feature
His Passion, Our Choices
Matthews Trial of Jesus Is About More than Jesus
by Patrick Henry Reardon
St. Peter Denying Christ (detail) by Gustave Dor
A
lthough any day is a good occasion to
read the Gospel accounts of the Lords
Passion, it is hardly surprising that the an-
cient lectionaries of the Christian Church
especially prescribe the solemn, public reading of
these texts each springMarch or Aprilduring
Holy Week. An early witness to this prescription was
Egeria, a nun from Gaul, who penned a priceless ac-
count of her travels in the Holy Land during the late
fourth century, probably between 381 and 384.
Because she was fortunate to be present among
the Christians in Jerusalem during Lent, Holy Week,
and the Paschal season, Egerias account includes
descriptions of the customs and rituals associated
with the liturgical observance of those solemn sea-
sons, including the public reading of the Passion
narratives on Good Friday. This passage is worth
quoting at length:
Senior editor Patrick Henry Reardon is pastor of All Saints
Antiochian Orthodox Church in Chicago, Illinois. He is the
author of Christ in the Psalms, Christ in His Saints, The
Trial of Job, and Chronicles of History and Worship (all
from Conciliar Press).
The entire time from the sixth to
the ninth hour is occupied by public
readings. They all concern the things
that Jesus suffered; rst they have the
psalms on this theme, then the Ap-
ostolic Epistles and Acts which deal
with it, and nally the passages from
the Gospels. In this way they read the
prophecies about what the Lord was
to suffer, and then the Gospels about
what he did suffer. Thus do they con-
tinue the readings and hymns from
the sixth to the ninth hour, show-
ing to all the people by the witness
of the Gospels and the writings of
the Apostles that the Lord actually
suffered everything the prophets had
foretold. They teach the people, then,
for these three hours, that nothing
which took place had not been foretold, and
all that was foretold was completely fullled.
Dispersed among these readings are prayers,
all tting to the day. It is impressive to see the
way all the people are moved by these readings,
and how they mourn. You could hardly believe
how every single one of them weeps during
those three hours, old and young together,
because of the way the Lord suffered for us.
(The Travels of Egeria)
Jesus on Trial
Integral to the Gospel stories of the Passion are
their records of the Lords two trials: the Jew-
ish trial before the Sanhedrin and the Roman
trial before Pontius Pilate. Jesus appearance be-
fore Pilate was ultimately included in the creed-
al narrative of the Church, including the Nicene
Creed. This development apparently began early.
If we bear in mind that a primitive word used for
the baptismal creed was homologia (cf. 2 Cor. 9:13;
Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 10:23), we perhaps detect in 1 Timo-
thy 6:1213 a rst step toward the insertion of
april 2009 | touchstone 23
Jesus trial before Pilate into the Churchs confessional
recitation:
Fight the good ght of faith, lay hold on eternal
life, to which you were also called and have con-
fessed [homologesas] the good confession [homolo-
gian] in the presence of many witnesses [martyron].
I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to
all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed
[martyresantos] the good confession [homologian]
before Pontius Pilate. . . .
Although each of the four Gospels includes both of
Jesus trials, the accounts differ quite a bit in the details.
Sometimes these variations indicate source material pe-
culiar to an individual Evangelist. For instance, it seems
likely that Lukes story of Jesus appearance before Herod
(Luke 23:612) comes from his personal familiarity with
Joanna, the wife of Chuza, who served in Herods court
(8:3). In addition, only Luke includes the detail of the
Lords turning to look at Peter after the third denial
(22:61).
Likewise, only John tells of an interrogation of Jesus
before Annas (18:1213, 24), and only he seems familiar
with the details of a conversation between Jesus and
Pilate ( John 18:3437; 19:811). Again, Matthew alone
appears to know that Pilates wife became interested in
Jesus trial (27:19).
Sometimes, however, the differences between the
four accounts of Jesus trials are better explained as par-
ticular features of the individual narrative preferences of
the four authors. For instance, John provides not a single
detail of Jesus interrogation by Caiaphas but says that
Jesus was taken directly to Pontius Pilate in the morning
(19:28). Thus, John records two distinct interrogations
of Jesus by the Jewish leaders, the second ending in the
morning.
Luke simplies the narrative by saying the arrested
Jesus was taken directly to the high priests presence
(22:54). Although he tells us nothing about an interroga-
tion until the morning (22:66), the details of that inquiry
(22:6771) closely resemble the interrogation before the
Sanhedrin that Mark and Matthew portray as taking
place during the night.
Another instance of a particular narrative preference
is Johns arrangement of Peters three denials of Jesus.
Each of these denials appears in all four Gospels, but
only John separates them within the full narrative (John
18:1527).
Mark is alone among the Evangelists in adding the
detail that the rooster crowed twice (14:30,68,72). In
fact, the rst and second cockcrows refer to two differ-
ent times during the night, the latter one coming at the
24 touchstone | april 2009
break of dawn. Mark thus indicates the fairly lengthy
time over which Peters three denials took place, the last
one happening toward the morning. This prolonged
lapse of time heightens our sense of Peters treachery.
In short, the differences between the four accounts of
the trials of Jesus should be attributed to one or both of
two causes: different sources available to the four Evan-
gelists, and the narrative preference of each of them.
The Two Trials in Matthew
The present reections are a study of the trial narratives
in Matthew, with a view to elucidating certain theologi-
cal and moral concerns I believe to be particular to this
author. Matthew is the only Evangelist to insert, within
both the trials, a story relative to one of the original
Twelvea story about Simon Peter in the trial before the
Sanhedrin, and an account of Judas Iscariot in the trial
before Pilate. Thus, Matthews structure of the two trials
may be outlined in this way:
A. The trial by the Sanhedrin
1. Jesus appearance before the Sanhedrin
(26:5768)
2. The story of Peter (26:6975)
3. The Sanhedrins plot to kill Jesus (27:1)
B. The trial by Pilate
1. Jesus appears before Pilate (27:2)
2. The story of Judas (27:310)
3. Pilates decision to kill Jesus (27:1126)
Matthews double construction accomplishes two
things: First, it varies the narrative by alternating stages:
the story begins with Jesus, goes to Peter, comes back
to Jesus, goes to Judas, and nally returns to Jesus once
again.
This disposition to move quickly from scene to
scene is very characteristic of Matthews style, as though
to indicate that various activities are happening at once
or nearly so. Thus, Matthew shifts from Jesus nal
prophecy of the Passion (26:12) to the Sanhedrins plot
against his life (26:35), and then to the home of Simon
in Bethany (26:613). From there, he follows Judas to the
Sanhedrin again (26:1416), and then returns to Jesus in
Bethany (26:17). All these things take place on the same
day (Spy Wednesday).
On the next day (Maundy Thursday), Matthew fol-
lows the two disciples to Jerusalem, where they make ar-
rangements for the Seder (26:19); Jesus arrives in the next
verse. Once in Jerusalem, Jesus moves from the room of
the Seder to the Mount of Olives (26:30) and Gethsemane
(26:36). After Jesus is arrested and taken to the house of
Caiaphas (26:57), Matthew moves us to the courtyard of
 that residence to get Peter situated (26:58). He then goes
back inside for Jesus trial (26:59). When this is over, he
leaves Jesus inside and goes to talk about Peters denials
in the courtyard (26:69). He returns briey to the house
of Caiaphas to gather all the characters of the drama and
The Kiss of Judas (detail) by Alexandre Bida
move them to the judgment seat of Pilate (27:12).
Once Matthew gets this scene established, he breaks
off in order to tell of the nal hours of the life of Judas
(27:310). He then comes back to record the trial of Jesus
before Pilate, but there is yet another interruption in
order to introduce Pilates wife (27:19). Only then does
he return to Jesus trial.
Consequently, Matthews Passion narrative is a weave
of various scenes and several activities, involving various
people, all of which happen at different places. Of the
four New Testament stories of the Passion, Matthews is
the most complicated.
Second, in joining a specic disciple to each of
Jesus interrogationsbefore the Sanhedrin and before
PilateMatthew demonstrates a concern about disciple-
ship within the Passion narrative. For this Evangelist,
the drama of the Cross is not isolated from the trial and
trauma of the soul. That is to say, what transpires in the
salvation wrought by God in his Son nds a resonating
correspondence in the human struggle of failure and
repentancetreachery and despairin the souls of Peter
and Judas. The ironic tragedy of the Cross resounds in
the inner battle of the heart.
Thus, Matthews narrative construction encourages
the reader to contrast Peter and Judas as two types of re-
sponse to sin and redemption. In fact, Christians over the
centuries have followed Matthews encouragement in this
respect, as hundreds of extant sermons demonstrate.
The Jewish Trial: Peter
In his account of Jesus trial before the Sanhedrin,
Matthew follows rather closely the Markan sequence by
inserting Peters denials between the nocturnal interro-
gation of Jesus and the Sanhedrins determination, on
the following morning, to seek his death. By this juxta-
position, in which both Jesus and Peter are subjected to
questioning, the author invites us to compare the two
cases: Jesus and Peter are both on trial, as it were, and we
cannot help but contrast them.
One observes, for instance, that in both cases there
are testimonies given under oath: I put you under oath
[exsorkizo] by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,
the Son of God! (26:63). And, Then he began to curse
and swear [omnuein], I do not know the Man! (26:74).
In each of these trials, moreover, perjured testimony
is given, rst by suborned witnesses and then by Peter
(26:5960, 70, 72, 74).
Peter, sitting in the courtyard outside the high
priests residence, is approached by a servant maid, who
believes she recognizes him as a companion of Jesus
(26:69). He stands accused of only one thingbeing
with (meta) Jesus, a charge that Matthew is at pains to
sustain by his constant references to Peters being with
Jesus all through this chapter (26:20,29,36,40,51). Appar-
ently surrounded by a crowd, Peter denies the allegation
in a voice loud enough to be heard by everybody (26:70).
Matthew adds this detail to Marks version of the story
(14:68), thus heightening the sense of Peters perdy
and fear.
Peter moves to the gateway (Matt. 26:71), perhaps
to escape from the light of the re that John mentions.
This time, another of the high priests maidservants an-
nounces to everyoneand not just to Peterthat he was
with (meta) Jesus. Whereas in the rst case the maid
spoke of Jesus of Galilee, in the present she speaks of
Jesus of Nazareth. The point of these references will
become clear in the third denial, prompted by the remark
about Peters Galilean accent (26:73). The more Peter
protests his unfamiliarity with Jesus, the more occasions
he provides for the bystanders to detect the regional
inections in his speech.
Thus, Peter is driven to greater desperation and
begins completely to lose control. The evidence of this
breakdown is found in his recourse to an oath in the
second denial (26:72) and to cursing and swearing in the
third (26:74). The reader recalls Matthews earlier inclu-
sion of a dominical injunction against swearing (5:3337;
cf. 23:1622).
After the third denial, Peter goes outside (26:72).
One gains the impression that Peter is moving away,
endeavoring to escape a growing crisis and the total
unraveling of his moral character.
april 2009 | touchstone 25
 Immediately (evthys26:74) after the third denial,
the rooster crows, prompting Peter to remember what
Jesus predicted (26:75). He remembers, leaves the place,
and breaks into tears, now aware that he has added his
own failure to the tragedy of the night. What Peter had
boldly considered unthinkable (26:35) has now become
a reality: He has publicly repudiated Jesus. The crowing
of the rooster occasions the nal test of Peters character,
and his tears represent the very dissolution of his soul.
Peters heart lies broken and crushed beneath the weight
of his guilt. The man he thought he was is now proven
to be nothing more than a phantom.
Matthew, however, like each of the other Evangelists,
describes Peters repentance as immediate. No more than
a few seconds separate his downfall from his rising up,
and this prompt conversion is likewise incorporated into
the narrative of the Passion. Just as failure is possible to
any Christian, so the door to repentance is closed to no
one. Peters tear-lled repentance is integral to the story
of Jesus suffering and death. It is as though his repen-
tance is the rst fruit to grow on the tree of the Cross.
The Roman Trial: Judas
One is struckperhaps even surprisedby Matthews
insertion of the suicide of Judas within his account of
Jesus trial before Pilate. As soon as the author puts Jesus
in Pilates presence (27:2), he leaves the scene in order to
describe what Judas did.
There is ample reason to believe that Matthew is not
guided here by a strict chronological sequence. We ob-
serve, for instance, that Matthew pictures the chief priests
as talking with Judas in the temple at the very time they
are talking with Pilate at the pretorium (27:23). We also
recall that Luke does not narrate the death of Judas until
somewhat later (Acts 1:1820).
It is rather easy to demonstrate, in fact, that both
writers tell the story of Judass death at a place appropri-
ate to the theological points they want to make. Here, we
consider only the case of Matthew, where the suicide of
Judas ts into his larger account of Jesus trials.
A rst concern of Matthew is to contrast the death
of the innocent Jesus with that of the guilty Judas.
Second, this arrangement also permits Matthew to
compare Judas and Pilate. Each man recognizes the in-
nocence of Jesus (27:4,18,2324), but both men refuse the
path of responsibility and repentance (27:5,24). Each of
them assumes an unwarranted authority over a human
life, and in each the reader recognizes the prole of a
coward.
Third, there is a contrast between Judas and Peter. Al-
though Judas feels remorse at his treachery (metameletheis),
Matthew avoids the vocabulary of repentance (metanoia,
26 touchstone | april 2009
for instance) in his description of Judas. Indeed, this
story, which follows almost immediately on the repen-
tance of Peter (26:75), invites a contrast between these
two disciples with respect to their sins: repentance in the
one case, despair in the other.
I have sinned, says Judashemartonbut he quickly
nds he cannot undo the sin. In fact, his efforts are
mocked by men hardened in sin, who feel no remorse.
The chief priests, playing Mephisto to Judass Faust, have
purchased a soul at market price and are quite content
with the deal.
A fourth concern of Matthew here is to compare
Pilate with the ofcials of the Sanhedrin. Judas, in pro-
nouncing Jesus innocent (athos27:4), prepares for the
self-assessment of Pilate, who somehow recognizes that
he, too, is on trial: I am innocent [athos] of the blood
of this person (27:24). Likewise, when Pilate goes on to
tell the Jews, You see to it (hymeis opsesthe), he simply
pluralizes what the chief priests told Judas: You see to
it (sy opsei).
Judas nds himself in the state described by St.
Paul, who writes of the Laws inability to justify the sin-
ner. Judas has fallen under the curse of the Law (Gal.
3:13). Specically, the conscience of Judas is faced with
the divine judgment, Cursed is he who takes a bribe to
slay a soul of innocent blood (my literal translation of
the LXX of Deuteronomy 27:25). Deuteronomys expres-
sion, soul of innocent bloodpyschen haimatos athouis
obviously the reference Matthew has in mind when Judas
says he sinned in his betrayal of innocent bloodhaima
athon (27:4). Judas, then is the man cursed by the Law,
and whom the Law can in no wise justify (cf. 26:24).
The suicide of Judas nds its Old Testament pregu-
ration in that of Ahitophel (2 Sam. 17:23), and similar
circumstances attend both cases. Judas betrays the true
king; indeed, Jesus kingship is the burden of Pilates
question that immediately follows the death of Judas
(Matt. 27:11). With respect to Ahitophel, we recall that
he, too, betrayed the true king, David, in order to side
with Absalom, the usurper. Both betrayers come to the
identical fate of suicide by hanging.
The contrast between Peter and Judas is, nally, a
matter of choice between repentance and despair. Even
within the limits of his many manifest faultsrecorded in
all four Gospels (as well as the Letter to the Galatians)
we recognize in Peter a fundamentally repentant heart.
When he does succumb to temptation, his repentance
is immediate. Judas, in contrast, when he realizes the
great gravity of his offense, immediately strives in vain
to make things right by his own efforts. Failing this, he
falls into despair. In Matthews view, the mercy of God
and the powerlessness of man in his sins is the difference
between Peter and Judas.