Often called the “Garden of,” the Greek word Γεθσημανί is a transliteration of גַּת שְׁמָנֵי, meaning “oil press.” The location is on the Mount of Olives. Presumably, Gethsemane was an olive orchard owned by a supporter of Jesus who allowed Jesus and his followers to stay there rather than return to Bethany. John 18:1 calls it a garden (κῆπος, a word which can refer to an enclosure), and the disciples “enter” it, implying it had a short wall marking out the boundaries of this particular orchard.
There are at least four possible sites; the most popular is the Church of All-Nations (constructed in 1919-1924, maintained by the Franciscans). The church has a small olive garden, and inside the church is the traditional “agony stone.” Early visitors reported a church at the location in the late fourth century. There was a crusader church until 1345 (Schnabel, Jesus in Jerusalem, 116).
In 2020, archaeologists discovered a Jewish mikveh while excavating a tunnel under the byzantine church. A mikveh is a pool used for ceremonial washing in the Second Temple period. This is the first archaeological evidence from the Second Temple period at Gethsemane. In the first century, Jewish workers producing wine or olive oil needed to be ceremonially clean, so if there was an olive press there, it is not surprising there was a mikveh.
Church of All Nations
The primary competing traditional location of the betrayal of Jesus is the Grotto of the Agony, near the Tomb of Mary on the Mount of Olives. The Book of John about the Dormition of Mary (a sermon written by John, Archbishop of Thessalonica in the seventh century) implies her tomb was in Gethsemane. Franciscans purchased the cave in the seventeenth century, but the Eastern Orthodox Christians continued to use the cave until 1919. The site is today maintained by the Franciscans. The cave may have had an olive press (although nothing remains). The cave would be large enough for Jesus and some disciples to get out of the weather (33 feet deep, 62 feet wide).
Joan Taylor, “The Garden of Gethsemane Not the Place of Jesus’ Arrest” BAR 21 (1995): 26–35. Taylor argues, “Jesus was arrested not at the traditional Garden of Gethsemane adjacent to the Church of All Nations but rather in the cave of Gethsemane (on the way to the Tomb of the Virgin Mary).”
Image Credit SPQR10 (derivative version). – Derivative work from the 1914 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, a publication now in the Public Domain., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=94596868
It is best to agree with Davies and Allision, “Traditional and modern proposals (e.g., the Grotto of the Agony) are guesses” (Matthew, 3:494).
Peter’s betrayal is one of the most disturbing moments in the events leading up to Jesus’s crucifixion. In Matthew 26:31-35 Jesus predicts, in the next few hours, all the disciples will leave him, and Peter himself will deny him three times.
After the Last Supper, Jesus and his disciples return to the Mount of Olives. Before the arrive at the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus predicts all the disciples will fall away, fulfilling the words of Zechariah 13:7.
In Zechariah 13:7, the Lord of Hosts commands a sword to strike “my shepherd,” when the shepherd is struck the sheep scatter and then “I will turn my hands against the “little ones.” The next few verses describe the little ones as tested in the fire and refined, resulting the declaration “they are my people.” In the original context, the little ones are the remnant of Israel who will suffer in the exile (only a third will survive), but in the coming eschatological age (Zech 14) they will be God’s refined-by-fire righteous remnant. If Jesus intends us to hear echoes of the whole context of Zechariah 13, then the little ones are Jesus’s disciples (cf. 25:40, 45), and the testing is the next few hours and days.
Throughout the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus has warned his disciples about the danger of falling away, or stumbling” throughout Matthew. The ESV translates a future passive form of σκανδαλίζω (skandalizō) as “fall away.” In Matthew, it usually means something like “cause to sin” (Matt 5:29), in Matthew 18:6, “whoever causes a little on to sin,” and in 18:15-20 brothers who cause other brothers to sin.
But Jesus also tells them that he will be raised up, and that he will go back to Galilee before them (26:32). This anticipates the resurrection and the great commission (Matt 28:18-20).
Peter, however, disagrees with Jesus. Even if the other disciples fall away, Peter boldly claims he will never fall away. Jesus simply declares that by dawn, Peter will deny him three times, but Peter restates his resolve: even if he must die with him, he will not deny Jesus!
Robert Gundry recently analyzed every appearance of Peter in the Gospel of Matthew and argued that Matthew edited Mark’s narrative to present Peter as an example of a disciple who was very close to Jesus but ultimately failed to follow through on his commitment to Jesus. In the end, Peter is left “outside in the darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Although Gundry did not convince many readers Peter was a “false disciple and apostate,” Matthew certainly presents Peter as the most faithful disciple who boldly declares his loyalty before abandoning his master.
“Before the rooster crows” simply implies dawn. It is likely Caiaphas questions Jesus in the courtyard of his home, and Peter is nearby when he denies Jesus three times. According to the Mishnah, priests did not keep chickens in Jerusalem (perhaps because they might dig up unclean things when the scratch).
m. B. Qamma 7:7 C–D They do not rear chickens in Jerusalem, on account of the Holy Things, nor do priests [rear chickens] anywhere in the Land of Israel, because of the [necessity to preserve] the cleanness [of heave offering and certain other foods which are handed over to the priests].
It is possible this statement in the Mishnah (written about AD 250) reflects an ideal situation and priests did keep chickens in Jerusalem. But it is more likely that “when the rooster crows” is a proverbial way of saying “really early in the morning,” right around dawn. For example, If I get up at 4AM, I might say I was “up with the chickens” even though I do not own chickens.
Although we usually describe Peter as denying Jesus, and Judas as betraying Jesus, Peter’s denial just a few hours later is shocking after this bold declaration. But before dawn of that day, all the disciples will scatter like lost sheep and Peter will have denied Jesus three times.
Miller, Timothy E. and Bryan Murawski. 1 Peter. A Commentary for Biblical Preaching and Teaching. Kerux Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Ministry, 2022. 294 pp. Hb. $32.99 Link to Kregel Ministry
Timothy Miller (Ph.D. in historical theology from Westminster Theological Seminary) has independently published Translating First Peter Clause by Clause, The Triune God of Unity in Diversity (Reformed Academic Dissertations, P&R, 2017), and Echoes of Jesus in the First Epistle of Peter (Ph.D dissertation, MBTS, Pickwick, 2022). Bryan Murawski (PhD, Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary) serves as an Associate Professor at Cairn University and served in pastoral ministry for more than fifteen years. His Preaching Difficult Texts of the Old Testament was published by Hendrickson (2021). He maintains a website, Preaching Difficult Texts.
In the fifteen-page introduction, Miller and Murawski argue for the traditional view that 1 Peter was written by the apostle Peter, from Rome. Since Nero executed Peter, the book was written some time before AD 68. They present the usual objections to these views with brief responses. 1 Peter 5:13 states the writer is in Babylon, which they (rightly) understand as a common metaphor for Rome in Second Temple period Jewish literature.
For a commentary on 1 Peter, the recipients of the letter are a matter of some debate. Based on the first verse of the letter, the readers are “elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (ESV). A minority of commentaries interpret “elect exiles of the Dispersion” literally. The readers are Jewish Christians living in five Roman provinces in Asia Minor. Miller and Murawski suggest the evidence “leans in favor of” the traditional view that “elect exiles of the Dispersion” is a metaphor for Gentile Christian believers. “1 Peter 1:1 is a rich metaphorical element, not a literal diaspora like James. This is a “dispersion away from one’s spiritual homeland” (33). Although some Jews may be in the audience, the readers are “primarily Gentiles.”
The introduction includes several pages of historical background that set 1 Peter in the final years of Nero’s reign. 1 Peter has a great deal to say about persecution, so the immediate background of the letter is Nero’s persecution of Christians after the Great Fire. The problem with this view is that Peter is not addressing Roman Christians, but Christians living in Asia Minor. Nero’s persecution was not empire-wide, and there is little evidence for persecution of Christians in the regions addressed in the middle of the first century. The authors argue that 1 Peter’s readers were in danger because of recent events in Rome and Judea. Although there may not be direct persecution in their region at the moment, the readers “are not immune to the effects of persecution elsewhere” (35). Karen Jobes, for example, argues that the readers are strangers and aliens because they have recently been exiled (such as Jews expelled from Rome by Claudius). Although they say this argument should not be dismissed lightly, they understand “strangers and aliens” as a figure of speech. Christians are like Abraham, a “stranger in a strange land.”
Another key historical issue for 1 Peter is the Imperial Cult. Following Paul Achtemeier’s 1996 Hermeneia commentary on 1 Peter, Miller and Murawski suggest the imperial cult contributed to the social cohesion of the region. Because they did not take part in the imperial cult, Christians found themselves as outsiders. This may explain the social persecution implied by the book. By rejecting the imperial cult, Christians threatened the social unity of the region. “Things could turn from social mockery to civil accusation quickly” (37). Peter wrote to encourage believers to stand firm in the true grace of God in the face of increasing persecution (1 Peter 5:12).
In the last section of the introduction, Miller and Murawski summarize the theology of 1 Peter. The book emphasizes God’s election and sovereignty in history, suffering as following in the footsteps of Jesus, the suffering servant, and holiness as a work of the Holy Spirit. The elect exiles are the people of God, and as such, they ought to reflect God in the place they are. The introduction also includes an excellent section on the sources for 1 Peter. First, the letter has extensive quotations and allusions to the Old Testament, perhaps as many as forty. The writer has a fondness for Isaiah and Psalm 34. A second source is the words of Christ. Building on his recent dissertation, Miller suggests a series of allusions or echoes to the Jesus tradition. Both sources are helpfully summarized in two charts.
The authors divide 1 Peter into twenty preaching units (including the introduction and conclusion, 1:1-2 and 5:6-14). Each unit begins with a summary of the exegetical idea, theological focus, preaching idea, and preaching pointers. After a brief paragraph on the literary structure and themes of the unit, Miller provides an exposition of the Greek text. Greek appears without transliteration, but most syntactical notes appear in the footnotes. There are occasional in-text citations to other commentaries, but for the most part, Miller is not heavily dependent on other commentaries. Often, he compares modern translations, explaining the reasons for these decisions, both grammatical and syntactical.
Following the exposition is a brief paragraph or two summarizing the theological focus of the section. This serves as an introduction to the preaching and teaching strategies. Murawski offers some synthesis and repeats the preaching idea. There are three sections (What does it mean? Is it true? Now what?) which attempt to draw contemporary connections from the text of 1 Peter to modern congregations. Finally, he offers a section entitled Creativity in Presentation. These are illustrations or pointers to additional resources to help pastors present this material to their congregations. Usually, these pointers descend into a list of pop culture references, but Murawski does not do this. Several times, he offers advice based on his own experience preaching through 1 Peter. He also provides several short outlines, which will serve a busy pastor well.
One of the more difficult problems when teaching through 1 Peter is the meaning of 1 Peter 3:18-22. Miller provides a three-page sidebar on this unusual passage and a second, almost full-page sidebar on 1 Enoch. After a chart borrowed from Patrick Schreiner (posted on Twitter!), Miller compares and contrasts five different views of what Jesus did and where he went (the “spirits in prison). Miller concludes that Jesus entered a place of judgment to proclaim a message of victory over his enemies, but those enemies are fallen angels. It was not a message of salvation, and there was no chance for these fallen angels to repent. He suggests the readers would be familiar with the idea of a place of judgment for fallen angels based on 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and Jubilees. I agree. But I would suggest that no Gentile in Asia Minor would read a Jewish apocalyptic book like 1 Enoch, etc. Like “elect exiles of the Dispersion,” I see this as evidence that the readers were primarily Jewish Christians.
The commentary includes a series of sidebars on theological, historical, and cultural details. For example, “Israel and the church,” “the spirit of Christ and scripture,” “milk analogies in the New Testament,” “Isaiah 53 in the New Testament,” and “using apocryphal texts in a sermon.” This last example is excellent. Since 1 Enoch is not a canonical text, some congregations may be uncomfortable if a teacher or preacher implies it has influenced Peter. Murawski draws an analogy to Mere Christianity, a book that is not inspired but is helpful (and has influenced generations of preachers and teachers!). He also suggests references to apocryphal texts like 1 Enoch should be used sparingly. “Too much pepper on a steak can ruin a whole meal” (227).
Each preaching unit concludes with a few discussion questions.
Conclusion. Miller and Murawski’s commentary on 1 Peter achieves the goals of the Kerux series: solid exegesis and preaching strategies for the busy pastor. I noticed several subtle differences between this commentary and earlier contributions to the series. First, the footnotes in this volume are robust. Miller has provided excellent pointers to scholarly resources for interested readers. Second, the sidebars in this volume seem more substantial than those in previous Kerux volumes. That might be my subjective impression, but I found myself flipping through the commentary, reading all the sidebars first. Third, unlike earlier Kerux volumes, there are no boxes in the expositional section for translation, syntax, and grammatical issues. Sometimes these were labeled “word study.” Miller covers these issues in the commentary’s body, but they are no longer separated from the main text with a different font, etc. I think this is an improvement and makes the commentary more readable.
Some of the details we are familiar with are not found in this version. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 is the earliest written version of the Lord’s Supper (or Communion, or Eucharist), Luke 22:19-23 has similar words focusing on the bread and wine. What is important about 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 is that Paul uses the words “on the night he was betrayed” and all three synoptic gospels include the prediction of betrayal as part of the meal.
There were many other parts of a Passover meal which Jesus does not reinterpret as anticipating his death. Jesus does not comment on eating lamb or the bitter herbs, etc. All of this is completely familiar to a Jewish reader, in the same way an American does not need to explain to Americans the food on the table at a thanksgiving meal (everyone knows: turkey, mashed potatoes and stuffing, cranberry sauce, that weird sweet potato dish with the marshmallows, etc.) Matthew only includes the elements of the meal Jesus uses to explain the kind of death he was about to die, the two elements which become part of Christian worship practice in the earliest Christian communities.
The bread is his body (26:26). Remember this is unleavened bread, Jesus broke (κλάω) the bread. The verb s only used for breaking bread in the New Testament (Matt 14:19, 15:26, the two feeding miracles and this passage). As in English, “break bread” can refer to eating a meal (Acts 20:7, 11, although this arguably could be a communion). In classical Greek the verb is used for breaking branches (‘snap” for example, BrillDAG).
In Deuteronomy 16:3, the unleavened bread was called “bread of affliction.” If the bread is unleavened, then breaking the bread is a visual analogy to what is about to happen to Jesus’s body. Although his bones are not broken, his body will be beaten and abused. Nolland (and others) suggest sharing the bread occurred during a question an answer part of the Passover meal based on Exodus 12:26-27. By sharing the bread, Jewish families were demonstrating that they were part of the community that was redeemed from slavery in Egypt by the blood of the lamb (Matthew, 1075). They are looking back to the salvation event of the Old Testament, when God imitated a covenant with his people.
The cup is the blood of the covenant (26:27-28). During the Passover meal, there were four cups of wine associated with stages in the meal. Most scholars think this is the third cup, the cup of blessing. It came after the meal and the father pronounced a blessing on the cup (as Jesus does in verse 27).
Sharing a cup of wine is unusual for a Passover meal. Each person has their own cup to drink from when the blessing is offered. Think of the way protestants do communion. Everyone gets their own mini-cup rather than sharing a single cup of wine. This may be logistical, sharing a single cup among 500 people is not practical. In this case, the sharing may indicate the covenant Jesus is inaugurate is for all the disciples equally. We often make the point that sharing the bread and the cup is a sign of Christian unity, based on 1 Corinthians 11.
Matthew does not include the word “new” (1 Cor 11:25; Luke 22:20). In the King James Version, the words “new testament” appear, but the word “new” is likely not part of Matthew’s original text. It was added by later scribes who knew the communion liturgy from 1 Corinthians 11:25 or Luke 22:20. The word “testament” is a translation of the Greek word διαθήκη, now commonly translated as “covenant” because “testament” does not mean the same thing as covenant in contemporary English.
Matthew describes the blood as “poured out for many” and adds the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 14:24).Blood “poured out” (ἐκχέω) can refer to a violent death (Gen 9:6, referring to murder; the blood of the martyrs is “poured out” Matt 23:35; Acts 22:20, Stephen), so “poured out” may evoke Jesus’s physical death on the cross. But the word is used in the Septuagint in the context of sacrifice (Lev 4:7, for example). The word is commonly associated with drink offerings, pouring out a little bit of wine on an altar (Sirach 50:15, the high priest Simon son of Onias poured out the “blood of the grape” on the altar and made a pleasing odor to the Most High).
In LXX Exodus 24:6 Moses sprinkled (imperfect of ἐκχέω) blood on the altar when he read the book of the Covenant to the people. This is a very important Old Testament text for the last supper since God is inaugurating the original (old) covenant with blood, and seventy elders go up the mountain, see God’s glory and “ate and drank” (24:11). A covenant is usually established with a sacrifice and a shared meal (eating and drinking, almost always wine). Both Mark and Luke understand Jesus’s death as providing forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77), but Matthew makes the connection between the sacrifice that Jesus is about to make and the forgiveness of sins.
Finally, Jesus predicts he will not drink the fruit of the vine again until he drinks new wine with the disciples in his Father’s kingdom (26:29). The point here is that the breaking of the body and the shedding of blood is in the very near future. Jesus is about to pour out his blood to inaugurate the new covenant.
But the idea of drinking wine in the kingdom of God evokes the eschatological banquet (Isa 25:6-8). The parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matt 25:1-13) describes the soon-coming kingdom of God as like a wedding banquet as doe the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-12).
The other way the Old Testament described the banquet at the beginning of the kingdom is a victory banquet, Psalm 23:4-5, the Lord makes a victory banquet in the presence of the anointed one’s enemies. Revelation 19 calls the utter devastation of the enemies of God the “marriage supper of the lamb” (and then calls on the birds to come consume the corpses).
They sing a final hymn and return to the Mount of Olives for the night. What was that last hymn? Likely one of the Hallel psalms (113-118). On the way, Jesus predicts Peter too will betray Jesus.
During the meal Christians traditionally call the last supper, Jesus announces that one of the disciples will betray him. Many other things would have been said and done that evening, but Matthew is only interested in the prediction of betrayal and the bread and wine. Matthew has already told his readers Judas approached the chief priests to betray Jesus. Jesus’s response to his anointing at Bethany may have prompted Judas to make this offer, but it is not clear what motivated Judas’s betrayal of Jesus.
The ESV properly translates the verb ἀνάκειμαι, “recline.” They are not sitting on chairs at a table (like the DaVinci painting). But they would be sitting on the outside of a u-shaped set of low tables (so that part of the painting is not bad). This arrangement allows for conversation during the meal.
When Jesus announces one of the disciples will betray him, they are all upset, and they all wondered if they were the betrayer (Matthew 26:20-22). The disciples have been “sorrowful” before in Matthew. In Matthew 17:23, when Jesus predicted his crucifixion, the disciples were “very sorrowful.”
In fact, Jesus says “Woe to the betrayer!” (26:24). Woe introduces a bad situation for someone. Jesus pronounced “woe” in several condemnations of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:13-29. There are several examples of people who are “better to not be born.” Job, for example, cursed the day he was born (Job 3:3). In 1 Enoch 38:2, sinners are “better off never born” since they end up in a place of torment.
If the title Son of Man is based on Daniel 7:14, then it is remarkable that anyone would (or could) betray the Son of Man. No one in the first century would imagine the Danielic Son of Man failing at his mission to judge the nations because someone betrayed him.
Jesus gives a sign: the one who has dipped his hand in the dish with him will be the betrayer (26:23). Judas seems to confirm this sign (26:25). But they all were sharing food, so how is this sign helpful? It is not appropriate to use a modern Seder and try to find a particular moment when Jesus said this. John Nolland suggests this is the appetizer stage of the meal (Matthew, 1066). Was Jesus sharing a bowl of hummus with Judas? The verb ἐμβάπτω is an aorist participle, suggesting the dipping is over and now Jesus is pointing out that it was a sign to the betrayer. But later, he points out that prior to sharing the unleavened bread, the lettuce or green herbs were dipped into a sauce “with which the words about the betrayal are associated” (Matthew, 1074).
Judas directly asks Jesus if he is the betrayer, using the title “rabbi” for Jesus. When the other disciples asked, they said “Lord.” Is this an indication Judas does not acknowledge Jesus as Lord? When Judas approaches Jesus in the Gethsemane, he will also call him rabbi. The title is not necessarily cold, nor does it indicate a lack of faith in Jesus. But Matthew presents the other disciples as calling Jesus Lord, and they too will flee and deny Jesus.
Writing many years after the event, John says Jesus dips a morsel of bread and hands it to Judas. When Judas took the bread “Satan entered him” (John 13:26-30). Then Jesus tells him to do what he is about to do quickly, and he goes off into the darkness. John comments that the disciples do not know why Judas left, thinking Jesus tasked him with giving a gift to the poor since he was the “keeper of the moneybag.” John wrote as an eyewitness many years after Judas’s betrayal and explain why Judas betrayed Jesus: Jesus told him to!
Jesus’s response is “you have said so” seems ambiguous. Sometimes this is interpreted as the English phrase “you said it,” implying agreement. When the high priest asks him directly if he is the Messiah, Jesus will similarly respond “you have said so.” In that case the high priest understands the response as agreement, Jesus has blasphemed! So here, Jesus’s ambiguous response to Judas is an agreement that Judas is the betrayer.
