Matthew 26
BolesMatthew 26:1-13
- OF HIS ;
FEAST IN SIMON’S HOUSE
1-5 When Jesus had finished all these words.—“When Jesus had finished all these words,” those recorded in chapters twenty-four and twenty-five; they were spoken toward evening on the Mount of Olives overlooking Jerusalem, while on the way from Jerusalem to Bethany. This was “two days” before “the Passover”; it was near the close of the last week of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Jesus announced again the very near approach of his crucifixion; it was so near that he expressed it in the present tense, “the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified.” The Passover was the greatest annual feast of the Jews. (See Exodus 12.) It was celebrated on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, the first month of the Jewish year. The Passover, properly speaking, lasted one day, but it was followed with the feast of unleavened bread which lasted seven days; because of the close connection of these two feasts, they were given the one name; the Passover was sometimes spoken of as the feast of unleavened bread. (Numbers 28:16-25.) The public teaching of Jesus has now been completed , he tells plainly the time of his crucifixion, and Matthew now records the events which belong to the crucifixion.
Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people.—“The chief priests” were the heads of the twenty-four courses of priests who served in the temple by turn, but who would be likely to be present at the great Passover Feast. The Sanhedrin alone had the power to try offenders against religion. The raising of Lazarus in Bethany (John 11:47-48) and the rebukes which Jesus had given them in the presence of the people (Matthew 21:45) caused this session. They assembled in “the court of the high priest.” “The high priest” began with Aaron in the priesthood and had gone on by succession with great regularity until some outrages had changed the order. The high priest was judge of all the cases of offense against religion, and exercised great power in the political history of the people. The Roman government had interfered with the succession of high priests because they exercised such political influence over the people.
The high priest was president of the Sanhedrin. “The court” of the high priest corresponded to the palace of the king; sometimes an inner court was covered and seats placed around three sides, while the fourth side could be separated from the first court; the reception room where the Sanhedrin usually met before going into official session was termed a court, but it was as private as any place, for no one was privileged to meet there except those who belonged to the Sanhedrin. At this time Caiaphas was serving as high priest.
The assembly was called to take “counsel together that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him.” Here is where the plot was laid and developed for the crucifixion of Jesus. They sought by stratagem, by guile, by some snare, to accomplish their end secretly, without any public arrest of Jesus. Caiaphas, who was serving as high priest, was son-in-law of Annas; he was made high priest A.D. 26 and held the office till A.D. 35. Annas had been deposed by Roman authority and his son-in-law Caiaphas had been exalted to the position. It was the decision of the Sanhedrin in this formal assembly that they would not destroy Jesus “during the feast, lest a tumult arise among the people.” People had come to the feast from every nation where the Jews had been scattered; many of the people regarded Jesus as a prophet and some as the Messiah. The Sanhedrin had seen that the people were on the side of Jesus, hence they did not wish to excite further prejudice in his favor; so their decision was to wait until after the Feast of the Passover and the people had dispersed from Jerusalem before they would put Jesus to death.
God overruled and the hour arrived and Jesus was crucified at the Passover. It was customary with the Roman rulers to select the Passover as the best occasion of the execution of criminals when the large multitude was present.
The sight was calculated to impress the public mind and thus show the authority of the Roman government. The Jewish leaders did not want to be responsible for “a tumult” among the people, but they were willing to crucify their Messiah. How inconsistent!
6-13 Now when Jesus was in Bethany.—The time of this feast is not definitely known; some think that it should come in chronological order between chapters twenty and twenty-one. (Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-11.) Matthew and Mark go back, as is frequently done by historians, so what occurred three days before, because it explains in part the treason of Judas, which culminates at this time in his offering to betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. This helps the Jewish rulers to decide on what plan to take for gaining possession of Jesus and bringing him to trial; hence, the supper at Simon’s house in Bethany is placed by Matthew between verses five and fourteen of this chapter as the logical connection between the two.
Simon the leper.—He had been a leper and had been cured; the law forbade a leper to mingle with the people (Leviticus 13:45-46); for this reason we conclude that Simon had been cured. Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead, was at the supper; the woman who came with “an alabaster cruse of exceeding precious ointment” was Mary, the sister of Lazarus Martha, the other sister of Lazarus, served; this proves that they were neighbors to Simon, and may have been kinspeople. “Alabaster” was a very valuable marble or gypsum and was sometimes called onyx. It was filled with “precious ointment” which Mary poured “upon his head, as he sat at meat.” The ointment was of spikenard and was very costly; sometimes it is called “nard” and is said to have been extracted from the root or bark of the “spikenard.” It had an exquisiteness of fragrance and softness. Mary disregarded the cost in her great love for Jesus. It was usual with the Jews to anoint the head and other parts of the body with perfumed oils to render the skin pliable and soft. (Matthew 6:17-18.) Some have estimated the cost of this to have been $300 to $400. It was poured not only upon his head, but also upon his feet. No common deed could tell him how deep was her gratitude, how strong her desire to honor him, how loving her sympathy, how great was her faith in him, as the Messiah, the Redeemer of the world.
But when the disciples saw it, they had indignation.—John tells us that Judas Iscariot was the leader and the mouthpiece of the indignation against Mary. It will be noted that Matthew does not hesitate to record this fault and complaint which the apostles made against so honoring Jesus. Their complaint was registered by their saying, “To what purpose is this waste?” They could see no use in wasting so much as the price of this box of ointment; to them it was a useless squandering of what could have been used to a better purpose. Judas wanted it sold and the price put in the treasury so he could steal it. (John 12:6.) Judas was insincere in his complaint, but very likely the other apostles who joined him in the “indignation” were sincere. It was suggested that it could have been sold “for three hundred shillings, and given to the poor”; its value was two and a half times greater than the thirty pieces of silver that Judas received for betraying his Lord. Again we see portrayed in Judas an inconsistency; he is arguing for the poor, but plotting to betray the Son of God!
When Jesus heard what was said he asked, “Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.” Mary may have been troubled by the murmur against her among Jesus’ own disciples; she stood in silence attempting no defense; but the voice of Jesus, whom she loved, was raised in her defense and rebuked those who had become indignant. Jesus praised her work. “Good work” here implies more than what is ordinarily expressed by “good”; it means noble or honorable work. It was the act of a noble soul expressing a noble deed. It was a work of love which was done, pure desire to honor Jesus. Jesus in rebuking his disciples said, “Ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.” Mark adds, “Whensoever ye will ye can do them good.” (Mark 14:7.) Jesus would not remain long with them; in fact, only two or three days would he be with them. His disciples would have plenty of time and opportunities to aid the poor; the more that they helped the poor in the name of Christ the greater blessings they would receive.
The opportunity of making such expressions of love directly to Jesus would not occur again; hereafter they could through all generations express it in gifts only to his poor. Jesus added that Mary had done this “to prepare me for burial.” We do not know whether Mary had this in mind when she anointed.
Jesus, but Jesus gave to her act this interpretation. In ancient times it was usual to embalm bodies with costly spices and perfumes. (John 19:39-40.) So Mary’s act anticipated this usage. Jesus then pronounced this, “Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.” “This gospel” is an abridged form of “the gospel of the kingdom”; it is the gospel which later he commanded to be preached in all the world. (Mark 16:15.) Frequently people do things with not the slightest intention of their deeds becoming memorial this was true with Mary at this time, but Jesus has memorialized this act and wherever the full gospel of Jesus has been preached, reference to what this good woman did for Jesus has been made. The very thing which caused indignation among his disciples has become a memorial of love and service to him; the disciples condemned the act, but Jesus has honored and blessed it. This story of Mary’s good work has been told in every known tongue, and is now being related in more than 350 languages to every great nation on earth. Mary, like Abel, though “being dead yet speaketh.” (Hebrews 11:4.)
Matthew 26:14-25
- BARGAIN OF JUDAS;
THE LAST SUPPER
Records of this are found in Mark 14:10-11 and Luke 22:1-5. “Then one of the twelve,” Judas Iscariot; he was angry at the rebuke that Jesus had given for objecting to Mary’s using the precious ointment; his hate, avarice, and fears urged him to immediate action. Luke says that “Satan entered into Judas.” Matthew does not record any epithet or accusation against Judas for the crime that he committed. He “went unto the chief priests” and offered to make a bargain with them; he went with those who were conspiring against Jesus. Luke adds “captains”; these were the leaders of a guard of priests and Levites whose duty was to protect the temple and the sacred rites from being interrupted by riotous persons; they were at the command of the chief priests for such a work as this. Judas left the company of the disciples on the evening of the first day of unleavened bread, when it was usual for pious Jews to put away all leaven from out of their houses. In his heart was “the leaven of malice and wickedness.” (1 Corinthians 5:8.)
Judas made the proposition to the chief priests and captains to deliver Jesus to them; they did not first tempt him, but the evil originated in his own heart. “What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you?” Luke tells us that “they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.” (Luke 22:5.) They made an agreement with him that he should inform them of the place where Jesus spent his evenings, that they might take him secretly; otherwise they would have searched for him in vain in the crowded city. The word “covenanted” has the force of putting forth money; they promptly “weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver.” Probably thirty shekels, or about fifteen dollars of our money; this was the price of a common slave. (Exodus 21:32.) This comported well with their hypocrisy and hatred, to fix the price of the Son of God as the price of a slave! The price fulfilled a prophecy. (Zechariah 11:12.) Judas now driven by the fire of hasty resentment, and led by the attractions of gain to seek a bribe for treason, “sought opportunity to deliver him unto them.” The opportunity that he sought was the absence of the multitude; the people were so strongly on the side of Jesus that the authorities were afraid to tak him openly; their method was to take him secretly, charge him with some crime, and thus gain the multitude against him. The convenient season for the treachery of Judas was soon to come. The very men who took advantage of the treachery of Judas despised him, and spoke the most cutting words to him, as one having in his hands “the price of blood.” After Judas had left the disciples, Jesus continued his converation with them as is recorded in John 13:31 to John 15.
17-19 Now on the first day of unleavened bread.—Parallel records are found in Mark 14:12-16 and Luke 22:7-13. “The first day of unleavened bread” was the day of preparation for the Passover Feast. There were eight days of unleavened bread. The first was the fourteenth of the month Nisan, which, on this occasion, we are told, came on March 25. The Jews were not required to remove all leaven, which with them was simply sour dough, used in baking bread, from their houses, until evening, when the lamb was killed; but to avoid all danger of offense, they began to purge their houses from attic to cellar, by the light of day, with care and precaution somewhat akin to superstition. We have no record of what Jesus and nine of his disciples did during this day, Thursday. Peter and John were sent into the city to make preparation for the Passover, and Judas was conniving with the enemies of Jesus; probably Jesus remained in Bethany with the nine disciples until time to eat the passover Thursday evening.
They had asked Jesus, “Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover?” Jesus commanded Peter and John to “go into the city,” which was Jerusalem. The paschal lamb could be eaten nowhere else.
Peter and John had asked the question where, that is, at what place in Jerusalem, would they eat the passover. This was asked early that morning. It required two to convey the lamb to the temple and to witness to the priest the number who were to eat it. Jesus sent Peter and John to find the particular man, “bearing a pitcher,” who was probably a disciple. This caution may have been used to prevent Judas molesting the company. He could not, if he were present, determine just what place Jesus would eat the passover with his disciples. They were to address this man and tell him that “the Teacher” or Master requested that he “keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.” It was usual for the people of Jerusalem during this great feast to open their houses to strangers who came to the city to keep the feast.
The day was spent by Peter and John in executing this command. After finding the man, and seeing the rooms, they had to buy the lamb, carry it to the temple, and have it killed there, and the blood sprinkled in the name of a paschal lamb or a passover for thirteen people. Judas was necessarily included, because if he had offered to withdraw, it must have been done before Peter and John left, and that would excite suspicion; or if he had already left the company, before Peter and John, he would likely return and eat the passover with Jesus and the other apostles. After killing the lamb they would carry it to the place where it was to be eaten, get the bread and wine ready, and the bitter herbs, and any other things necessary for the feast. According to Josephus, the lamb could not have been slain until after the evening sacrifice at 3:00 P.M., so that they would be occupied until evening; Josephus also informs us that no paschal lamb could be killed for any company fewer than ten nor more than twenty. “My time is at hand”; the time of his betrayal to the Jews had arrived; his disciples did not comprehend this statement. It seems that Jesus and his disciples ate the passover on Thursday evening, while the priests delayed their supper till the following day. (John 18:28.)
There was a latitude of time allowed by the Jews for the eating of the passover. The lamb was to be slain at the temple, with certain words and rites; it was slain before the setting of the sun on setting of the sun on Thursday and might be eaten at any time after dark and before the next morning. (Exodus 12:8-10.) One might postpone eating it until a late hour; but much was to be done that night, and Jesus chose the earliest hour which the law required. The Jews fixed the time of the new moon by its appearance; but between the apparent and real age of the moon, as the latter would be marked by astronomical calculations, there was the difference of a day. Matthew, Mark, and Luke made it clear that Thursday was a proper day for the Passover, while John as clearly shows that the Pharisees kept this feast on the following day. (John 19:14-31.) Peter and John were faithful in carrying out the command and made ready the passover. They procured, examined, killed, and roasted the lamb, searched for leaven in order for its removal, procured water and wine, and prepared all things necessary for the paschal supper.
20-25 Now when even was come.—The Passover evening had arrived, and Jesus and his disciples went from Bethany to Jerusalem; the lamb was killed between “the evenings,” that is, between 3:00 P.M. and sunset. (Exodus 12:6.) It could be eaten at any hour of that night. (Exodus 12:8.) The first passover was eaten while standing, with loins girded, feet shod, ready to go on a journey. (Exodus 12:11.) But Jesus and his disciples were “sitting at meat,” or reclined, as no journey was to be made at this time. After the children of Israel had settled in the promised land, they adopted the custom of reclining while eating the passover. If Jesus and his disciples that night followed the customs of the Jews, they were reclined on their meal couches, took a cup of wine in the right hand, and uttered the prayer of consecration, saying, “Blessed be thy name, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast created the fruit of the vine.” “And as they were eating,” John says that Jesus “was troubled in the spirit, and testified.” His human nature began to be overwhelmed with the increasing weight of the awful suffering which he was to endure; the first part of his sorrow was the sin of Judas, whom he now convicts openly of his crime. His disciples could not understand his suffering and did not suspect that he would be delivered up by one of their number. It was a surprise to them when Jesus announced “that one of you shall betray me.” The record is clear that Jesus sat at meat “with the twelve disciples”; this included Judas. Judas could not be absent, as it was impossible for him after the lamb was killed at the temple to transfer his name to another company he was obliged, therefore, to violate every obligation, human and divine, to achieve his guilty purpose. Judas went from this sacred feast to the enemies of Christ. (Psalms 41:9; John 13:18.)
When Jesus announced that one of the twelve would betray him, they were exceedingly sorrowful and began “to say unto him every one, Is it I, Lord?” They were amazed, grieved, and doubtful; they did not understand his statement, neither could they understand why he should so mar or disturb the Passover Feast with such an accusation against them; so they anxiously inquired, each for himself, “Is it I?” Jesus gave an answer by saying, “He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.” Jesus saw the disciples grieved and agitated by his announcement and gave indication as to who would be the traitor; he makes a sign by which the traitor shall be known to all by fulfilling to the letter a prophecy. (Psalms 41:9.) It was customary then in the East, and still is, to place food before guests in a large dish and each one may dip his hand in the dish and take such portion of the food as he may desire. At the Passover supper the Jews provided a particular dish made of bitter herbs, palm branches, and raisins seasoned with vinegar; the whole mixture serving to remind them of the hard bondage of their ancestors in Egypt. It may be that Judas dipped his hand with Jesus into this dish. Jesus then quoted a prophecy to be fulfilled and uttered a “woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed!” He then added that “good were it for that man if he had not been born.” After all the others had inquired if they would betray him, Judas then asked, “Is it I, Rabbi?” Judas is bold and wily to the last; the innocent disciples say “Lord,” but the guilty one said “Rabbi.” By this change Judas denied the claim that Jesus was his “Lord.” Jesus answered mildly the insulting hypocritical question and said, “Thou hast said.” This was the very mildest form of affirmation; how gently Jesus thus deals with the bold insult of the hardened wretch that should betray him.
Matthew 26:26-46
- LORD’S SUPPER ;
PETER’S DENIAL ;
26-30 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread.—Parallel records are found in Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20; John 15:1-27; and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. At the close of the meal or Passover, the final cup of wine, called the “cup of blessing,” was drunk. There were as many as “five cups” passed during the Passover Feast; the wine was kept in a large container and was passed around, and each filled his own cup with such portion as was desired; scriptures were recited and a pause made in the feast as the cups were replenished. Luke tells us that Jesus said, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.” (Luke 22:15.) Jesus would leave his disciples with this most sacred memorial. He took bread, the bread and wine which were before him and which had been prepared for the Passover. He “blessed” it or gave thanks for it; some think that the word “blessed” means more than giving of thanks; that it signified a prayer for all the blessings which may properly be desired for the object which is blessed.
Jesus blessed the loaves and fishes, which thereby became capable of the miraculous increase. (Matthew 14:19; Mark 8:7; Luke 9:16.) After blessing and breaking it, he distributed it to his disciples; he gave to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” “This represents my body” was the meaning that Jesus gave to this bread. This was a common expression among the Jews. (Gen. 40:12; 41 26; Daniel 7:23; Daniel 8:21; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Galatians 4:24.) Jesus did not mean that this bread was to be “transubstantiated,” that is, changed into his literal flesh.
While his disciples were wondering what he meant, he took “a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” That is, let all of you drink of it. He then added, “For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.” He took of the “fruit of the vine” which was being used in the Passover Feast and give to it a new significance. As the bread represented his body, so the fruit of the vine represented his blood. The secret mystery of life was in the blood of animals and men. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 7:26-27; Acts 15:20.) Jesus here declares that his life was offered as the great means and way of salvation for men. His blood represents his life. (John 6:54-56; Colossians 1:20; Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:22; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 John 1:7.) This blood was shed for the remission of sins; it was “poured out for many unto remission of sins.” This expression is similar to Acts 2:38, “unto the remission of your sins.”
I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.—This is the last time that the Passover would be celebrated by his disciples with its old signification; after the death and resurrection of Jesus, an entirely new meaning would be given to the Passover; Jesus now has become the Passover for Christians. (1 Corinthians 5:7.) “The fruit of the vine” stands for the whole supper as used here; it is an example of the part used for the whole. “Until that day,” that is, not until after the resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit. We have no record that Jesus ate the Lord’s Supper with his disciples before his ascension. “In my Father’s kingdom” means the kingdom of God or the church which was established on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came. Jesus did not literally drink wine with his disciples in the kingdom as it now is, nor will he do so in the eternal kingdom of heaven. The term “drink” is used figuratively to express that communion which Jesus has with his disciples while they are eating the Lord’s Supper. “I drink it new” means a new method of using the wine. It is taken from its significance in the Passover Feast and given a new meaning in the Lord’s Supper. At the Passover the Jews were accustomed to chant the Psalms (112 to 119).
It is probable that the Lord’s Supper was concluded with this portion of the Psalms as “they had sung a hymn” and afterwards “went out into the mount of Olives.” This was the place to which Jesus led his disciples and was about a quarter of a mile from the city. It is thought that it was about eight o’clock in the evening when the supper was concluded. Judas had left the company, and Jesus then, after the supper, continued his talk and his prayer with his disciples until much later that night.
31-35 All ye shall be offended in me this night.—Jesus now again warned his disciples, and Peter in particular, of the very near approach of the time of his betrayal. “All ye shall be offended in me this night”; it means that all will be ashamed to own me in the disgrace of the arrest and trial. Again Jesus quoted from one of the prophets and said, “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.” This quotation is from Zechariah 13:7; Jesus refers them to this prophecy to prevent them from despair at seeing him fall before his enemies. “I will smite” is an expression used to denote what God permitted to be done; he suffered evil and compels it to work out his purposes of good. He does not compel any man to sin, but when they do evil, he orders that evil to work out his own glory. (Psalms 76:10.) He permitted the death of Christ in order to save the world. “The shepherd” is used of the Messiah very early in the scriptures. (Genesis 49:24; Psalms 23:1; Isaiah 40:11.) The word “sheep” is used to signify his disciples. “Shall be scattered” means that his disciples should flee in the darkness of night at his betrayal as sheep flee at the invasion of wild beasts and the loss of their shepherd; he means that his disciples will be as timid in their flight at his arrest as sheep are when the shepherd has been smitten.
But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee.— In his deep distress and in the foreboding evils that await him, Jesus thinks tenderly of his disciples; he desires to comfort and console them; but how slow they are to believe him; they understood him not, though he had told them time and again of his death and resurrection. “I will go before you into Galilee”; Galilee had been the chief scene of his ministry among them, and there he would again appear to them afar from his enemies. (Matthew 27:16; Mark 16:7.) Peter in his impetuosity said, “If all shall be offered in thee, I will never be offended.” Peter was not boasting; he thought he knew his own heart, but he did not; he meant to say that all the others might forsake him, but he would not. He thought that he would remain faithful unto the end. Very likely they had before them the example of Judas leaving his Master, and now Jesus declares that all of them would be offended in him that night; that is, the others would forsake him, but Peter boldly declares that it matters not what others may do, he would remain faithful to Jesus.
Jesus knew Peter’s heart and said, “Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.” This was hardly four hours before Peter did deny his Lord; Peter’s natural courage was not the kind that he needed at this time. “Before the cock crow” means before a certain time that night; Mark and Luke add the word “twice”; Matthew omits it simply because the second was technically called “the cock crow.” The habit of this fowl is to crow at three periods of the night—at midnight, halfway between midnight and dawn, and an hour before the dawn of day. The crowing at three o’clock is properly called “the cock crow.” (Mark 13:35.) John means the same thing, that is, it shall not be the time for the cock to crow before Peter would deny his Lord. When the others saw and heard Peter’s bold declaration of fidelity to his Lord, they “likewise” declared themselves. Peter had said, “Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee.” None of them except John kept the promise; they were kept from the gross sin of Peter only by lacking the courage to follow Jesus afar off; John alone remained with him to the last, and heard his last words;and John alone of them all is thought to have died a “natural death”; tradition says that all the others suffered death for Christ. We are to think of Jesus as arising with his disciples about nine or ten o’clock in the evening from the Passover Feast and walking, followed by his accustomed disciples, with the exception of Judas, down to the gorge, and across the brook Kidron, until he came into a wood or grove called Gethsemane.
36-46 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane.—“Gethsemane” means the place of oil presses; it was a field or plot of ground surrounded by a wall, containing several olive trees, and probably some buildings. There is still at the foot of Mount of Olives a square enclosure, surrounded by an ordinary stone wall to mark the spot; no one knows definitely the exact spot. Luke tells us that Jesus was accustomed to retiring to this place for prayer; hence, Judas knew that he would find him in this enclosure at this hour. As they came to Gethsemane Jesus said to his disciples, that is, to eight of them. “Sit ye here, while I go yonder and pray.” Probably he went into a more retired part of the garden in the shade of the olive trees; but he “took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee” further into the garden; and then he, leaving Peter, James and John there, went about a stone’s throw further into the garden and there prostrated himself in prayer. There are three scenes presented here; the first is the group of eight disciples near the entrance of the garden; the second, a group of three, Peter, James, and John, further in the garden; the third is Jesus still further in on his face in prayer. He is overwhelmed in sorrow “and sore troubled.” These words are a climax, the last being the more emphatic.
He was sorrowful and baptized in mental anguish. Upon him God had put the sorrow and burden of all; he bore our griefs, carried our sorrows, and the chastisement of our peace was upon him. (Isaiah 53.) The sea of human sin and woe was then surging about his soul and he said, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful.” His mind and spirit were filled with intense grief; it bore on him inwardly and from the spiritual world, not so much from the fears of danger at things in this scene of suffering.
And he went forward a little, and fell on his face.—In this prostrate and agonized position he prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” “This cup” has reference to his sorrow; it was likened to a cup filled with horribly bitter and poison potion. His sorrow as “evil unto death”; not sorrowful in anticipation of death, but a sorrow pressed so heavily upon him that it would drown and quench the spark of life, but for the divine aid impregnating and strengthening his humanity. He came to do his Father’s will; even in his prayer it is the Father’s will that must be done , even in his death God’s will is to be done. In the face of the sufferings and under the shadow of the cross, he is perfectly resigned to the Father’s will. He prayed this prayer three times. Each time that he prayed he went to his disciples for human sympathy and encouragement, but he found them sleeping each time.
With a kind rebuke he said to Peter, “What, could ye not watch with me one hour?” Luke adds that he found them asleep “for sorrow.” They had been with him all the day and now it was late at night and sleep had overcome them; again some think that after deep sorrow and grief, sleep comes upon one and it is exceedingly difficult to stay awake. Jesus knew the weakness of the flesh and said, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” No one knew better the weakness of the flesh than did Jesus. How kind was this reproof, how gentle and self-forgetting this excuse for them, and how profound a warning of his words, “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation.”
Again a second time he went away, and prayed.—This time he prayed that if the cup could not pass away “except I drink it, thy will be done.” He came again to his disciples and found them sleeping. Again he went away “and prayed a third time, saying again the same words.” It is estimated that he spent about one hour in the solitude of prayer in the garden; and he had actually no witnesses but the celestial guards who came to strengthen him after his moments of agony. The writers of the gospel describe in brief terms his sufferings and agony in Gethsemane; they show us only the outline of his sufferings. His humanity quailed beneath the suffering and he sought strength in earnest prayer. Luke tells us that “his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.” This was a degree of mental anguish of which we may speak in words, but can only form a feeble conception. The last time that he came to his disciples and found them sleeping he said, “Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Arise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that betrayeth me.” It was no longer possible for his disciples to be of any service to him; the hour for watching and praying had passed; the enemy was at hand. “The hour is at hand,” that is, the hour for the betrayal was at hand; it was the hour so often predicted. (John 2:4; John 12:23.) An hour was used for any short space of time. The Son of man “is betrayed into the hands of sinners.” He is now ready, to give himself into the hands of wicked men such as Judas, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod, and others.
Matthew 26:47-56
SECTION SEVEN
ARREST, TRIAL, , BURIAL, AND
OF JESUS; THE
Matthew 26:47 to 28:20
- AND ARREST
47-56 And while he yet spake.—Jesus had just finished his prayers in Gethsemane and had comforted his disciples; even before he had finished speaking to them, “Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude.” Other records are found in Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; and John 18:3-12. The Judas who led the company is designated as “one of the twelve”; he knew the place as John informs us because Jesus was in the habit of going to it for prayer. He had left Jesus and the other disciples after the supper and had gone to the temple guard and informed them that he was ready to betray Jesus into their hands. John says that Judas had received “the band of soldiers, and officers” from the chief priests and that they came with lanterns and torches. They needed these lanterns and torches to search out the dark nooks of the garden and explore the secret places of it. The temple guard was set to preserve order in the temple during the time of the great feasts and was at the command of the chief priests. (Matthew 27:65.) Other citizens accompanied them and so there was “a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.” They were armed with such weapons as were at their command , it was a perilous adventure, if Jesus had chosen to resist.
They were armed with sticks or clubs as though they were taking some violent criminal. All of the company was acting by the authority of the Sanhedrin.
Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign.—Judas led the company;his part was to lead the company to Jesus and point him out or designate him from the others who might be in the garden. He had it understood with them that he would use the kiss as the sign; and said that they should take the one that he would kiss. The kiss as a common mode of salutation implied intimacy and affection; it showed how base was the disposition of the traitor who dared, by such a style of address, to point out his familiar friend and Master to his enemies. They may have feared that Jesus would escape; they did not know what to expect. John informs us that Jesus awed the multitude with words, so that both his disciples and his enemies would know that he was yielding himself into their hands and that they were unable to do anything except by his willingness. The multitude fell back and fell to the ground in confusion; Jesus then made provisions for the safety of his disciples before yielding himself into their hands. (John 18:12.) When Judas approached Jesus he said, “Hail, Rabbi.” He then kissed him.
There was hypocrisy in the salutation; it means rejoice, be happy. The Hebrew word “Rabbi” was a term of salutation from a disciple to his teacher. Judas put himself on this plane with cunning art; he denied by his salutation any higher confidence in Jesus than one might have in any learned scribe, and yet he appeared to show Jesus great respect. Judas showed himself here as a master of the arts of deception; he is smooth-tongued, pious-seeming, crafty, self-seeking, and able to deceive the mind of the people; he was known only by him whom he was betraying. He “kissed him”! We do not know whether to wonder at his boldness or to be shocked at the shamelessness of such hypocrisy.
Either he was a man of singular confidence to dare this act, or was in a grievous strait from fear of the multitude, lest they should remember that he too had been till then a disciple of Jesus.
Jesus simply said “Friend, do that for which thou art come.” “Friend” ,means companion, or fellow; it means one who has followed or kept company with another, for the sincere Savior could hardly call him “friend” in the sense that he was in sympathy with him. The band rushed forward and took hold of Jesus and bound him. John tells us that Peter drew his sword and “smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear.” There were two swords among the disciples. (Luke 22:38.) The name of this servant was Malchus; Jesus rebuked Peter for this rash act and touched the ear and healed it. This rash act of Peter was partly the cause of his second denial, as some relative of Malchus was among those who questioned him. (John 18:26.)
In rebuking Peter for this rash act Jesus said, “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Jesus did not resist force by force, nor take the sword to conquer earthly kingdoms. Those who use the sword shall perish by the sword; the sword will be the source of their destruction. Individuals, communities, states, or nations that rely upon force, physical force, for maintenance and existence shall perish. The kingdom of God is not supported by physical force. Jesus would not let his disciples defend him and his cause with physical force, surely he will not permit his disciples to go to war to maintain other causes by force. He informed them that if his cause should be defended by physical force he could beseech the Father and that he would send “more than twelve legions of angels.” This was a rebuke to those who had come out to take him with physical force as well as a rebuke to Peter for attempting to defend him with a sword.
It emphasized that Jesus was giving himself into their hands and not that they were simply taking him contrary to his will by force. “Twelve legions” means a great number; a legion was a division of the Roman army containing six thousand men; twelve legions would mean that there was a legion for each of his disciples and himself. This was a legion for each of his disciples and himself. This was said, not as if Jesus needed the help of angels, but to convince Peter and others that if it were the Father’s will he could summon the heavenly hosts to help him and that he did not need the help of any man bearing a sword. (2 Kings 6:17; Daniel 7:19; Matthew 4:11.)
All that Jesus did was a fulfillment of the prophecies; it was the plan of God foretold by the prophets that the Messiah should be treated in this way, and that if Peter and others should attempt to defend him with physical weapons, they would defeat the purpose of God as foretold by the prophets. Jesus then addressed the multitude and said, “Are ye come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me?” This implied that they could do nothing against him unless he permitted it. It was ridiculous; why did they come out against Jesus and his little company of eleven men with such armed band?Why such a force against a harmless and defenseless group? Why should they with a multitude of armed men come out in the silence of the night against this defenseless one? Jesus had not avoided them during this week; he had “sat daily in the temple teaching” and they had not taken him. His question put them to shame and emphasized again that they could do nothing with him without his permission.
Jesus pointed out that their conduct was a fulfillment of prophecies. “Then all the disciples left him, and fled.” If Matthew and the other writers of the gospel had been impostors, they would never have forged such a report as this! They would not have represented themselves as fleeing. Matthew was one of the apostles and he records that he with the others forsook Jesus and fled. We are not told where they went and what they did for the next twenty-four hours; two of them recovered courage enough to return and witness the scenes
Matthew 26:57-68
- TRIAL BEFORE AND
57-62 And they that had taken Jesus.—The company had been sent out by the authority of the high priest, so when Jesus was arrested they “led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest.” They carried Jesus away first to the house of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, where he was followed by Peter and John. (Luke 22:54-57; John 18:13-17.) The first denial of Peter occurred at this time as he stood in the lower hall warming himself. (Matthew 26:69-70; Mark 14:66-68 , Luke 22:55-57; John 18:18.) After this denial a cock was heard to crow for midnight; meanwhile Annas inquired of Jesus concerning his doctrine; but as Annas was no longer high priest, Jesus refused to answer him. (John 18:22-24.) Then Annas sent him to Caiaphas who was the actual high priest. Peter followed him and entered with the crowd. It is thought that with this event Thursday closed according to Roman time. According to Jewish time it had been Friday since sunset. Annas was a man of great energy and influence and was called high priest through courtesy; some think that he had been high priest, but had been deposed by Roman authorities and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, had been honored with the office. Jesus’ presence before Annas formed no part of the trial which is recorded by Matthew.
The Sanhedrin had been assembled and was ready when they arrived with Jesus. The Sanhedrin constituted the Supreme Court of all matters touching their religion. The first question, on the arrest of Jesus, was, had he violated the law in any particular that was worthy of death?
But Peter followed him afar off.—The two events, the trial of Jesus and the denial of Peter occurred at the same time. It was left to the choice of the writer as to which would be recorded first. Matthew records the trial of Jesus first and finishes his record of the trial, and then gives the denials of Peter all at once; Mark, who wrote under the direction of Peter, has given the words which passed, and John has followed the order of time. Peter followed afar off, but even this manifested his love for Jesus. By following at all, he manifests love for Jesus; by following afar off he showed fear. He compromised with his fears and his love; Satan made it impossible for him to remain mutual.
He occupied the dubious ground of compromise with sin. He came “unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end.” Peter remained among the servants in the vestibule as if he were a mere spectator; this was the first compromise, and while Jesus was before Annas, the first denial occurred. He sat with the servants around a fire of coals; it was cold enough that night for a fire. He is found among the enemies of Jesus and it is exceedingly difficult to remain loyal to Jesus while he is consorting with his enemies.
The Sanhedrin now has Jesus before it; he is its prisoner; but it has no charges against him. “Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death.” They sought for some testimony which would convict him of death; there was no difficulty in finding witnesses who testified with vague accusations of hatred and bigotry, but for a long time they could not find any two whose testimony was consistent. They sought to examine Jesus by questions about his teachings and his disciples, that they might find some inconsistencies in his teaching or some false doctrine; then they sought to convict his disciples of some violations of the law so that they might blame Jesus with the mistakes of his disciples. But Jesus refused to answer their questions; he was there to suffer rather than to teach. He had lately spoken their doom in the woes of chapter twenty-three; he left them to proceed for themselves and to make out a charge of impiety to a capital degree, in their own way. They were sorely pressed for materials to aid their malice and to make out their charge. Finally, after examining “many false witnesses,” two were found who said, “This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.” This was a perversion of the truth; Jesus had not said this, but two witnesses testified that he had said this.
The law required two witnesses. (Deuteronomy 17:6-7; Hebrews 10:28.) The falsehood of these two witnesses lay, not in their affirming an untruth, but in perverting the truth and wresting an innocent speech into a crime. “This man said,” literally “this fellow said”; “this one,” pointing at Jesus. Jesus had said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19.) Jesus did not say that he would destroy the temple; but in these words by telling them to destroy it, he avoided the only charge which they sought to make out against him. (Acts 6:14.) Jesus had reference to his body and spoke of it as the temple; he meant that should they destroy his body or put him to death in three days he would be raised from the dead. Now these witnesses quote him as saying, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.” (Mark 14:58.) This was an ingenious and wicked perversion of his words. Their words contained two distinct accusations: (1) a conspiracy to destroy the temple; (2) a claim to the power of doing a miracle against their holy place. The first they knew was false; the second they thought best to say nothing about. The high priest attempted to get Jesus to make some reply to this accusation, “but he held his peace, and answered nothing.” It was useless for Jesus to make reply to the testimony of these witnesses; they were not seeking the truth and they would pervert his words.
63-68 And the high priest said unto him.—After attempting to extort something from Jesus in reply to the testimony that had been given, and failing in this, Caiaphas then attempted to put Jesus under oath and either make him testify or violate the law of Moses. He said, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” The high priest, angered by the failure to get Jesus to speak, and eager to arouse the passion of the assembly against him, changed his ground and compelled Jesus to speak. “I adjure thee” was the usual form of putting a man under oath. (Leviticus 5:1.) When thus adjured by any one having authority, it was wrong for any pious Jew to keep silence or conceal the truth. Jesus, notwithstanding the improper rage of the high priest, obediently and meekly replied to “the ruler of his people.” Jesus answered, “Thou hast said.” This was equivalent to an affirmative answer; it meant yes I am “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” “The Christ” means the same as “the Messiah”; the first is Greek and the latter Hebrew, and both mean “anointed.” This was equivalent to “the Son of God.” The two words are used to express the same thing. (Matthew 16:16; Luke 22:67; Luke 22:70.) Jesus meant to say that “I affirm in this solemn hour that I am the Christ the Son of God, though I must die for the claim.” Jesus knew that he would be charged with blasphemy when he made the answer; he then added, “Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” This means his second coming; notwithstanding his present humiliation and crucifixion as a criminal before them, yet he
Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy.—Rending his garments was a sign of his horror and indignation at a blasphemer. The Jews expressed great grief or mourning by such significant gestures; the high priest was strictly forbidden to do this from fear of God, whose servant he was. (Leviticus 10:6; Leviticus 21:10.) “He hath spoken blasphemy.” He thought that he had put Jesus under oath and that now he claimed under oath to be the Son of God. If the claim of Jesus was not true, then he was guilty of blasphemy but if his claim be the truth, then he was not guilty of this serious charge. Caiaphas and the chief priests and elders disbelieved him, not from want of evidence, but from want of will; they did not want to believe him. They condemned him as an impostor, without a pretense of examining his claims and life, whether he had taught the truth or done miracles of mercy. Caiaphas then said to the other members of the Sanhedrin, “What further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye?” In his rage he now put the matter before the Sanhedrin for a decision.
They are to vote “guilty” or “innocent.” The charge against Jesus is blasphemy. Caiaphas had already voted, and the other members of the Sanhedrin had already prejudged Jesus and a formal sentence is pronounced against him. “He is worthy of death.” He has done that for which the law of Moses adjudges the punishment of death. (Leviticus 24:10-16.) Stoning was the punishment for this crime. (Acts 7:58; Acts 14:19.) The Sanhedrin could not enforce their own sentence for fear of the Roman government. They either feared the Roman governor or the people they thought it safer to resort to the Roman governor to carry out their plans. In doing this they fulfilled the purposes of God as expressed by the prophets. It was now the morning watch, between three and six A.M. of Friday. (Luke 22:63-70.) Luke says “as soon as it was day,” that is, when the day was dawning. The denials of Peter, which had now taken place, marked the time as after three o’clock in the morning.
Then did they spit in his face and buffet him.—Spitting in the face was a mark of the highest contempt; their rage had carried them to this point; the members of the Sanhedrin lost all the dignity and mercy which they had and degraded themselves by heaping upon Jesus such abuse. They struck him on the head with their fists; this treatment was intended to show their hatred of him as a blasphemer; this was an impotent substitute for stoning to death. They “smote him with the palms of their hands”; they struck him on the face or mouth; this was to mark their horror of what he had spoken. At the same time that they were abusing him they asked him to “prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?” Mark says that they had blindfolded him before they struck him and requested that he use his power as a prophet to tell them who had smitten him. These cruel mockeries were as disgraceful to the Sanhedrin as they intended them to be to Jesus. They became guilty of blasphemy themselves as they were so abusing the Son of God.
Because Jesus was silent, they imagined themselves to be just and triumphant; they misunderstood his silence. They had passed their sentence before daylight and had decided to take Jesus before Pilate; they had some hours to wait before Pilate’s court opened. They put in the time while waiting for Pilate abusing Jesus. Jesus could have with one look or word smitten them dead, but he endured all their indignities in silence; he suffered them all that we might learn to suffer in silence as did he. (Hebrews 12:1-2.)
Matthew 26:69-75
- PETER’S THREE DENIALS;
JESUS BEFORE PILATE;
THE DEATH OF JUDAS
Matthew 26:69 to 27:10
69-75 Now Peter was sitting without in the court.—Parallel records are found in Mark 14:66-68; Luke 22:55-57; John 18:18 of Peter’s denials. These denials were made during the trials of Jesus before Annas and the Sanhedrin. The first denial was made in the apartment of Annas; John was acquainted with the high priest and had passed in, but afterwards returned and brought Peter into the vestibule by requesting the maidservant who kept the door to let Peter through. She noticed Peter at that time with John, and then seeing him remaining behind in the room where the servants were, asked him if he was not one of the friends of Jesus. It is probable that she had no design of injuring him, but simply wondered at his remaining there while John had passed in. She said, “Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean.” Thou “also” or as well as John was with him, then why do you shrink or refuse to go in with him?
It does not seem that Peter was at any time this night in any particular danger. “But he denied before them all.” In his denial he said, “I know not what thou sayest.” He denied that he was a disciple of Jesus; this was a bold and shameful act; he denied that he understood what was said. Perhaps he was permitted to waver that he might see that none should dare to trust in his own strength.
And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him.—Parallels of this are found in Mark 14:69-72; Luke 22:58-62; and John 18:25-27. Peter went out into the porch, that is, the small room btween the doorway and the larger rooms; he was in a fearful state; he could not bear the looks of those around the fire and he went away to hide his confusion. The cock crowed for midnight. Another maid saw him, and Luke records that a man spoke to him at the same moment; this occurred between one and two o’clock in the morning. The scene of the trial had gone on. Peter was engaged in watching its progress.
We may suppose that his mind was confused by the strange meekness and submission of Jesus. This maiden said, “This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” “And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man.” These were the very words in which Jesus had predicted his denial. (Luke 22:34.) Peter denied all knowledge of Jesus, whether as the Christ or as Jesus; he cut himself loose from him for a time by his denial. It appears that two maidens and a man at the same place recognized him at once and accused him of being one of the disciples of Jesus; to them all Peter denied with an oath, a very convincing proof that he was not a disciple of Jesus as he thought.
And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art one of them.—This was about an hour after, or between two and three o’clock in the morning. Peter was now desperate, angry, and filled with evil passions and returned to the room where the fire was burning, resolved to stick to his denial. (John 18:25.) The repetition of sin never leaves a man as it found him; he changed rapidly; Peter lost his shame; his Master was condemned, and he had lost something of his love, and in the consequences of ruin to all his earthly hopes he denied knowing Jesus and emphasized his denial by cursing and swearing. Proof was given that he was one of the disciples of Jesus as “thy speech maketh thee known.” The dialect of the Galileans was recognized and distinguished them from others. A kinsman of Malchus observed him, and, with others, urged on him this peculiarity, as a reason for supposing him to be a follower of Jesus. Peter was in great fear and also in bitter anger. He began to anathematize himself, and to swear with oaths that he had no acquaintance with Jesus.
Peter does not seem to have been in any danger; the Pharisees showed no desire to injure him or the other disciples of Jesus; the matter does not seem to have been urged in anger against him. Peter, like the wicked, was in fear where no fear was. (Psalms 53:5.) Perhaps Peter never forgot this dreadful night. It was now three o’clock in the morning. Luke records that Jesus turned and “looked” upon Peter; the cocks at the same moment crew. Won by the look of tender compassion, and reminded of the prophecy of his fall, the mysterious foreknowledge of Jesus flashed again upon him. The spell of evil was broken, “and he went out, and wept bitterly.”
Neither of the four writers of the gospel manifests the least desire to suppress the sad fall of Peter. Mark says, “And when he thought thereon, he wept” (Mark 14:72), while Matthew records that he “wept bitterly.” Luke records that “he went out, and wept bitterly.” (Luke 22:62.) It is remarkable that John, who records the denial, omits any record of his repentance. However, we know that he did repent. Peter might well shed bitter tears even though his denial was only a sin of infirmity. The frankness and honesty of the historians are to he observed; not one of them attempts to suppress this shameful act of Peter he was committed with the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” but with fairness and integrity the writers record his denial. When Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote, Peter was still alive; in fact, Mark probably wrote under the direction of Peter. No impostors would have recorded this event.