Matthew 26

 ⁴⁷ While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. ⁴⁸ Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.” ⁴⁹ And he came up to Jesus at once and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” And he kissed him. ⁵⁰ Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. ⁵¹ And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. ⁵² Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. ⁵³ Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? ⁵⁴ But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” ⁵⁵ At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. ⁵⁶ But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

One of the vintage protest songs of the 1960s was Bob Dylan’s 1963 “With God on Our Side.” It is a song about how America and ostensibly all nations tend to think that God is on their side whenever they go to war. It is, again, a classic example of the protest music of that era.

Oh my name it is nothin’
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I’s taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that the land that I live in
Has God on its side

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
l’s made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don’t count the dead
When God’s on your side

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side

I’ve learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It’s them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we’re forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God’s on your side

Then, Dylan’s song takes an interesting turn:

Through many dark hour
I’ve been thinkin’ about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can’t think for you
You’ll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side[1]

In my opinion, this is brilliant. It is one thing for different nations or peoples or individuals to claim divine sanction in the sometimes-murky waters of international or interpersonal conflict. But surely not every conflict that has two sides can claim God, right? So Dylan appeals to one conflict in which the listener must clearly conclude that, in point of fact, it is possible for somebody to act, believing they are doing what is right, and yet be very far away from God. And the example Dylan points to is the example of Judas. The point is clear enough: If Judas did not have God on his side, then it might just be that we do not have God on our side when we think we do!

It is the premise of Dylan’s argument that I want to applaud. It is a premise that Dylan seems to believe is utterly unquestionable and self-evident. And he is right: Judas did not have God on his side! Dylan believes that anybody listening to his song, even in the turbulent days of the 1960s, will agree with him. Whatever Judas thought about the rightness of his cause, he was devastatingly wrong. God was not with him and, in fact, he was acting directly against God in his betrayal of Jesus!

In the betrayal of Jesus, we find the perniciousness of empty worship.

We begin with Judas greeting and kissing Jesus.

⁴⁷ While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. ⁴⁸ Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.” ⁴⁹ And he came up to Jesus at once and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” And he kissed him. ⁵⁰ Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him.

There are two signs of apparent respect here.

• “Greetings, Rabbi!”
• And he kissed him.

Both of these signs are offered deceptively, hypocritically. Judas does not come to greet but to betray. He does not come to offer a kiss of friendship but to hand Jesus over to the authorities. The emptiness and hypocrisy of these overtures adds to the wickedness of Judas’ deeds.

In Michael Card’s song “Why?”, he sings:

Why did it have to be a friend
Who chose to betray the Lord?
And why did he use a kiss to show them
That’s not what a kiss is for.

Only a friend can betray a friend
A stranger has nothing to gain
And only a friend comes close enough
To ever cause so much pain

Indeed, that is not what a kiss is for.

In offering these empty almost ritualistic overtures of homage, Judas establishes himself as a symbol of false worship. He represents all those who make public appearances of awe and devotion but who, inwardly, are far from God.

Judas’ actions are an apt picture of empty, hypocritical religiosity.

When I was in seminary, Thomas Long, then professor of preaching at Princeton University, came and spoke in chapel. He made an aside in the midst of his talk that I thought was fascinating. He said that in the book of Matthew, every use of the word “friend” is in some way negative or in some way involves conflict between two people! So I have decided to fact-check him. Let us see:

The first usage of the word “friend” in Matthew is in Matthew 11. And, sure enough, we find there that the opponents of Jesus are using the words as a way to tarnish Jesus’ standing among the people.

¹⁸ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ ¹⁹ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”

Next, in Matthew 20, the owner of the vineyard uses the word to try to calm down some angry workers at the end of the day.

¹³ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?”

Third, in Matthew 22, we find this reference in the parable of the wedding feast.

¹¹ “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. ¹² And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speehless. ¹³ Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ ¹⁴ For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Well! That fits the bill.

Then, lastly, in our text, Jesus says to Judas, “Friend, do what you came to do.”

I suppose, all in all, that Dr. Long was right! I recall him saying in chapel that day: “If you ever preach from Matthew, do not sing, ‘What a Friend We Have in Jesus’!” We all laughed!

And yet, there is a reference to “friend” in the gospels that eclipses Judas’ pernicious and wicked use of it. It is found in John 15.

¹⁵ No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

We may thank God for this verse, for we may be sure of this: Whatever hypocrisy and emptiness resided in the language of Judas at the betrayal, and whatever emptiness may reside within our own overtures of worship, the language of Jesus can be trusted: We are His friends indeed!

In the betrayal of Jesus, we see the juxtaposition of the kingdoms.

There is not only a contrast between Jesus and Judas in our text. There is also a contrast between Jesus and Peter. If Judas represents empty, hypocritical religion, then Peter represents the thinking of the world.

⁵¹ And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. ⁵² Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. ⁵³ Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

John’s account of this, in John 18, fleshes out some of the details absent in Matthew.

¹⁰ Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) ¹¹ So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

Here we learn that one who took up the sword was Peter and the one whose ear was cut off was a man named Malchus.

In drawing his sword, Peter undoubtedly believed that he was honoring the Lord. He was, after all, as he saw it, defending Jesus. Yet, what Peter was really doing was showing that wordly thinking and the logic of this fallen world still had a powerful grip on him.

We know this because, in Matthew’s account, Jesus tells Peter that if He wanted to defend Himself he certainly could: “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” And in John’s account, Jesus told Peter that His betrayal, arrest, and cross were part of the plan of the Father: “shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

In both cases, Jesus is contrasting Peter’s thinking with God’s thinking. In fact, He is contrasting the way of the world—violence and vengeance—with the way of the Kingdom of God—obedience to the point of death on a cross.

Peter represents the Christian who does not understand that the way of the Kingdom is different, radically, from the way of the world. Peter represents the Christian who does not understand that the weapon the church wields is the word of God. Peter represents the Christian who does not understand that vengeance belongs to the Lord.

Had Peter succeeded in his violent retribution, and had all the followers of Jesus taken up arms, then our salvation would not have been won for us on the cross of Calvary.

Had Peter succeeded, then the church would have been one violent upstart sect among a number of others.

But, no, what Jesus came to do was subvert that whole way of thinking and show a new way: the way of the Kingdom of God. Jesus came to subvert violence and retribution and show the way of victory through surrender to the will of God.

In the betrayal of Jesus, we see the cosmic plan of God.

What is more, in the betrayal of Jesus, we see the unfolding cosmic plan of God.

⁵⁴ But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” ⁵⁵ At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. ⁵⁶ But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

In this passage we have an example of an inclusio, a section of scripture in which there are bookends: repeated ideas at the beginning and end that inform what is happening in the middle. In our text we see the following three ideas:

• These events are fulfilling scripture. (v.54)
• They did not arrest Jesus before, but they are arresting Him now. (v.55)
• These events are fulfilling scripture (v.56)

The point is clear: The arrest of Jesus is itself part of God’s plan. He is not hiding in Gethsemane. They have not found Jesus, so to speak, they have not captured Him. He spoke openly before and now He is in the Garden awaiting His arrest. All that is happening is happening because the Father willed that it would happen in this way.

It is as if Jesus is saying, “You are players in a drama that is bigger than your own wills, your own decisions. This is unfolding for the salvation of the world and for the eventual coming of the new heaven and the new earth. Do not be so arrogant as to assume that you are making this happen. The only reason it is happening here and now is because God is making it happen.”

The events of Christ’s passion are therefore cosmic in scope. They are not happening in a vacuum. Rather, this is the plan of God as evidenced by the fact that these events were prophesied by God!

Time and time again, the New Testament speaks of events as having fulfilled scripture. This is particularly true in the gospel of Matthew. Consider:

Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah (2:17)

And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. (2:23)

So that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled (4:14)

Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” (13:14)

But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so (26:54)

But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him and fled. (26:56)

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel” (27:9)

Each time this formula is used—“was fulfilled,” “might be fulfilled,” “is fulfilled”—it is as if the scriptures are loudly proclaiming: “This is part of God’s plan! This is part of God’s plan! This is part of God’s plan!”

And so it was with the crucifixion of Jesus.

Jesus was not surprised by Judas’ actions…or Peter’s…or those who came to arrest Him.

Jesus knew what He was doing…for Jesus did the will of the Father.

In the garden we see, yes, treachery, and we see, yes, violence, and we see, yes, an arrest. But above it all and through it all we see the plan of our great God to seek and to save those who are lost.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…”

Yes! That is so!

The Son lays down His life to win us back to Himself.

There were lots of characters in the garden of Gethsemane, but the most important was God Himself. The garden fell under His sovereignty, as does the entire cosmos, and, in so falling, falls also under His plan.

Let us thank God for that!

 

[1] https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/god-our-side/