NOTES for Mat 28:1-20
Compared with the other Gospels, Matthew’s account of the Resurrection is quite brief, and the most remarkable feature of the evangelist’s description is that here too he speaks of the lie with which people tried to surround Jesus even after His resurrection (vv. 11–15). The episode about bribing the guard appears only in Matthew; the other evangelists do not mention it. In Matthew it stands at the center of the narrative, set against another episode describing the angels’ appearance to the women who came to the tomb (vv. 1–8). A brief insertion about meeting the Risen One separates the two episodes (vv. 9–10), while a short epilogue concludes the Resurrection narrative (vv. 16–20).
This structure of the passage highlights even more clearly the contrast between the two episodes as the foundation of the plot of Matthew’s Resurrection account. This is certainly no accident: the evangelist again draws his readers’ attention to the confrontation between the Kingdom and those who reject it. Apparently, it did not cease even after Jesus’ resurrection. One might think the victory had been won and a new age had begun, the age of the approaching Kingdom. But those who reject the Kingdom seem not to notice the change. Most likely, they truly do not notice it, because one can see the Kingdom only when one wants to.
This is not a matter of imagination, but of the fact that one cannot see the Kingdom without accepting the One who brought it into the world, and one must want to accept Him. It was the same during the Savior’s earthly ministry: He imposed neither Himself nor His messiahship nor the Kingdom on anyone. He revealed Himself and opened the way into the Kingdom only to those who wanted it. Nothing has changed today: the way is open to everyone but imposed on no one. Therefore, those who do not want the Kingdom do not see it. In Jesus they see neither the Messiah-Christ nor the Son of God, but at best a teacher of morality, and at worst a deceiver who passed Himself off as the Messiah. The latter view, although more offensive, is at least more honest: Jesus Himself never tried to pass Himself off as any kind of teacher of morality. He spoke in such a way that He could either be accepted as He is or rejected with indignation, as many of the Pharisees rejected Him.
The compromise of calling Him a “teacher of morality” will not work. Sooner or later, every reader of the Gospel will still have to choose between the two explanations offered by the evangelist. Everyone who met Jesus during His earthly ministry faced this choice, and it remains the same today.