26-27 (Apricot Soda)

Perhaps I'm a little confused as to where the morals of this story are going. We just witnessed the devil's capacity to do good, to reward selflessness, forgive and give second chances. However, the killing of Yehudah throws me off a little bit. I finally got the hint that Pontius Pilate actually ordered the murder of Yehudah in the guise of trying to save him from being killed. The killing was supposed to compensate for Pontius Pilate's guilt of letting Yeshua be executed, which may have selfish inclinations. Matthu Levi, too, feels that he must avenge Yeshua and kill Yehudah. Also, Matthu Levi ends up commending Pontius for killing Yehudah, for after Pontius Pilate says he killed Yehudah, "Levi thought a while and then relented" (343). Before knowing that Pontius Pilate killed Yehudah, Matthu is very unaccepting of Pontius. He barely wants be around his presence because he let Yeshua be executed. But his successful vengeance makes Matthu Levi relent, almost be pleased, and therefore makes the killing seem okay. But a little before that, when Matthu Levi refuses to accept anything form Pontius Pilate, Pontius says, "I know that you consider yourself a disciple of Yeshua, but I can tell you that you did not learn anything of what he taught you. For if you had, you would surely accept something from me. Remember, he said before he died that he blamed no one" (342). He seems to claim that Yeshua's lessons have gone in vain, not only as exhibited by Matthu Levi's unwillingness to forgive, but also by his own vengeance against Yehudah. One of the great Christian lessons is to turn the other cheek when hit. This outcome of Yehudah being murdered also takes away the remorse of the original story. Judas, after Jesus' crucifixion, feels so much remorse from betraying him that he returns the money to the priest and then hanged himself. At least, in this story, Judas feels guilt for his actions, whereas in The Burial chapter, the betrayal is not on his mind as he tries to meet up with Niza. Speaking of Niza, I thought it interesting that "Niza's blue ones [eyes] now seemed black" (328). I thought of Woland's black eye, which is often described as empty or dead. It seemed that since Niza was committing this crime of betrayal, and being a part of Yehudah's murder, her normally blue eyes, became black. Because of this investigation of Woland's and his retinue's doings, it seems as though the whole of Russia will hear of these unworldly happenings, and that Woland can say, "my work here is done," for he provides evidence that he indeed exists, as we discussed was his goal for coming down to Moscow and causing trouble.
-Apricot Soda