Bound in Heaven: The Denial of Saint Peter in The Gospel According to Matthew
The representation of Peter, Jesus’ first ordained apostle, in the Gospel According to Matthew, as a figure who actively contravenes the orders of the Lord, supports The Bible’s protracted narrative surrounding the necessary and provoked disobedience of man. Peter’s foretold betrayal of Jesus is mirrored in the Old Testament, and is the vessel which allows him to become a significant leader of the Christian Church. The Gospel’s depictions of Peter suggest that sainthood is born from active rejection of Holy order to accomodate necessary advancement of man.
The complicated relationship between man and God is contextualized in Genesis, the first book of The Bible--its Greek name translating to “origin,” signifying that the events within represent the first actions ever performed by man. God tells Adam and Eve, his first creations, that everything within the Garden of Eden belongs to them “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gen 2:16-17). Though God sends the serpent to the Garden to test Adam and Eve’s faith, in his restriction are they also tempted by Him to eat the fruit, and thus do so, and are banished forever from the Garden of Eden and sent to live in the real world and form society amongst things both holy and unholy.
The introduction of the temptation of sin in Genesis raises the complicated question of the psychological relationship between God and his creations: had God not vocally forbidden the fruit to Adam and Eve and planted within his childrens’ minds the seeds of curiosity, they likely would not have been inclined to disobey him. This relationship is exemplified in the little instruction God gives when introducing them to the Garden. In saying little to nothing, God presents a contradiction: that those who follow him should cling to every word he says, but the only instruction he gives is how man should not conduct himself. So, it stands to reason that the little instruction leaves a lasting impression, for better or for worse.
Furthermore, chapter one of Genesis is often considered by Christians an account of “original sin,” but the word “sin” does not once occur in it. The story is merely a depiction of man’s necessary maturation into sophisticated life, making him a more impressive creature, and fulfilling the notion that God expressed man should exist “to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it” (Gen 1:26). God creates man to be susceptible to God’s temptation, because man could not have fulfilled his prophecy to rule over all the earth had he remained in the Garden of Eden, because he would have been unable to create community in the world. Thus, in accepting the fruit, man accepts his fate, even though he may contradictorily be seemingly rejecting it by rejecting God’s command.
The continuation of this paradox into the historical events of the New Testament acts as evidence of its holy legitimacy. The Gospel According to Matthew is the first Gospel in The Bible, and therefore first account of the life of Jesus. The use of the word “Gospel,” originally meaning “good news,” a direct translation of the Greek word “evangelion,” leaves no suspense for the reader. The torment experienced by the characters delivers itself to a Christian narrative of good news--their trajectories ultimately moving them toward holiness. Furthermore, because the Gospels do not follow the conventions of the times’ typical biography in that they are not addressed to the elite because they were at first formatted verbally and through memorization alone, they can, in their intention for vast audiences, be understood as lessons on how to correctly adhere to Jesus.
In the Gospel According to Matthew, Peter the Apostle, originally named Simon, is, from the outset, involved heavily in a narrative of existential moral conflict, his character an example of the fear associated with a submission to faith. Matthew recalls that, when Peter accompanies Jesus walking on water, “he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, ‘Lord, save me!’ Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, ‘You of little faith, why did you doubt?’” (Mt 14:28-31). Although passing a preliminary test as he is recognized as the only Apostle with enough courage to accompany Jesus on the water, it is here depicted that Peter fails Jesus’ test of faith, the fear he feels when “beginning to sink” not only an anxiety of losing mortal existence--a worry contradictory to Christianity’s fixation on the afterlife--but also a hesitation to become submerged in faith.
Jesus’ accusation of Peter as one “of little faith” evidences his recognition of Peter as mortal, and, as a result flawed. Despite this, following soon after Peter’s declaration of fear, Jesus recruits him as his most valued apostle, stating “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven...” (Mt 16:18). Because Jesus exists in the Gospel According to Matthew as an omniscient figure, knowledgeable of his future and his fate, Peter’s wavering faith comes of little surprise to him--he is cognizant of every action Peter will carry out, including verbally denying him. His ability to deny Christ makes it plausible that he will continue to live after Christ, not endangering himself by association, and thus will be able to continue his legacy on earth.
Despite his fear, Jesus still correlates Peter’s name with a holy order, stating simply “you are Peter,” a name translated to “rock” in its original Greek. Peter now holds a holiness in his name, similar to Jesus, and then Jesus declares “on this rock [he] will build [his] church,” which, when considering Peter’s double meaning, proclaims his prophecy as the cornerstone of the church--a duty he must fulfill in the place of Jesus after His death.
Christian Orthodox theologian John D. Zizioulas argues in his essay “The Early Christian Community” that church often physically symbolizes the Body of Christ, explaining that “[b]ecause the Spirit was regarded as ‘communion’ and the gifts of the Spirit by nature corporate, the era of the Spirit, in which the Christians lived as they expected the parousia, was in a profound sense the era of the church, the community of those who were incorporated as one body into Christ and prayed to God in and through--or even as--the one risen Christ” (27). With this knowledge, the stakes rise: Peter holds the keys not only to the kingdom of heaven, but to Jesus’ body and vessel to preach to the rest of the world.
Jesus’ insistence on Peter as worthy of holiness is also represented when Jesus takes Peter, James, and John onto a mountain and allows them to be privy to images of the prophets. From above, a voice declares “This is my son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!” (Mt. 17:5). Here, Jesus brings his disciples on a pilgrimage to hear specifically the message that Jesus must be listened to, declared by God the Almighty. Through its vessel, the message is confirmed as holding the utmost importance.
Upon hearing the voice of God, the disciples “fell to the ground and were overcome by fear” (Mt. 17:6). Fear indicates here both a belief in the afterlife, and a lack of trust in Jesus, as Jesus previously responds to Peter’s fear as announcing him as someone “of little faith” (Mt 14:31). The vision of God on the mountain confirms mortals’ fear of disobeying Jesus, and Jesus’ understanding of them as of wavering faith.
Directly following his announcement of kinship with Peter, Jesus complicates his message by “sternly order[ing] the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah” (Mt 16:20). In his order, Jesus has placed Peter in a seemingly impossible situation, as he has previously established denial of Christ as a mortal sin, warning that “everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven" (Mt 10:32-33). In this seemingly transparent directive, Jesus reminds his followers of his position as the son of the Lord, that he holds great authority in his communication line with the afterlife, and that his word in the matter is of great authority. Peter is placed in a position of existential torment and nobly situates himself as someone to convey that. Jesus sets up this internal moral conflict to provide Peter an impossible choice that is influenced not by Heaven or Hell, but by a necessary sacrifice in carrying out his earthly duty--the continuation of the legacy of Jesus Christ.
Examples of Jesus’ allowance for interpretation prevail throughout the Gospel. To convey his message, Jesus often speaks in parables: he tells allegorical stories to his followers in order to assist them in grasping the word of God. The parables, simple from the outset, are actually imbued with intentional vagueness. It is argued that this is for the purpose of separating those who understand (subsequently worthy), and those who do not.
Jesus explains the theory of parable: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these [good] things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants” (Mt 11:25). Jesus here explains the purpose of parable is to point out those who truly wish to be saved, as they will work through the ambiguous sayings and glean true meaning from them--true faith requires much interpretation and often contradiction.
Peter’s sacrifice is put to the test when, on the night Jesus is martyred for his cause, he informs Peter that “this very night before the cock crows, you will deny Me three times: (Mt 26:34). Jesus’ divinity allows him to foretell the future, and thus declares Peter’s actions as fact. The cock, a symbol of watchfulness and vigilance, is representative of the dire influence his decision will have on the sanctity of the holy world.
Regardless of Jesus’ warning, hours later, as Jesus stands on trial, bystanders ask Peter if he was with Jesus the Galilean, to which he denies, as an oath, three times. Directly following the third, “the cock crowed. And Peter remembered what Jesus had said: ‘Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.’ And he went out and wept bitterly” (Mt. 27:75). Peter disobeys Jesus’ legislation, and instead fulfills his prophecy. Jesus exists here as a figure who situates himself as the answer to prophecy and gives answers that are contradictory, which serves as a separate test of faith than one of a test of fear. In this situation, Peter must deny Christ to maintain Jesus’ place as all-knowing, and to spare his own life, and thus live to sustain Christianity.
Peter is placed in an impossible situation, and Jesus’ role in scripture as a figure who foretells and creates situations recontextualizes the image of Peter’s denial as one he is fated to carry out. It is described that, as Peter sits in the courtyard, the people to whom he refuses Jesus are “a servant girl” (Mt. 26:69), “another servant girl” (Mt. 26:71), and “those standing there” (Mt. 26:73). The placement of servant girls in front of Peter, people who, at the time, are ineffectual to society, is significant. The seeming insignificance of their characters seem to enable Peter to deny Jesus effortlessly.
The third occurance of Peter denying Jesus--the one that completes his acting out of Jesus’ prophecy, reduces the statement to one of even less consequence, that they go without name, without description; they are simply “those standing there.” By placing three people in front of Peter who would ask him specifically of his relationship to Jesus, the holy order ensures that his fate of denial will be fulfilled. Their characters, additionally, as people of seeming little affect, assists the ease with which this occurs, and warns that, due to the omniscient presence of God, a denial is still a denial, regardless of the audience.
Due to Jesus’ understanding of those around him, it is no surprise that his faith in Peter does not go unrecognized. In The Acts of the Apostles, the account of life after the crucifixion of Jesus, Peter fulfills Jesus’ prophecies, leading the church. He is given holy powers, evidently a descendent of Jesus. It is described that, when a lame man asks them for money, Peter declares that “‘in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and walk.’ And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong” (Acts 6-7). Jesus, believing in Peter and having thus forced him to think for himself, passes his holiness down: those who are worthy will not fail the test.
The Gospel According to Matthew further explores the complex nature of prophecy when considering the case of Judas Iscariot, the apostle who reveals the identity of Jesus to persecutors, ultimately leading to his crucifixion. Gathering with his apostles at communion, Jesus declares “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me” (Mt. 26:21). This statement, told simply and as more of an acknowledgment than a warning, asserts what is necessary, and thus inevitable. The nature of The Gospels’ inherent completion in their various narratives, (that what is told becomes true, and is, in that sense, already true), forces the characters into a cyclical sequence: when Jesus declares that one of the apostles will betray him, he has already begun to do so.
It is described earlier that, “one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, ‘What will you give me if I betray him to you?’ They paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he began to look for an opportunity to betray him” (Mt. 26:14-16). From descriptions of Peter’s betrayal, it can be assumed that, although Judas’ motivation for his betrayal is greed, as Adam and Eve’s is curiosity, and Peter’s fear, these emotions serve as mortal fronts for prophetic necessities. Had Judas not betrayed Jesus, Jesus would not have been crucified and thus martyred for the sins of man.
Jesus’ actions further infer the necessity of Judas’ sin when directly following his prediction of betrayal, “Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body” (Mt. 26:26). By offering the bread to the apostles, Jesus complicates what would typically be an event that inspires anger by nourishing and rewarding Judas with his body, a form of sacrifice born from love.
In fact, not once does Jesus express anger toward Judas. The moment of betrayal is described, as “at once [Judas] came up to Jesus and said, ‘Greetings, Rabbi!’ and kissed him. Jesus said to him, ‘Friend, do what you are here to do’” (Mt. 26:49-50). That Jesus denotes Judas’ betrayal from his kiss, with no evidence other than his prophecy to base it on, indicates awareness that prophecies will and must be completed. He argues that the betrayal is what Judas is “here to do,” demonstrating that it is Judas’ mission to lead Jesus to the cross on which he will deliver humanity from sin, placing that sin in holy stature. In addition, Jesus’ acknowledgement of Judas as a “friend” even in the face of betrayal further indicates a lack of anger previously shown at the Last Supper.
Following his betrayal, Judas experiences regret. The Gospel According to Matthew describes his attempts at atonement:
When Judas, the betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. He said ‘I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.’ But they said, ‘What is it to us? See to it yourself.’ Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself (Mt. 27:3-5).
The use of the word “betrayer” to classify Judas aligns with Jesus’ sentiment at the communion when assuring Judas that giving him away is what he is “here to do.” Judas discovers that, although repentance is possible and encouraged, reversal of fate is not: what is meant to be inevitably will be. Judas’ painful regret complicates the Bible’s narrative of prophecy, assuring that figures may be situated in seemingly impossible, and sometimes irreparable moral positions.
After his death, Jesus assures the Apostles that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to [him]” (Mt. 28:18), serving as a reminder that, just as Genesis’ Fall of Adam and Eve acts as a precursor to the Gospels, the Gospels act as a precursor to holy life after the crucifixion of Christ. Because Jesus is a figure who is not restricted to a certain time, his actions can be understood as holy law. Through his vague parables and contradictory messages, he encourages his disciples to think for themselves and sometimes even contend his words--always with God in their hearts. Peter the Apostle is the most significant example of this in Jesus’ mortal lifetime, as he is given an impossible choice--each decision seemingly defying a certain command proclaimed by Jesus--to prove he is truly worthy to carry on Jesus’ legacy.
The complicated relationship between man and God is contextualized in Genesis, the first book of The Bible--its Greek name translating to “origin,” signifying that the events within represent the first actions ever performed by man. God tells Adam and Eve, his first creations, that everything within the Garden of Eden belongs to them “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gen 2:16-17). Though God sends the serpent to the Garden to test Adam and Eve’s faith, in his restriction are they also tempted by Him to eat the fruit, and thus do so, and are banished forever from the Garden of Eden and sent to live in the real world and form society amongst things both holy and unholy.
The introduction of the temptation of sin in Genesis raises the complicated question of the psychological relationship between God and his creations: had God not vocally forbidden the fruit to Adam and Eve and planted within his childrens’ minds the seeds of curiosity, they likely would not have been inclined to disobey him. This relationship is exemplified in the little instruction God gives when introducing them to the Garden. In saying little to nothing, God presents a contradiction: that those who follow him should cling to every word he says, but the only instruction he gives is how man should not conduct himself. So, it stands to reason that the little instruction leaves a lasting impression, for better or for worse.
Furthermore, chapter one of Genesis is often considered by Christians an account of “original sin,” but the word “sin” does not once occur in it. The story is merely a depiction of man’s necessary maturation into sophisticated life, making him a more impressive creature, and fulfilling the notion that God expressed man should exist “to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it” (Gen 1:26). God creates man to be susceptible to God’s temptation, because man could not have fulfilled his prophecy to rule over all the earth had he remained in the Garden of Eden, because he would have been unable to create community in the world. Thus, in accepting the fruit, man accepts his fate, even though he may contradictorily be seemingly rejecting it by rejecting God’s command.
The continuation of this paradox into the historical events of the New Testament acts as evidence of its holy legitimacy. The Gospel According to Matthew is the first Gospel in The Bible, and therefore first account of the life of Jesus. The use of the word “Gospel,” originally meaning “good news,” a direct translation of the Greek word “evangelion,” leaves no suspense for the reader. The torment experienced by the characters delivers itself to a Christian narrative of good news--their trajectories ultimately moving them toward holiness. Furthermore, because the Gospels do not follow the conventions of the times’ typical biography in that they are not addressed to the elite because they were at first formatted verbally and through memorization alone, they can, in their intention for vast audiences, be understood as lessons on how to correctly adhere to Jesus.
In the Gospel According to Matthew, Peter the Apostle, originally named Simon, is, from the outset, involved heavily in a narrative of existential moral conflict, his character an example of the fear associated with a submission to faith. Matthew recalls that, when Peter accompanies Jesus walking on water, “he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, ‘Lord, save me!’ Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, ‘You of little faith, why did you doubt?’” (Mt 14:28-31). Although passing a preliminary test as he is recognized as the only Apostle with enough courage to accompany Jesus on the water, it is here depicted that Peter fails Jesus’ test of faith, the fear he feels when “beginning to sink” not only an anxiety of losing mortal existence--a worry contradictory to Christianity’s fixation on the afterlife--but also a hesitation to become submerged in faith.
Jesus’ accusation of Peter as one “of little faith” evidences his recognition of Peter as mortal, and, as a result flawed. Despite this, following soon after Peter’s declaration of fear, Jesus recruits him as his most valued apostle, stating “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven...” (Mt 16:18). Because Jesus exists in the Gospel According to Matthew as an omniscient figure, knowledgeable of his future and his fate, Peter’s wavering faith comes of little surprise to him--he is cognizant of every action Peter will carry out, including verbally denying him. His ability to deny Christ makes it plausible that he will continue to live after Christ, not endangering himself by association, and thus will be able to continue his legacy on earth.
Despite his fear, Jesus still correlates Peter’s name with a holy order, stating simply “you are Peter,” a name translated to “rock” in its original Greek. Peter now holds a holiness in his name, similar to Jesus, and then Jesus declares “on this rock [he] will build [his] church,” which, when considering Peter’s double meaning, proclaims his prophecy as the cornerstone of the church--a duty he must fulfill in the place of Jesus after His death.
Christian Orthodox theologian John D. Zizioulas argues in his essay “The Early Christian Community” that church often physically symbolizes the Body of Christ, explaining that “[b]ecause the Spirit was regarded as ‘communion’ and the gifts of the Spirit by nature corporate, the era of the Spirit, in which the Christians lived as they expected the parousia, was in a profound sense the era of the church, the community of those who were incorporated as one body into Christ and prayed to God in and through--or even as--the one risen Christ” (27). With this knowledge, the stakes rise: Peter holds the keys not only to the kingdom of heaven, but to Jesus’ body and vessel to preach to the rest of the world.
Jesus’ insistence on Peter as worthy of holiness is also represented when Jesus takes Peter, James, and John onto a mountain and allows them to be privy to images of the prophets. From above, a voice declares “This is my son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!” (Mt. 17:5). Here, Jesus brings his disciples on a pilgrimage to hear specifically the message that Jesus must be listened to, declared by God the Almighty. Through its vessel, the message is confirmed as holding the utmost importance.
Upon hearing the voice of God, the disciples “fell to the ground and were overcome by fear” (Mt. 17:6). Fear indicates here both a belief in the afterlife, and a lack of trust in Jesus, as Jesus previously responds to Peter’s fear as announcing him as someone “of little faith” (Mt 14:31). The vision of God on the mountain confirms mortals’ fear of disobeying Jesus, and Jesus’ understanding of them as of wavering faith.
Directly following his announcement of kinship with Peter, Jesus complicates his message by “sternly order[ing] the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah” (Mt 16:20). In his order, Jesus has placed Peter in a seemingly impossible situation, as he has previously established denial of Christ as a mortal sin, warning that “everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven" (Mt 10:32-33). In this seemingly transparent directive, Jesus reminds his followers of his position as the son of the Lord, that he holds great authority in his communication line with the afterlife, and that his word in the matter is of great authority. Peter is placed in a position of existential torment and nobly situates himself as someone to convey that. Jesus sets up this internal moral conflict to provide Peter an impossible choice that is influenced not by Heaven or Hell, but by a necessary sacrifice in carrying out his earthly duty--the continuation of the legacy of Jesus Christ.
Examples of Jesus’ allowance for interpretation prevail throughout the Gospel. To convey his message, Jesus often speaks in parables: he tells allegorical stories to his followers in order to assist them in grasping the word of God. The parables, simple from the outset, are actually imbued with intentional vagueness. It is argued that this is for the purpose of separating those who understand (subsequently worthy), and those who do not.
Jesus explains the theory of parable: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these [good] things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants” (Mt 11:25). Jesus here explains the purpose of parable is to point out those who truly wish to be saved, as they will work through the ambiguous sayings and glean true meaning from them--true faith requires much interpretation and often contradiction.
Peter’s sacrifice is put to the test when, on the night Jesus is martyred for his cause, he informs Peter that “this very night before the cock crows, you will deny Me three times: (Mt 26:34). Jesus’ divinity allows him to foretell the future, and thus declares Peter’s actions as fact. The cock, a symbol of watchfulness and vigilance, is representative of the dire influence his decision will have on the sanctity of the holy world.
Regardless of Jesus’ warning, hours later, as Jesus stands on trial, bystanders ask Peter if he was with Jesus the Galilean, to which he denies, as an oath, three times. Directly following the third, “the cock crowed. And Peter remembered what Jesus had said: ‘Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.’ And he went out and wept bitterly” (Mt. 27:75). Peter disobeys Jesus’ legislation, and instead fulfills his prophecy. Jesus exists here as a figure who situates himself as the answer to prophecy and gives answers that are contradictory, which serves as a separate test of faith than one of a test of fear. In this situation, Peter must deny Christ to maintain Jesus’ place as all-knowing, and to spare his own life, and thus live to sustain Christianity.
Peter is placed in an impossible situation, and Jesus’ role in scripture as a figure who foretells and creates situations recontextualizes the image of Peter’s denial as one he is fated to carry out. It is described that, as Peter sits in the courtyard, the people to whom he refuses Jesus are “a servant girl” (Mt. 26:69), “another servant girl” (Mt. 26:71), and “those standing there” (Mt. 26:73). The placement of servant girls in front of Peter, people who, at the time, are ineffectual to society, is significant. The seeming insignificance of their characters seem to enable Peter to deny Jesus effortlessly.
The third occurance of Peter denying Jesus--the one that completes his acting out of Jesus’ prophecy, reduces the statement to one of even less consequence, that they go without name, without description; they are simply “those standing there.” By placing three people in front of Peter who would ask him specifically of his relationship to Jesus, the holy order ensures that his fate of denial will be fulfilled. Their characters, additionally, as people of seeming little affect, assists the ease with which this occurs, and warns that, due to the omniscient presence of God, a denial is still a denial, regardless of the audience.
Due to Jesus’ understanding of those around him, it is no surprise that his faith in Peter does not go unrecognized. In The Acts of the Apostles, the account of life after the crucifixion of Jesus, Peter fulfills Jesus’ prophecies, leading the church. He is given holy powers, evidently a descendent of Jesus. It is described that, when a lame man asks them for money, Peter declares that “‘in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and walk.’ And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong” (Acts 6-7). Jesus, believing in Peter and having thus forced him to think for himself, passes his holiness down: those who are worthy will not fail the test.
The Gospel According to Matthew further explores the complex nature of prophecy when considering the case of Judas Iscariot, the apostle who reveals the identity of Jesus to persecutors, ultimately leading to his crucifixion. Gathering with his apostles at communion, Jesus declares “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me” (Mt. 26:21). This statement, told simply and as more of an acknowledgment than a warning, asserts what is necessary, and thus inevitable. The nature of The Gospels’ inherent completion in their various narratives, (that what is told becomes true, and is, in that sense, already true), forces the characters into a cyclical sequence: when Jesus declares that one of the apostles will betray him, he has already begun to do so.
It is described earlier that, “one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, ‘What will you give me if I betray him to you?’ They paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he began to look for an opportunity to betray him” (Mt. 26:14-16). From descriptions of Peter’s betrayal, it can be assumed that, although Judas’ motivation for his betrayal is greed, as Adam and Eve’s is curiosity, and Peter’s fear, these emotions serve as mortal fronts for prophetic necessities. Had Judas not betrayed Jesus, Jesus would not have been crucified and thus martyred for the sins of man.
Jesus’ actions further infer the necessity of Judas’ sin when directly following his prediction of betrayal, “Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body” (Mt. 26:26). By offering the bread to the apostles, Jesus complicates what would typically be an event that inspires anger by nourishing and rewarding Judas with his body, a form of sacrifice born from love.
In fact, not once does Jesus express anger toward Judas. The moment of betrayal is described, as “at once [Judas] came up to Jesus and said, ‘Greetings, Rabbi!’ and kissed him. Jesus said to him, ‘Friend, do what you are here to do’” (Mt. 26:49-50). That Jesus denotes Judas’ betrayal from his kiss, with no evidence other than his prophecy to base it on, indicates awareness that prophecies will and must be completed. He argues that the betrayal is what Judas is “here to do,” demonstrating that it is Judas’ mission to lead Jesus to the cross on which he will deliver humanity from sin, placing that sin in holy stature. In addition, Jesus’ acknowledgement of Judas as a “friend” even in the face of betrayal further indicates a lack of anger previously shown at the Last Supper.
Following his betrayal, Judas experiences regret. The Gospel According to Matthew describes his attempts at atonement:
When Judas, the betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. He said ‘I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.’ But they said, ‘What is it to us? See to it yourself.’ Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself (Mt. 27:3-5).
The use of the word “betrayer” to classify Judas aligns with Jesus’ sentiment at the communion when assuring Judas that giving him away is what he is “here to do.” Judas discovers that, although repentance is possible and encouraged, reversal of fate is not: what is meant to be inevitably will be. Judas’ painful regret complicates the Bible’s narrative of prophecy, assuring that figures may be situated in seemingly impossible, and sometimes irreparable moral positions.
After his death, Jesus assures the Apostles that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to [him]” (Mt. 28:18), serving as a reminder that, just as Genesis’ Fall of Adam and Eve acts as a precursor to the Gospels, the Gospels act as a precursor to holy life after the crucifixion of Christ. Because Jesus is a figure who is not restricted to a certain time, his actions can be understood as holy law. Through his vague parables and contradictory messages, he encourages his disciples to think for themselves and sometimes even contend his words--always with God in their hearts. Peter the Apostle is the most significant example of this in Jesus’ mortal lifetime, as he is given an impossible choice--each decision seemingly defying a certain command proclaimed by Jesus--to prove he is truly worthy to carry on Jesus’ legacy.
