thrown into the temple, it purchases “the potter's field.” Nevertheless the central parallel is stunning: in both instances the Lord's shepherd is rejected by the people of Israel and valued at the price of a slave. And in both instances the money is flung into the temple and ends up purchasing something that pollutes and points to the destruction of the nation (see comments on 15:7-9; 21:42).

(3)Fulfillment. In the light of these relationships between the events surrounding Jesus' death and the two key OT passages that make up Matthew's quotation, what does the evangelist mean by saying that the prophecy “was fulfilled”? As in 2:17, the form of this introductory formula shrinks from making Judas's horrible crime the immediate result of the Lord's word, while nevertheless insisting that all has taken place in fulfillment of Scripture (cf. 1:22 with 2:17). What we find in Matthew, including vv. 9-10, is not identification of the text with an event but fulfillment of the text in an event, based on a broad typology governing how both Jesus and Matthew read the OT (see comments on 2:15; 8:17; 13:35; 26:28, 54). Because of this typological model, Matthew can introduce the commonly noticed changes: e.g., the one on whom a price is set is no longer the prophet (“me,” Zec 11:13), but Jesus.

11. Jesus before Pilate (27:11-26)

The setting for Jesus' trial before Pilate is uncertain. It might be the Tower of Antonia, on the northwest corner of the temple area; but more probably it is Herod's old palace on the west side of the city near the Jaffa gate.

11 For information on Pilate, see comment on vv.1-2. Pilate's question, “Are you the king of the Jews?” presupposes the background of Lk 23:2 and Jn 18:28-33 (for the Jews' charge against Jesus, see comment on Lk 23:10). In Roman trials the magistrate normally heard the charges first, questioned the defendant and listened to his defense, sometimes permitted several such exchanges, and then retired with his advisors to decide on a verdict, which was then promptly carried out. The first step led to this particular formulation of Pilate's question to Jesus. Jesus answers, as in 26:64, in an affirmative but qualified way. He is indeed the king of the Jews, but not exactly in the sense Pilate might think (see Jn 18:34-37).
Verse 11 is important theologically as well as historically. It stands behind the inscription on the cross and prepares the way for Christianity, which rests on the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth, who rose from the dead, is indeed the promised Messiah, the King of the Jews–basic themes in Matthew even in the prologue. The vindicated Lord is the crucified Messiah.

12-14 Persistent charges by “the chief priests and the elders” evoke only silence from Jesus. If Jesus had said nothing at all, Pilate would be bound to condemn him, since in the Roman system the defense depended heavily on the defendant's response. But Jesus has spoken (v.11). Now, surrounded by unbelief and conscious that the hour has come, he makes no reply. Thus he continues to fulfill Isa 53:7 (see comment on 26:63). Pilate's “great amazement” appears to be mingled with respect for Jesus and antipathy for the Jewish leaders, and so he takes tentative steps to release the prisoner.

15 In Roman law an imperial magistrate could acquit a prisoner not yet condemned or pardon one already condemned; but the gospel accounts make this a regular custom, apparently associated with Judea alone.

16 Perhaps Barabbas was the son of a famous rabbi (his name literally means “son of the father”; see comment on 23:9). Barabbas was probably an insurrectionist, and a well-known one. Revolts and bloodshed fostered by guerrilla action were common, and Barabbas had been caught. In the eyes of many of the people he would not be a “notorious” villain but a hero.
It may be that the two who were crucified with Jesus were co-rebels with Barabbas, for Mt 27:38 uses the same word for their offense as for Barabbas. The fact that three crosses had been prepared strongly suggests that Pilate had already ordered that preparations be made for the execution of the three rebels. If so, Jesus the Messiah actually took the place of the rebel Barabbas because the people preferred the political rebel and nationalist hero to the Son of God.

17-18 The “crowd” was the crowd of those trying to influence the selection of the prisoner who would receive amnesty (cf. Mk 15:8). Pilate sized up the real motivation of the Jewish leaders. They had no special loyalty to Rome; so if they were accusing Jesus of being a traitor to Rome, he must have been disturbing them for other reasons; and they were simply using Pilate to eliminate Jesus' challenge to them. Pilate, with his network of spies and informers, would be aware of how much popularity Jesus enjoyed among the people at large. He could hardly have been unaware of the upsurge of acclaim the previous Sunday (21:1-16). He thought to administer a reversal to Sanhedrin policy by using the paschal amnesty to encourage the crowd to free Jesus; therefore he offered them a choice: Barabbas or Jesus.

19 If Roman troops were involved in Jesus' arrest (see comment on 26:47), Pilate and perhaps his wife would have been informed. The interruption of Pilate's wife further stresses Jesus' innocence and gives the chief priests and elders a few moments to influence the crowd.

20-23 The leaders helped persuade the crowd. Historically, the crowd's response is comprehensible. They have come to demand Barabbas's release. Confronted with the choice of Barabbas or Jesus, both of whom were widely popular, their momentary faltering is resolved by their leaders. If the crowd must choose between Pilate's choice and the Sanhedrin's, especially if the Sanhedrin members are circulating stories of Jesus' “blasphemy,” then there can be little doubt whom they will choose. Jews often confronted the Roman authorities with a large and noisy delegation, and now mob mentality begins to take over.
Tactically Pilate has blundered. Trying to save face he asks more questions. The first offers the hope of a milder sentence, and the second attests Jesus' innocence. But mob psychology prevails. The people prefer a murderous, nationalistic guerrilla leader over their Messiah, who exhorted them to love their enemies and said he would die as a ransom for many.

24 To the best of our knowledge, this hand washing was not a Roman custom. After living several years among the Jews he detested, Pilate picked up one of their own customs (Dt 21:6; cf. Ps 26:6) and contemptuously used it against them. Whatever his motives, Pilate had been trying to release Jesus. He sent him to Herod (Lk 23:6-12), suggested that the paschal amnesty be applied to him, proposed a compromise with a scourging (Lk 23:16), tried to turn the case back to Jewish authorities (Jn 19:6), remonstrated before pronouncing sentence (Jn 19:12-14), and here washes his hands. Matthew gives us only two of these steps.
Regardless of what Pilate thought, Matthew does not think the hand washing exonerated Pilate. He insists that Pilate's action was not prompted by desire for justice but by political and moral cowardice and fear of a mob. The Romans expected their magistrates to maintain peace, and a possible uproar would intimidate a governor. So when Pilate says, “It is your responsibility,” Matthew intends his readers to remember the same words spoken by the chief priests and elders to Judas (v.4).

25 To Pilate's words, “all the people” answer, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!” The idiom is familiar (2Sa 1:6; 3:28; Ac 18:6; 20:26). In the narrative this is a swift retort to Pilate's taunt and mob pressure for him to pronounce the verdict.
But it clearly is more than that. How much more? Many say that by “all the people” Matthew is saying that the Jews as a whole reject Jesus. To them v.25 becomes a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the nation; and a new people of God, the church, would take over. There is some truth in this view, but it needs qualification. Matthew certainly knows that all the first disciples were Jews. Thus the gospel's denunciations of the Jews are not more severe than those of many OT prophets, and in both instances it is understood that a faithful remnant remains. So what Matthew actually says cannot be judged as a general anti-Semitic comment, certainly not any more than Jeremiah's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Exile can.

26 On flogging, see comment on Mk 15:15. Jesus' flogging took place before the verdict and so was not repeated after the verdict. Pilate, after further entreaty (Jn 19:1-16), “handed him over to be crucified.”

12. The soldiers' treatment of Jesus (27:27-31)

27 That the governor's troops are the ones involved in these shameful actions belies any suggestion that Matthew exculpates Pilate (see comment on v.24). The “Praetorium” is probably the old palace of Herod; the soldiers take Jesus into the palace court- yard, where they fulfill Jesus' predictions in 20:17-20.

28-31 Here we have humanity at its worst–a scene of vicious mockery. The Jews have mocked Jesus as Messiah (26:67-68); here the Roman soldiers ridicule him as king. Matthew's readers recognize that the soldiers speak more truly than they know, for Jesus is both King and Suffering Servant. The “robe” is probably the short red cloak worn by Roman military and civilian officials.
For a crown, the soldiers plait a wreath of thorns from palm spines or acanthus and crush it down on Jesus' head in imitation of the circlet on the coins of Tiberius Caesar. The staff they put in his hand stands for a royal scepter; and the mocking “Hail, King of the Jews!” corresponds to the Roman acclamation “Ave, Caesar!” and caps the flamboyant kneeling. Not content with the ridicule and the torture of the thorns, they spit on him and use the staff, the symbol of his kingly authority, to hit him on the head “again and again.”
Jesus is then led away by an execution squad of four soldiers, dragging the crosspiece to which his hands would be nailed (Jn 19:17, 23).

13. The Crucifixion and mocking (27:32-44)

Crucifixion was unspeakably painful and degrading. Whether tied or nailed to the cross, the victim endured countless paroxysms as he pulled with his arms and pushed with his legs to keep his chest cavity open for breathing and then collapsed in exhaustion until the demand for oxygen demanded renewed paroxysms. The scourging, the loss of blood, and the shock from the pain all produced agony that could go on for days, ending at last by suffocation, cardiac arrest, or loss of blood. When there was reason to hasten death, the execution squad would smash the victim's legs. Death followed almost immediately, either from shock or from collapse that cut off breath. Beyond the pain was the shame. In ancient sources crucifixion was universally viewed with horror. In Roman law it was reserved only for the worst criminals and lowest classes. No Roman citizen could be crucified without a direct edict from Caesar.
Among Jews the horror of the cross was greater still because of Dt 21:23: “Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse.”
In Israelite law this meant the corpse of a judicially executed criminal was hung up for public exposure that branded him as cursed by God. These words were also applied in Jesus' day to anyone crucified, and therefore the Jews' demand that Jesus be crucified rather than banished was aimed at arousing maximum public revulsion toward him. But in Christian perspective the curse on Jesus at the cross fulfills all OT sacrifices: it is a curse that removes the curse from believers–the fusion of divine, royal prerogative and Suffering Servant, the heart of the Gospel, the inauguration of a new humanity, the supreme model for Christian ethics, the ratification of the new covenant, and the power of God (1Co 1:23-24; Gal 3:13; Col 2:14; 1Pe 2:18-25). The dominant note of this section is the continuing mockery, but mockery that by an awful irony reveals more than the mocker thinks–for Jesus is indeed King of the Jews (v.37), the new meeting place with God (v.40), the Savior of humanity (v.42), the King of Israel (v.42), and the Son of God (v.43).

32 Executions normally took place outside the city walls (Lev 24:14; Nu 15:35-36; 1Ki 21:13; Ac 7:58), symbolizing still further rejection (cf. Heb 13:13). Jesus, weak as he was, managed to carry the crossbeam as far as the city gates (cf. Jn 19:17). There, as they were “going out” of the city, the soldiers forced Simon to assume the load. He came from Cyrene, an old Greek settlement on the coast of North Africa.

33-34 On “Golgotha,” see comment on Mk 15:22. Mark says they offered Jesus wine mingled with myrrh, and he refused it; Matthew, that they offered him wine mingled with gall, and he tasted it and then refused it. It seems likely that this gesture was not one of compassion but of torment. Myrrh was used with wine to strengthen the drink, but it tastes bitter; so a large dose of it mingled with wine would make the latter undrinkable. Thus, when the drink was offered to Jesus, it was so bitter he refused it, and the soldiers were amused. Mark keeps the word “myrrh” to describe the content; Matthew uses “gall” to describe the taste and to provide a link with Ps 69:12. For another view of this element of the crucifixion, see comment on Mk 15:23.

35 Jesus was nailed to the crossbeam, which was then hoisted to its place on the upright. His feet were then nailed to the upright. The Romans crucified their victims naked, and their clothes customarily became the perquisite of the executioners; here they divided them–probably an inner and outer garment, a belt, and a pair of sandals–among themselves by casting lots, oblivious to the OT lament in Ps 22:18 that Jn 19:23-24 says was now fulfilled.

36 The soldiers kept watch to prevent rescue (men were known to have lived after being taken down from a cross).

37-38 The statement of the crime was often written on a white tablet in red or black letters and displayed on the cross. The charge against Jesus, written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (Jn 19:19-22), wrote more of the truth than Pilate knew. On the two “robbers,” see comment on v.16.

39-40 Crucifixion was always carried out publicly as a warning to others. A public execution provided opportunity for those walking by to “hurl insults” at Jesus. Shaking their heads, and so calling to mind the derision in Pss 22:7; 109:25; Lam 2:15, the passers-by threw up the charge in Mt 26:60-61 (they had likely witnessed the proceedings of the Sanhedrin or had some report of them). The second taunt, “If you are the Son of God,” not only harks back to the trial (26:63), but for Matthew recalls a dramatic parallel (4:3, 6). Through the passers-by Satan was still trying to get Jesus to evade the Father's will and avoid further suffering.

41-44 All the principal groups of the Sanhedrin do not address Jesus directly but speak of him in the third person, in a stage whisper meant for his ears. “He saved others” is probably an oblique reference to Jesus' supernatural healing ministry. “But he can't save himself” is cutting because it questions that same supernatural power. But there is level on level of meaning. For the Christian reader “save” (GK G5392) has full eschatological overtones. And although Jesus could have saved himself (26:53), he could not have saved himself if he was to save others.
The second of the three taunts, “He's the king of Israel!” substitutes the covenant term Israel for “the Jews” in Pilate's words (v.11) and is in fact the normal Palestinian form of Jesus' claim. The words “Let him come down from the cross, and we will believe in him” have several levels of meaning. They constitute a malicious barb directed at Jesus' helplessness, while having the effrontery to suggest that the leaders' failure to believe was his fault. The taunt piously promises faith if Jesus will but step down from the cross; but the reader knows that, in the mystery of providence, if Jesus were to step down, there would be no “blood of the covenant for the forgiveness of sins” (26:26-29), no ransom (20:28), no salvation from sin (1:21), no Gospel of the kingdom to be proclaimed to nations everywhere (28:18-20), and no fulfillment of Scripture.
In an unconscious allusion to Ps 22:8, the religious leaders launch their third taunt: “He trusts in God.” They recognize that Jesus' claim to be the “Son of God” was at least a claim to messiahship. So assuming that God must crown every effort of Messiah with success, they conclude that Jesus' hopeless condition is proof enough of the vanity of his pretensions. Again their malice masks the ironic redemptive purposes of God. On the one hand, as Christian readers know, God will indeed vindicate his Son at the Resurrection. On the other hand, the leaders are right: Jesus is now facing his most severe test, the loss of his Father's presence, leading to the heart-rending cry of the following verses.
The other two crucified with him join in the abuse (but see Lk 23:39-43).

14. The death of Jesus (27:45-50)

45 The darkness that “came over all the land” from noon till 3:00 P.M. was a sign of judgment and/or tragedy (cf. Am 8:9-10). The judgment is therefore a judgment on the land and its people. But it is also a judgment on Jesus; for out of this darkness comes his cry of desolation. The cosmic blackness hints at the deep judgment that was taking place (20:28; 26:26-29; Gal 3:13).

46 In what language did Jesus utter his cry of desolation, taken from Ps 22:1? It was most likely in Aramaic; and at least some of the variants (cf. NIV note) stem from the difficulty of transliterating a Semitic language into Greek.
What does this psalm quotation signify? It is best to take the words at face value: Jesus is conscious of being abandoned by his Father. For one who knew the intimacy of 11:27, such abandonment must have been agony. If we ask in what ontological sense the Father and the Son are here divided, the answer must be that we do not know because we are not told.

47 According to 2Ki 2:1-12, Elijah did not die but was taken alive to heaven in a whirlwind. Some Jewish tradition, perhaps as old as the first century, held that he would come and rescue the righteous in their distress.

48-49 See comment on v.34; the allusion is again Ps 69:21. What is not clear is whether the offer of a drink here is meant as a gesture of mercy or as mockery; its purpose may have been to prolong life and agony, while with false piety the onlookers say they will wait for Elijah to rescue him.

50 This loud cry reminds us once more of Jesus' hideous agony. That “he gave up his spirit” suggests Jesus' sovereignty over the exact time of his own death. It was at this moment, when he was experiencing the abyss of his alienation from the Father and was being cruelly mocked by those he came to serve, that he chose to yield up his life a “ransom for many “(see comment on 20:28).

15. Immediate impact of the death (27:51-56)

51a On the tearing of the temple veil, see comment on Mk 15:38. In accordance with Matthew's fu
lfillment themes (cf. comments on 5:17-20; 11:11-13), the tearing of the veil signifies the obsolescence of the temple ritual and the law governing it (cf. Heb 9:1-14). Jesus himself is the New Temple, the meeting place of God and humankind (see comment on Jn 2:19-21); the old is obsolete. At the same time, the rent veil serves as a sign of the temple's impending destruction–a destruction conceived not as a brute fact but as a theological necessity.

51b-53 Matthew implies that the earthquake (v.51b), itself a symbol of judgment and theophanic glory, was the means of tearing the veil as well as opening the tombs.
But the resurrection of the “holy people” (GK G41) remains difficult to understand. Perhaps the best explanation is to see a full stop after “broke open,” so that the words that follow form a parenthesis in the flow of the narrative. The resurrection of “the holy people” then begins a new sentence that is linked only with Jesus' resurrection. Matthew does not intend his readers to think that these people were resurrected when Jesus died and then waited in their tombs till Easter Sunday before showing themselves. Instead, they were raised to life at the same time Jesus was. The language implies that these saints were certain well-known OT and intertestamental Jewish spiritual heroes and martyrs. If so, then Matthew is telling us that the resurrection of people who lived before Jesus Messiah is as dependent on Jesus' triumph as the resurrection of those who come after him.

54 “Son of God” is one of several major Christological titles in Matthew. But it is not certain what exactly the soldiers meant by “Son of God” (see comment on Mk 15:39). The darkness, the earthquake, and the cry of dereliction convinced the soldiers that this was no ordinary execution. The portents terrified them and probably led them to believe that these things testified to heaven's wrath at the perpetration of such a crime, in which the soldiers had participated. But this confession tells Matthew's readers that Jesus as the promised Messiah and unique Son of God is seen most clearly in his passion and death.

55-56 Along with the soldiers, certain women (generally not highly regarded in Jewish society) watched to the bitter end (see comment on Mk 15:40-41). They kept their distance (v.55), whether through timidity or modesty; and last at the cross, they were first at the tomb (28:1). Not only do they provide continuity to the narrative, but they prove that God has chosen the lowly and despised things of the world to shame the wise and strong (cf. 1Co 1:27-31).

16. The burial of Jesus (27:57-61)

Because of Dt 21:22-23, Jesus' body could not remain on the cross overnight. Romans customarily let bodies of crucified criminals hang in full view until they rotted away. If they were buried at all, it was only by express permission of the imperial magistrate. Such permission was usually granted to friends and relatives of the deceased who made application, but never in the case of high treason.

57 The approaching evening–about 6:00 P.M. at that time of year–would mark the end of Friday and the beginning of Sabbath. Matthew mentions that Joseph of Arimathea (see comments on Mk 15:42-43; Lk 23:50-54) was rich. This may direct attention to Isa 53:9-12: though Jesus was numbered with the transgressors, yet in his death he was with the rich. Joseph had become a disciple; he learned from Jesus and to some extent followed him, even if his discipleship was secret.

58-60 Joseph's initiative is remarkably courageous, and Pilate probably granted his request only because he was convinced that Jesus was not really guilty of high treason. Joseph had Nicodemus to assist him (cf. Jn 19:38-42). On the location of the tomb, see comment on Mk 15:46.

61 No mourning was permitted for those executed under Roman law. The women followed with broken but silent grief and watched the burial. That Jesus was actually buried became an integral part of Gospel proclamation (cf. 1Co 15:4)

17. The guard at the tomb (27:62-66)

This account of the guards at the tomb is needed in order to provide the background to 28:11-15.

62-64 On the Sabbath day, some members of the Sanhedrin paid a visit to Pilate, politely addressing him as “Sir” (GK G3261). For discussion on the phrase “after three days,” see comment on 12:40. The enemies of Jesus certainly do not believe Jesus' prediction; they are merely afraid of fraud. Their fears were really unfounded, because the disciples themselves disbelieved Jesus' words about rising again, not because they could not understand the plain words, but because they had no frame of reference capable of integrating a dying and rising Messiah into their own messianic expectations. The only thing they knew was the terrible fact that their Messiah had been crucified.

65-66 The NIV's rendering “Take a guard” is better read, “You have a guard of soldiers.” That is, Pilate refuses to use his troops but tells the Jewish authorities that they have the temple police at their disposal; and he grants the leaders permission to use them. This explains why, after the Resurrection, the guards report to the chief priests, not to Pilate (28:11). Pilate's answer in v.65 must therefore be construed as cynical. He is saying, “You were afraid of this man when he was alive; now he is dead, and you are still afraid! By all means secure the tomb as tightly as possible, if you think that will help; but use your own police.” So guards are posted and the stone sealed with cord and an official wax seal.

B. The Resurrection (28:1-15)

1. The empty tomb (28:1-7)

Because the Resurrection is central to Christian theology, few subjects have received more attention. Its theological implications are not treated at length by the evangelists; but the theme constantly recurs in Paul (e.g., Ro 4:24-25; 6:4; 8:34; 10:9; 1Co 15; 2Co 5:1-10, 15; Php 3:10-11; Col 2:12-13; 3:1-4; 1Th 4:14).

1 “After the Sabbath” is a general time indicator; i.e., the women would not walk far during the Sabbath; so they waited until after the Sabbath. But by then Saturday night was drawing on; so early on the first day of the week they “went to look at the tomb.”

2-4 The clause introduced by “for” either suggests that the violent earthquake came with the “angel of the Lord” or was the means the angel used to open the tomb. The stone was rolled back, the seal broken, and the soldiers made helpless–not to let the risen Messiah escape, but to let the first witnesses in.

5-7 The angel speaks words that allay the women's fears. While the empty tomb by itself is capable of several explanations, this explanatory word of revelation narrows the potential interpretations down to one: Jesus had risen from the dead (v.6), a truth to be confirmed by personal appearances. Matthew also ties in the Resurrection with Jesus' promises–” as he said” (cf. 16:21; 17:23; 20:18-19). The women are invited to see the place where Jesus lay and commanded to go “quickly” to give his disciples the joyous message. Jesus had promised to go ahead of his disciples into Galilee (see comment on 26:32); the angel now reminds them of this.

2. First encounter with the risen Christ (28:8-10)

8-9 With mingled fear and joy, the women run to tell their news to the disciples, when “suddenly” (GK G2627 & G2779) Jesus meets them and greets them with a traditional greeting. The women clasp his feet and “worship” (or “kneel before”; GK G4686) him. The same verb occurs in the only other resurrection appearance (v.17) and encourages the view that the “kneeling” has instinctively become worship (see comment on 8:2).

10 Like the angel (v.5), Jesus stills the women's fears and gives them a similar commission. “My brothers” probably does not refer only to the Eleven but to all those attached to his cause who were then in Jerusalem, most of whom had followed him from Galilee to Jerusalem as his “disciples” (see comments on 5:1-2; 28:17).
Why does Matthew record a resurrect

[mikeboll64]

Wow Pierre,

All you had to say was: John 19:38-42!

That is interesting reading. I enjoyed it and will most likely read it again more carefully.

mike

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 14 2011,18:57)

Wow Pierre, All you had to say was:  John 19:38-42!   That is interesting reading.  I enjoyed it and will most likely read it again more carefully. mike

Mike

it is better to much than to little info,

you always have my Christian love

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

And mine to you.

Funny, three times through the Gospels, and I never remembered or noticed that Nicodemus brought the spices for the burial.

I'm getting old, I guess.

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 15 2011,19:18)

And mine to you. Funny, three times through the Gospels, and I never remembered or noticed that Nicodemus brought the spices for the burial.   I'm getting old, I guess.

Mike

[Author]

Posts