Matthew 26

CHAPTER XXVI

XIX

Christ’s Passion, Chapters 26 and 27

Matthew 26:1

1 And it came about, when Jesus ended all these words, he said to his disciples, You know that after two days comes the Passover, and the Son of man is handed over to be crucified. The unnecessary ἐγένετο that introduces the sentence is due simply to the strong Greek tendency to begin a sentence with a verb rather than with a modifier of time (here the ὅτε clause) and generally this ἐγένετο does not influence the construction, B.-D. 442, 5; 472, 3. Here εἶπε follows as though no finite verb preceded. Matthew has repeatedly used this formula about Jesus finishing his words (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1), but this time he adds “all these words,” as though he intended to imply that no further “words” or discourses such as these would be reported in the remainder of his Gospel.

Matthew 26:2

2 The statement that Jesus himself makes fixes its time, “after two days comes the Passover.” So it was still that great Tuesday that was filled so full of conflict and instruction (Matthew’s account of this day extends from 21:23 to our present chapter, 26:5). For there is no question that here τὸπάσχα does not refer to the entire Passover week but to the actual Passover Feast, the eating of the Passover lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan (Thursday). Two days before would be the twelfth of Nisan (Tuesday).

With a simple καί Jesus adds what shall then happen, “the Son of man (see 8:20) shall be handed over (delivered up, betrayed) to be crucified.” The present tense παραδίδοται is not merely a prophetic present but also expresses the certainty of what is about to occur, R. 870. As the Passover “comes,” so Jesus “is delivered up to crucifixion” (εἰςτό to indicate purpose that shall be effected). This is not an announcement of the Passion; Jesus has already attended to that. It is an announcement of the exact time of the Passion, which, indeed, began with the betrayal of Judas in Gethsemane on Thursday night. It is Jesus who here two days in advance fixes the time. The point is not that Jesus merely indicates that he knows the time—this is not an impressive display of supernatural knowledge. By an infallible prophecy Jesus authoritatively fixes the time: it shall be Thursday night, then, and at no other time.

Matthew 26:3

3 We see what Matthew has in mind when he reports that on Tuesday evening Jesus so exactly fixed the time of his Passion. Then were assembled the high priests and the elders of the people in the hall of the high priest who is called Caiaphas, and they resolved to arrest Jesus with craft and to kill him. But they went on to say, Not at the festival, lest there be an uproar among the people. The point is the last statement: arrest and kill but not at the festival, not until the seven days of the celebration are over, and the festival pilgrims have gone, not until we say so, when we think it safe. On the very same evening (τότε), perhaps at the very same hour and moment, Jesus says, “It will start Thursday night”; and the Sanhedrin says, “It shall start a week later.” God rules even in the midst of his enemies. That Jesus should die, how, where, and just when, is entirely God’s decision and not at all the decision of Christ’s deadly foes.

When, where, and how God opens the gates, the flood of their damnable hate shall rush in and never otherwise, against God’s will. The thought is tremendous in every way. It is Matthew alone who brings these two decisions into vital connection; Mark 14:1, 2 and Luke 22:1, 2 refer only in a general way to the decision of the Sanhedrin.

“The high priests and the elders of the people” is a designation of the Sanhedrin which uses only two of the three terms that are often employed; see 2:4, “high priests,” and 16:21, “elders,” and in both passages note the designation by naming only two groups. The αὐλή is either the palace of the high priest or the hall in the palace. This was a secret meeting and thus was not held in the usual place, namely in the Chanujoth (tabernae, mansiones), on the south side of the great Temple court. Any public meeting would have drawn attention to itself, and its object would have provoked inquiry. Some think that the αὐλή was the unroofed inner court of the quadrangle of the palace, but this would be exposed to the passing of servants and attendants, and thus also too public for taking secret steps to kill a man. The high priest, τοῦλεγομένου introducing his name as Caiaphas, was the head of the Sanhedrin and presided at its meetings.

Josephus calls him Joseph, but this name is never used in the New Testament. His character stands out clearly in the Gospels. He is domineering, unscrupulous, criminal.

Matthew 26:4

4 The aorist συνεβουλεύσαντο, followed by subfinal ἵνα, means that the assembly passed a joint resolution, ἵνα stating what the resolution was. The resolution passed is “to arrest Jesus with craft and to kill him,” hence the subjunctives are properly aorists. That a body such as this could pass such a resolution casts a flood of light on the moral and the spiritual condition of the nation and of these its leaders. “With craft” may refer to the offer Judas had made to betray Jesus at an opportune moment.

Matthew 26:5

5 With the descriptive imperfect Matthew paints the scene: one after another went on to say, “Not at the festival,” not during the seven days when Jerusalem would be filled with pilgrims from far and near. Matthew wants us to dwell on this word because it clashes so directly with Jesus’ word in v. 2. The reason for this delay is obvious enough. Because the people had been so enthusiastic in their welcome of Jesus, the Sanhedrin had every reason to fear an uproar among them if they should arrest and kill Jesus during the feast. This was human calculation. Jesus was killed on Friday, and no uproar of any kind arose.

Matthew 26:6

6 The two companion pieces, v. 1–2 and v. 3–5, connected with τότε, are now followed by two more that are likewise joined with τότε, v. 6–13 and v. 14–16. Now when Jesus was in Bethany in Simon’s, the leper’s, house, there came to him a woman having an alabaster vial of perfume, very costly, and she poured it out upon his head while reclining at table. The first part of Matthew’s account is greatly consdensed; the same is true of Mark’s. We are thankful to John 12:1, etc., for having added so much to those two brief records. Neither Matthew’s genitive absolute, “when Jesus was in Bethany,” nor Mark’s similar phrase (14:3) give the date of the anointing, and all efforts to find a date in these expressions lead to unsatisfactory conclusions. John gives us the exact date.

Jesus arrived in Bethany “six days before the Passover,” on the eighth of Nisan, the Friday before Palm Sunday. It was too late to make a supper at that time, for the Sabbath began at dusk. Jesus rested during the Sabbath, and then, when at dusk of this day the Sabbath was over, the feast in honor of Jesus was served; see the complete details in the author’s commentary on John.

We know nothing further in regard to “Simon, the leper”; but it is fair to conclude that he offered his house, was himself present, and was called “the leper” as a result of the great miracle by which Jesus had healed him.

Matthew 26:7

7 Matthew does not devote space to a description of the occasion when this woman came to anoint Jesus, namely a grand supper that was served in honor of Jesus, Lazarus being present among the guests (some 15 in all), and Martha and Mary helping to serve. But his omission of the woman’s name, especially when we consider v. 13, can scarcely be due to mere brevity of writing. Matthew saw her perform her great deed with his own eyes and must here withhold her name because, when Matthew wrote, she was still alive, and to publish her name might entail evil consequences for her on the part of the Jewish haters of Jesus.

Matthew mentions the container, ἀλάβαστρον, “a thing of alabaster,” i.e., a vessel or a vial that was made of this semitransparent stone, which was so constructed and sealed that the neck of the vial had to be broken in order to get at the contents, and the entire contents (a pound, John 12:3) had to be used after the vessel had been broken. The contents Matthew calls only μύρον, a general term for this volatile “perfume.” The translation “ointment” conveys a wrong impression, and “oil” does likewise. This μύρον left no oily stain but evaporated rapidly like our finest perfumes; John states that the whole house was filled with the delightful odor.

All the three evangelists remark about the great value of the perfume; Matthew calls it βαρύτιμον, “very costly.” Matthew and Mark mention only the fact that the head of Jesus was anointed; John supplements this by stating that Mary, the sister of Martha and of Lazarus, anointed Jesus’ feet and dried them with her hair. Matthew’s only reference to the fact that this occurred at a feast is the participle ἀνακειμένου, “while reclining at table”; it is John who tells us about this feast.

Matthew 26:8

8 Now when the disciples saw it they were indignant, saying: To what purpose this waste? For this could be sold for much and be given to poor people. John aids in making the scene clear. Judas, who carried the funds and stole from them, inaugurated this indignation and carried some of the other disciples with him, these not taking time to think. Judas uncorks the vial of his poison, and the vile odor begins to spread. In the basest of moves a man may often have supporters and abettors, especially if he is able to hide his motive and his intent under some plausible plea.

Judas might have found various objections to Mary’s act and to Jesus’ acceptance of it: it ill became a man of simple manners; anointing the feet as well as the head was a piece of extravagance and of effeminacy that was offensive to Jewish custom; such luxury did not comport with the life of a prophet; had not Jesus himself said that they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses? they might use costly perfumes but not a man who was practically without a home. It is characteristic of him that Judas attacks the financial side of this transaction; he sees only the ἀπώλεια, the terrible waste, all this valuable perfume now gone. At the same time Judas takes credit for speaking out as he does right here in public, right before Jesus himself in whose honor this feast had been made, at once and not long after. What a brave, high-principled man he was! No wonder some followed his lead!

Matthew 26:9

9 The imperfect ἐδύνατο, like the ἔδει in 25:27, is difficult for the English and the German mind. In verbs of propriety, obligation, possibility, or necessity the Greek starts from the past and states the real possibility or obligation, and the reader, by comparing that with the facts, notes that the possibility (this is the type of verb here used) is not met, R. 886. Once the possibility of selling “this” was in existence (imperfect tense), now it no longer exists. Matthew writes only πολλοῦ, “for much,” the genitive of price; John lets Judas state the exact amount: 300 denarii, $48.

“And given to the poor” hides the thieving motive of Judas behind the assumed motive of charity toward the poor. Think of it, Judas speaks up for the poor! But note that he condemns not only Mary but Jesus himself. Judas implies that Jesus is robbing the poor; that he is lavishing upon himself what rightfully belongs to charity; that for his own glorification he allows a waste that is utterly wrong; that his example is harmful to others; and that Judas is the man who knows what is right, proper, charitable, and is not afraid to mention it! This is the traitorous touch in the action of Judas. Those of the other disciples who supported him most likely wanted to criticize only Mary and thought how good helping the poor would be.

Matthew 26:10

10 But when Jesus perceived it he said to them: Why are you distressing the woman? For an excellent work she did work on me. For always you have the poor with you, me, however, me you have not always. For this one, in casting this perfume upon my body, did it for my entombment. Amen, I say to you, Wherever this gospel shall be proclaimed in the whole world, there shall be uttered also what this one did as a memorial of her.

We need not stress γνούς unduly; Mark has “some expressing indignation toward themselves,” starting to object at the place where Judas reclined, and where Jesus did not at once perceive what was going on. Soon he realized it and interfered. It is remarkable that Jesus completely ignores the covert attacks made against himself for allowing such waste in his own honor. He first defends Mary. He rebukes her critics, “Why are you distressing the woman?” furnishing burdens (κόπουςπαρέχειν) for her? The τί suggests that these critics can in no respect justify themselves.

As proof the positive fact and the verdict of Jesus are adduced: “an excellent work she did work on me,” καλόν, excellent in every way. The idea of work lies in both the verb and the object. Jesus thoroughly understood that it took a mighty resolution on Mary’s part to do a deed such as this, which, as a mere anointing, might meet the sharpest objection, but which, as an anointing of Jesus’ body for his burial, would be utterly beyond the minds of these men and would invite the more intense criticism. With ἔργονκαλόν Jesus accepts her whole work, and any attack on it must reckon with him and not with the woman.

Matthew 26:11

11 Matthew abbreviates the word regarding the poor and writes only that the disciples always have the poor with them. His readers may note what is added in Mark, namely, that they can do them good at any time, whenever they feel like doing so. But the real point Matthew brings out clear and sharp: “always the poor—me not always” (chiasm). The latter is really an understatement, especially when it is considered in connection with Mary’s act. The disciples would have Jesus with them only for a few more days, during which time they might honor him; but this very evening was the only possible time to show him the honor Mary had in mind.

Matthew 26:12

12 Jesus states directly and in so many plain words just why αὕτη, “this one” (i.e., woman) lavished (βαλοῦσα) all this perfume upon Jesus. He says, “upon my body,” for Mary had in mind the entire sacred body when she anointed its head and its feet so lavishly. “For my entombment she did it”; πρὸςτό with the infinitive denotes aim, intent, purpose: “she did it that I be entombed” (aorist: laid away in a tomb). The words mean exactly what they say. Nor does ἐνταφιάζειν mean “to prepare for burial” (R. V.) but simply “to entomb.” But did Mary actually and consciously anoint Jesus for his burial?

Some think of only a general providence and say that Mary unconsciously fulfilled God’s purpose. Others say that Jesus “lent” this significance to Mary’s act. Still others think of a foreboding and an indistinct premonition on which Mary acted by a sort of instinct. But the three texts say, “she did it for my entombment”; Mark, “she did anoint my body aforehand (προέλαβε with the infinitive μυρίσαι) for the entombment”; John, “she kept it for the day of my entombment.” Again and again Jesus had spoken of his death by violence, by crucifixion at the hand of the Gentiles. What if the disciples failed to grasp what this implied? Why should not one heart realize that Jesus meant exactly what he said?

The character of this woman is such that it ought not to surprise us so much to note that, whereas dull-witted men failed, she saw that Jesus was now going straight to his death by crucifixion as he had said. Thus her mind leaped to the conclusion that, when the tragedy became reality, it would be utterly impossible to reach Jesus and to anoint his dead body for its burial. That is why she acted now and unhesitatingly embraced the opportunity which she had hoped would come and for which she was prepared. We may add that only on the supposition that Mary knew that she was now anointing the body of Jesus for its burial is the tremendous praise accorded her act by Jesus himself justified.

Matthew 26:13

13 To this praise is affixed the seal of verity and of authority (see 5:18). It refers to the world-wide spread of the gospel proclamation (24:14), and the prophetic future passive λαληθήσεται most positively assures us, “There shall be uttered also what this one (αὕτη, namely, woman) did,” and this utterance, this telling of what she did this night at Bethany, shall be “for her memorial,” shall ever keep her memory alive, αὐτῆς being the objective genitive. This prophecy of Jesus has been literally fulfilled.

Matthew 26:14

14 Then one of the Twelve, called Judas Iscariot, having gone to the high priests, said, What are you willing to give, and I myself will deliver him to you? But they weighed to him thirty silver pieces. And from then on he was seeking an opportunity to deliver him. As in v. 3 the τότε in point of time connects the two incidents related in v. 1–5, so now τότε connects the anointing in Bethany and the dastardly act of Judas in point of time. “Then,” after the rebuke in connection with the anointing; “then,” when already his attack on Mary and on Jesus showed how traitorous was his heart, Judas went ahead with his damnable deed.

Whenever he is introduced as such (Mark 14:10; Luke 6:16; John 6:71), the naming of the traitor is always tragic, “one of the Twelve,” one of this sacred number, one who was raised so high by Christ, one who was destined for one of the twelve apostolic thrones in heaven, and one who now not only lost this grace and this glory but transformed it into the absolute opposite: a tool of Satan (Luke 22:3), one who was sold for thirty pieces of silver to the whole world’s execration, the one traitor beyond whom none in the whole world can go. His full name is also added: “Judas Iscariot” = Ish-Kerioth, “man of Kerioth,” a town in Judea (Josh. 15:25). He is thus distinguished from the other Judas among the Twelve as well as from all the others of the Twelve, he alone hailing from Judea while the rest hailed from Galilee. But the place of his origin has nothing to do with his crime.

No one can say precisely when he went to the high priests. Did he slink away late on that Saturday night? It would be possible. To no less known persons does he go than to the “high priests” themselves, to Caiaphas and to his relatives in the Sanhedrin.

Matthew 26:15

15 Matthew does not state that these leaders of the Sanhedrin were overjoyed. Whereas they feared that the whole nation was being carried away by Jesus, one of his most intimate followers is ready to sell him for a price. Here was an opportunity that was almost too good to be true, one no man would have dared to predict. Matthew presents only the essentials. After having been admitted to the great men’s presence, Judas is almost brutally direct, “What are you willing to give me, and I myself (emphatic ἐγώ) will deliver him to you?” That is all: “How much? If the price is right, I myself, one of his own Twelve, will do the job for you.” Matthew alone reports these words of Judas.

We find no trace of haggling about the price. The bargain is very promptly struck. And again it is Matthew alone who states that the price was thirty pieces of silver (compare Zech. 11:12, 13), 30 shekels, or 60 drachmas or denarii, about $10.

It is Matthew who informs us that the pieces of silver were weighed out to Judas right then and there. For ἔστησαναὐτῷ, just as the Hebrew of Zech. 11:12, means, “they weighed” the money, literally “stood it” on the scales, by this common test giving him 30 pieces of full weight and not worn pieces that had depreciated in value. See the up-to-date dictionaries on ἵστημι when it is used in connection with coins, also the R. V., which corrects the “covenanted” of the A. V. Mark’s “promised” leaves the payment in doubt.

The promise and the agreement were carried out then and there. Judas would do nothing unless he had the money paid down. “What are you willing to give me?” means give me right here and now. Judas intended to run no risk in regard to getting his money later on. The priests ran no risks, because they had the power to arrest this man at any time. So Judas left with the blood money weighing heavily in his bag. He carried the funds of Jesus and of his band, and during this season the little treasury must have been flushed.

After Jesus was in the hands of the high priests, Judas would retain also this money for himself.

The amount has been called too small a sum, being only the price paid as a penalty for accidentally killing a slave (Exod. 21:32), and hence the amount has been questioned. But amounts of money are always relative in men’s mind; to some men a small sum takes on great proportions. The fact that our criminals demand large sums is no reason for questioning the amount Judas took. But think of these high priests and of what this criminality implied in regard to their moral character! Yet often, the higher and the holier a man has been regarded, the baser was his real moral character. Too many authorities have paid Judas’ money as these high priests did.

Matthew 26:16

16 Judas went back to Jesus with the price for his Lord and Master already in his greedy hands. But from then on he had only one thing in mind: the εὐκαιρίαν, the favorable time or opportunity to carry out his part of the bargain, “to deliver him,” the ἵνα clause being subfinal and in apposition with εὐκαιρίαν. So the divine and the human plans for Christ’s death are laid.

Matthew 26:17

17 There is no record of anything that Jesus said or did on Wednesday. It is certain that he did not go to the city; the probability (we have no more) is that he remained in Bethany. From Tuesday (v. 1, 2) Matthew now takes us to Thursday. Now on the first day of the Festival of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the Passover. And he said: Go into the city to so and so and say to him, The Teacher says, My special time is near. With thee I am keeping the Passover in company with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus ordered them and made ready the Passover.

Matthew purposely abbreviates his account, for he leaves out all that Mark and Luke report about finding this unknown host. But Matthew records independent details of an intimate nature in the message addressed to the unnamed host.

There is no need of an elaborate discussion of τὸπάσχα and ἡπρώτητῶνἀζύμων. The former originally designated the celebration that occurred on the afternoon and the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan (the eating of the Paschal lamb) and naturally led to the inclusion of the entire seven-day week of the unleavened bread; similarly “the days of the unleavened bread” soon included also the day on which the Paschal lamb was slain, the fourteenth of Nisan, thus making eight days of unleavened bread. “The first day of the unleavened bread” is thus beyond question the fourteenth of Nisan. At this time it was a Thursday.

Matthew, like Mark, makes it plain that all of the disciples were concerned about the place where Jesus would celebrate the Passover that night. Note the force of σοί, “we make ready for thee”; they do not say, “for us.” The disciples have no suggestions of their own, they simply inquire in regard to Jesus’ will. “The Passover” means all that belongs to the Passover meal (φαγεῖν).

Matthew 26:18

18 Matthew’s account is quite lucid although it is brief. All the arrangements were made, apparently in Bethany, early on Thursday in the presence of the Twelve. Any reader of Jewish origin would understand that twelve men were not needed for this task. Mark tells us that Jesus delegated two, and Luke names these as Peter and John, and Jewish sources tell us that no more than two were allowed in the Temple court when the lamb was killed in the afternoon. So ὑπάγετεεἰςτὴνπόλιν is quite clear.

In all three synoptic accounts Jesus withholds the name of the man in whose house he intends to celebrate the Passover, and, of course, this means that Peter and John alone will know who the man is and where his house is located, and that they will know this only after they have found the man’s house in accordance with the directions given by Jesus (Mark and Luke). In all probability Peter and John did not return to Bethany where Jesus and the ten remained until toward evening when Jesus took them to the place which he alone in addition to Peter and John knew. We have only one answer to the question as to why Jesus (it is not Matthew) kept the man’s name and thus the location of his house secret: the traitor is not to know, is not even to be able to find out. Jesus keeps the traitor hopelessly guessing as to where this place may be found. Jesus will celebrate this Passover in perfect security, right in the city itself, and that at night, whereas ever since his entry into the city on Sunday he had left the city every night.

There is no warrant for thinking that Jesus had talked matters over with this unnamed man of Jerusalem; that Jesus quietly told Peter and John the man’s name; that the Twelve knew who was being referred to without needing to be told; that the reason for calling him ὁδεῖνα was only to keep his name secret at the time of the writing of this Gospel, just as Matthew had not mentioned Mary’s name in v. 6–13, lest Jewish haters single out this man for persecution. Incidentally, the grammarians state that this is the only place in the New Testament where ὁδεῖνα, “Mr. So and So,” R. 744, is found. It is quite fruitless to speculate regarding his identity and to refer to Joseph of Arimathæa, Nicodemus, or Mark’s own home in the city.

The message that Peter and John are to deliver indicates not only that this unnamed man is a disciple of Jesus but also that he is one who has advanced in his faith. He will at once know who ὁδιδάσκαλος is when Peter and John speak to him. And the mysterious expression, “My special time (καιρός) is near,” will be intelligible to him and will at once move him to action. Note the possessive “my καιρός” and the fact that this noun always designates a short time that is in a’ decided way marked by what occurs within its narrow limits. “My special time is near” must refer to the special time that is marked by Jesus’ passion. And here is a disciple in Jerusalem who knows that this is what Jesus has in mind when he sends this message. Never again will Jesus celebrate the Passover; his end is close at hand. No wonder that Jesus kept this man’s name and his residence a secret; he would not this night have it raided by the Jewish authorities who would follow the traitor’s directions.

All the synoptists present Jesus as taking it for granted that he will celebrate the Passover at this friend’s house. Matthew reports the message as follows: “With thee (emphatically forward) am I keeping the Passover together with my disciples.” Mark and Luke agree with this when they word the message of Jesus so that it asks where the room is which is to be reserved for Jesus. Jesus is certain of all this in advance, as he was in 21:2, etc. But now everything has a sinister background, for 26:14–16 has occurred. The expression ποιῶτὸπάσχα is common in the LXX as a translation of “to celebrate the Passover.”

Matthew 26:19

19 Matthew states that the directions of Jesus were duly carried out and the Passover made ready.

Matthew 26:20

20 Now when evening was come, he was reclining at table together with the twelve disciples. And while they are eating he said, Amen, I say to you (see 5:18), that one of you shall betray me. And being exceedingly grieved, they began to say to him each one, Surely it is not I, Lord? But he, answering, said: He that dipped his hand with me in the bowl, he shall betray me. The Son of man (see 8:20) goes away even as it has been written concerning him; but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is being betrayed. Excellent were it for him if that man had never been born.

It is Thursday evening. But this is the beginning of the Jewish Friday, for with the appearance of the first star in the sky the new day began. Matthew at once transfers us to the beautiful and secluded upper room where the Passover is now in full progress with Jesus and the Twelve participating.

Matthew 26:21

21 Matthew records none of the conversation, he intends to relate only how the traitor exposed himself. “While they are eating” refers to a special part of the Passover. This followed a fixed order: 1) the first cup with its blessing; 2) the bitter herbs to recall the bitter life in Egypt; 3) the unleavened bread, the chasoret, the roasted lamb, and the chagiga (other sacrificial meat); 4) the housefather dips the bitter herbs into the chasoret with a benediction, then eats, and the others follow; 5) the second cup is mixed (wine with water), a son asks, and the father explains the feast; 6) the first part of the hallel is sung, Ps. 113 and 114, and with a prayer of praise the second cup is drunk; 7) the father washes his hands, takes two cakes of bread, breaks one and lays it on the unbroken one, blesses the bread out of the earth, wraps a broken piece with herbs, dips it into the chasoret, eats it and a piece of the chagiga, and a piece of the lamb; 8) then all join in the eating, and it is to this point of the feast that Matthew refers with “while they are eating.” At no previous point could the exposure of Judas have been made without spoiling the ceremonial. 9) The close came when the father ate the last morsel of the lamb, after which no one ate. Then came the third cup; 10) the second part of the hallel, Ps. 115–118; the fourth cup, sometimes a fifth; the conclusion of the hallel, Ps. 120–137. This is the rabbinical description.

The emotion of this scene Matthew allows us to feel from the dialog; but note John 13:21. The entire proceeding of Jesus is marvelous: he does not expose Judas but reveals the act of Judas and its effect upon Judas himself, so as to bring the most powerful pressure to bear upon Judas in order to lead him to repudiate his act even now, to fall at Jesus’ feet in repentance and to receive pardon. In fact, Jesus proceeds in this way until the last scene in Gethsemane. Under the pressure of such treatment Judas proceeds boldly to expose himself. So all that Jesus at first does is to assert most solemnly, “One of you shall betray me!” This statement must have exploded like a bombshell among the disciples. It merely asserted a fact, but with the indefinite “one of you” (ἐξ, partitive) it put every man present in the shadow of guilt. And this was the intention of Jesus.

Matthew 26:22

22 The word was intended to shock the guilty soul of Judas out of its guilt, and Jesus thus used the effect produced upon the eleven guiltless disciples by that word as an added force to reach the will of Judas. Judas had to tell himself that Jesus must know all about his traitorous act. Judas had to feel that, when all the others asked, “Is it I?” they were sure that Jesus knew which one it was. Judas heard the voice of innocence, filled with dismay, ask, “Is it I?” and that must have struck his heart that was black with guilt, for he could not ask thus in honesty and in innocence.

“Being grieved exceedingly” is the first reaction and, prompted by it, the question of εἷςἕκαστος, “each one,” in quick succession, ΜήτιἐγώεἰμιΚύριε; The interrogative particle μήτι implies a negative answer on the part of the questioner, which we are able to reproduce only in a cumbersome way: “Surely, it is not I, Lord?” A degree of uncertainty is nevertheless mixed with each man’s assurance. Each man knows of no act so terrible in himself; but each man knows that what Jesus says must be fact; and each man knows how weak he is and how, ignorantly or in some other way, he might do something to hurt Jesus. Note that the eleven say, Κύριε, which at this advanced stage meant to them, “divine Lord”; Judas says only, “rabbi.”

Matthew 26:23

23 Jesus does not answer these anxious and excited questions. Judas had not joined in the chorus. His attention had certainly been aroused. He was thinking rapidly. What did Jesus really know? Was he working only on suspicion?

What was Jesus after? So Jesus not only continues, he increases the tension by answering with a significant description of the traitor: “He that dipped his hand with me into the bowl, he (οὗτος, emphatic) shall betray me.” This, of course, does not furnish a mark of identification. Both ὁἐμβάψας in Matthew’s account, and ὁἐμβαπτόμενος in Mark’s, the one an aorist participle, the other a present, are timeless. Nor should we think that Matthew is here reproducing John 13:23–26. The verses recorded by John follow what Matthew relates: John supplements by telling how he and Peter were shown that the traitor was Judas.

The real point of the designation “he that dipped his hand together with me in the bowl!” is the same one as that made in John 13:18, and as that noted in the mode chosen to inform John and Peter (John 13:26): it characterizes Judas as a second Ahitophel, the man who turned traitor to David and ended by hanging himself. He is the prototype of the traitor Judas; and it ought to be noted that this is the only reference in the Old Testament regarding Judas; we lack even a single prophecy. 2 Sam. 16:15–17, 23; Ps. 41:9 (John 13:18); Ps. 55:12–14. Jesus says, “in the bowl,” and μετʼ ἐμοῦ, “in company with me”; we put too little into these expressions when we fail to see that this was the Passover of Jesus (σοι in v. 17), that the Twelve were here at his invitation, not he at theirs, that this was Jesus’ bowl, and that to be allowed to dip into it with Jesus supreme honor, indeed. Thus Jesus makes plain how despicable, how utterly low-down Judas’ act is. All this, spoken before the whole company, had to strike the conscience of Judas with double force. He who could resist impacts such as this was beyond hope.

Matthew 26:24

24 But let no man think that Jesus is at the mercy of some vile wretch; no, “the Sosn of man (i.e., the incarnate Son of God, God’s great Messiah) goes away even as it has been written concerning him.” His course, even to this tragic end, was recorded in Scripture and is now on record there; (this is the force of the perfect). It has been divinely planned and will surely be carried out just as Jesus now declares (“shall betray me”). Jesus is not appealing for sympathy with himself, the sympathy and the commiseration should go to the traitor. Jesus is indicating to the Twelve, including Judas, why he does not interfere and make this dastardly betrayal impossible. Jesus is in absolute harmony with what “has been written.” In order to have all that perfectly fulfilled he became “the Son of man.”

He turns the thought from himself in whose case all is going as it has been written to the awful condition and fate of the traitor. He cries “woe” upon “that man” and designates him as one who is distant from himself. This is not a woe of indignation such as the woes uttered in 23:13, etc., but a woe of deepest grief and pain. And yet this woe, like all others, and like its opposite “blessed,” is the verdict upon the traitor. All that causes wretchedness and agony in time and in eternity is his portion. When Jesus says, “is being betrayed,” he lets Judas know that he knows just how far Judas has already gone.

Although no γάρ is written, we must say that we now have an explanation of the “woe” if not the actual reason for it, “excellent were it for him if that man had not been born.” The thought is: “If he had had no life at all rather than a life that is marked by such a deed.” It thus really makes no difference whether we translate οὐἐγεννήθη, “not to have been conceived,” or, “not to have been born” after having been conceived. The sense remains: non-existence is preferable to this betrayal. R. 886 regards καλὸνἦναὐτῷ as another Greek idiom that indicates that the past is not met by the present (like 23:23; 25:27; 26:9). But here we probably have a mixed condition of unreality: the protasis is one of past unreality: “if he had not been born,” and the apodosis one of present unreality: “it would have been excellent.” The fact that the negative οὐ appears in such a protasis is quite exceptional, and neither R. 1161 nor B.-D. 428, 2, have more to say. The fact that ἄν is missing is of no moment (R. 1014), yet its absence would harmonize with the decisive force of οὐ. At this point insert John 13:23–26.

Matthew 26:25

25 Now Judas betrays the full devilishness of his character. And Judas, who was betraying him, answering, said, Surely, it is not I, rabbi? And he said to him, Thou didst say it. Here Judas betrays what effect the treatment of Jesus has had on him. Although he was at first startled, he has recovered and come to the conclusion that this rabbi is only guessing, only groping around to see whether he may discover something. He thus meets the situation with the brazen face of hypocrisy.

Prompted instantly by personal distress, voice after voice had promptly asked, “Surely, it is not I?” No such distress was evident in Judas, and hence no such prompt inquiry came from him. But the thought comes to him that Jesus or some of the others may have noticed that he did not join in the questioning. Moreover, he notes that Jesus had really said neither “yes” nor “no” to all these questions but had just prolonged the uncertainty. So this hypocrite puts on a bold front with his lying question, “Surely, it is not I, rabbi?” He challenges Jesus to divulge whatever information he may have. And the address, “rabbi,” whereas the rest used, “Lord,” inadvertently betrays his real estimate of Jesus. Judas is resolved to carry his betrayal through.

Straight as a shot the answer of Jesus smites through Judas’ lying pretense. Him Jesus gives an immediate and direct answer, “Thou thyself didst say it!” This is the common Jewish way of affirming something by using the very statement made by the questioner himself. Hence the emphatic αὐ, “thou thyself,” and then either the present λέγεις, “art in the act of saying it,” or the aorist, “didst already say it.”

Some think that this interchange of words was not heard by any of the eleven, but this view is untenable. Since these thirteen persons were reclining on couches, it is difficult to see how Judas could ask and be answered in secret unless he arose from his place and spoke to Jesus at close range. We must not forget that this occurred “while they were eating,” v. 21, during the eighth part of the ceremonial. Nor would anything be gained by secrecy, for, according to John 13:23–26, John and Peter already knew, and that implied that the rest would be told quietly by these two. Besides, Jesus is through with Judas. As soon as the traitor has compelled Jesus to expose him, Jesus orders him to go and to do quickly what he is engaged in doing, John 13:27–30.

Matthew does not say that Judas left. He certainly does not need to; for after Judas had been exposed as a traitor he would no longer remain in the company of the “rabbi” he was betraying and in the company of his loyal disciples. Thus the question as to whether Judas received the Lord’s Supper or not is answered in the negative.

Matthew 26:26

26 Matthew at once adds the account of the Lord’s Supper. And while they were eating, Jesus, having taken bread and having blessed it, broke it; and, having given it to the disciples, said, Take, eat! This is my body. And having taken a cup and having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: Drink of it, all! For this is my blood, that of the covenant, that in the act of being poured out for many unto remission of sins. First note the repetition ἐσθιόντωναὐτῶν, “while they were engaged in eating,” cf. v. 21.

Both genitive absolutes refer to the same eighth part of the ceremonial which was described in detail in connection with v. 21. We see that this must have been the case, for the ninth part took but a moment, it merely stopped further eating; and the tenth part was the singing and the drinking of the last cup. We shall be safe in assuming that the institution of the Lord’s Supper came at the close of the somewhat ample period of freely eating the Passover food. No one was to be stinted. So about the time the housefather would have gone over to number nine, the eating of the last morsel of the lamb, thus stopping all further eating, Jesus proceeded to do something that was entirely new. The new act is also an eating and a drinking, but one that consisted of bread and wine and was engaged in only by the disciples.

It has its thanksgivings, but these and the added words refer directly to Christ’s sacrificial body and his blood and to their saving effect. From the first word onward the disciples understood.

First, Jesus “took bread.” The participle indicates that this is only a preliminary act. Note that this participle is an aorist, and that throughout all participles (except λέγων) and all main verbs that refer to the acts of Jesus are aorists, all being historical and stating so many facts. The entire account is so simple and so lucid in its wording that even a grammar the size of Robertson’s finds only one very minor point to be noted. The ἄρτος was not a “loaf.” No “loaves” in our sense of the word could be baked of unleavened dough. This ἄρτος was a thin sheet of unleavened bread, pieces of which were broken off for the purpose of eating. The author saw these thin sheets of bread baked on a hot plate in Syria; the woman stacked these up and gave us one that was still hot, which we broke and ate in the ancient way. How else could we have eaten it properly?

The second act is still preliminary, hence we again have an aorist participle, εὐλογήσας, “having blessed.” Luke and Paul have εὐχαριστήσας, “having given thanks.” But we at once see that the two words have the same sense, for Matthew and Mark use the second when they come to speak of the cup. None of the four accounts of the Supper has preserved for us the words of blessing and thanksgiving that were spoken over the bread and the wine by Jesus. We shall not go astray when we say that these words referred to the bread (and then to the wine) that were in Jesus’ hands and to the heavenly gift which the respective element was to convey. Thus this blessing enlightened the disciples and prepared them for the proper reception of the bread and of what it conveyed (of the wine likewise); for they were to receive both intelligently and were not to wonder what Jesus was trying to convey to them. All we can say about these words is that, after they were once spoken by Jesus, they remain efficacious for all time wherever the sacrament is really celebrated. Because of their very nature they could not again be efficaciously repeated, and that seems the reason that the power that guided the holy writers led them to omit these words from their records.

The acts of breaking and of giving go together in the sense of distributing. No symbolism is involved in the breaking, for “a bone of him shall not be broken,” John 19:36. The bread was broken merely so that it could be more readily eaten. “Bread is an inanimate thing: how can breaking it be like the putting of a human being to death? Breaking bread is the very symbol of quietness and peace, who would dream of it as an appropriate symbol of the most cruel and ignominious death? Bread is the representative food, and, used in metaphor, is the symbol of spiritual and supernatural food. The breaking of bread is the means of giving it as food and as a symbol, the symbol of giving and taking a higher food.

No one would dream of the breaking of bread as the symbol of killing a human body; and if so extraordinary and symbolic use of it were made, it would require the most explicit statement on the part of the person so using it, that such was his intent; and when he had made it, the world would be amazed at so lame a figure.” Krauth, Conservative Reformation, p. 723. In regard to the wine we have no counterpart to the breaking of the bread, which shows that the breaking was only incidental to the distribution.

Just how Jesus “gave to them” no man can say. Nor is the point vital. When we now adopt a mode of distribution we cannot say that any mode will do; for various modes that are used at present indicate wrong views of the nature of the Sacrament. Our mode must in every way harmonize with the essentials of the sacrament and also with the spirit of its original institution. As Jesus gave he said, λάβετε, φάγετε, two aorist imperatives to indicate two brief actions. And now the disciples hear what Jesus really gives them, τοῦτόἐστιτὸσῶμάμου, “this is my body.” Luke adds to body the modifier, “being given for you,” i.e., in sacrifice on the cross; and Paul adds to body the modifier, “which is for you,” i.e., in sacrifice.

We must note that τοῦτο is neuter and hence cannot, grammatically or in thought, refer to ἄρτοςs which is masculine. The English “this” and “bread” obscures this distinction in gender, yet we dare not ignore it. “This” means, “This bread which I have now consecrated by blessing and thanksgiving”; or more tersely, “This that I now give to you”; hoc quod vos sumere jubeo. “It is no longer mere bread of the oven but bread of flesh, or bread of body, that is, bread which is sacramentally one with Christ’s body.” Luther.

Much has been written on ἐστί which is merely the copula connecting the subject and the predicate. Jesus spoke in Aramaic and used no copula in that language, for none was needed; but this does not remove or in the least alter the inspired ἐστί found in the Greek records. It cannot mean “represents” as Zwingli contended. The characters $1, 000, written on a piece of paper, “represent” one thousand dollars, but no man can say that this “is” a thousand dollars.

“My body” means exactly what the words say, “in truth and reality my body.” The modifiers added by Luke and by Paul strongly substantiate this view. Luke’s ὑπὲρὑμῶνδιδόμενον must refer to the real body, for no symbol of the body, no bread, was this day being given for our redemption on the cross. It is only the rationalizing question, “How could the Lord give his disciples his true and real body by means of bread?” that has caused the trouble in regard to these exceedingly simple words. Some think of a transubstantiation of the bread into the body, so that Jesus does not give bread but only body. Others deny that he gives his body. They say that this is impossible and that, therefore, he gives only bread as the symbol of his body.

We refuse to answer the question in regard to the how because the Lord has withheld the answer. We probably could not understand the answer because the giving of Christ’s body in the sacrament is a divine act of omnipotence and of grace that is beyond all mortal comprehension. The Lord declares the fact: “This is my body,” and we take him at his word. He knows the mystery of this giving; we do not. The rationalizing objection that this involves a gross, carnal, Capernaitic eating of the raw flesh, is unwarranted. The first disciples, who had the body of Christ before their very eyes when Christ’s bodily hand in a supernatural way gave them the gift of his sacrificial body, never dreamed of such an eating. “My body” does not mean “a piece of my body.”

Matthew and Mark are quite brief in their reports of the institution. Both omit what Luke and Paul add, namely, that the sacrament is to be repeated again and again by the disciples. But it would be unwarranted to play the other accounts against Matthew and Mark on this point or to assume that these two evangelists intended to cancel this command of Christ’s. The four records are four historical testimonies, and any point in any record that is not found in the rest is only so much valuable addition. Matthew and Mark sense that permanency is indicated by the very nature of the sacrament; for not the Twelve alone but all disciples were to be partakers of Christ’s body and blood for the assurance of their salvation.

Matthew 26:27

27 Matthew and Mark relate the consecration of the cup exactly as they related the consecration of the bread while Luke and Paul abbreviate by writing “likewise.” We prefer the reading ποτήριον without the article which a number of good texts and also Luke and Paul have. Whether a different cup was used for each of the four or five times of drinking in connection with the Passover, or whether only one cup was used and this was refilled as needed is not certain and quite immaterial. The point is that Jesus instituted the sacrament with the use of one cup and that he bade all the disciples to drink out of this one cup. Any change in what Jesus here did, which has back of it the idea that he would not for sanitary or similar reasons do the same today, casts a rather serious reflection upon Jesus.

“Cup” may refer to the empty vessel, the filled vessel, or only to the contents of the vessel as the context decides. “Having taken the cup” means the vessel with its contents; “having given thanks” refers only to the contents of the vessel. “He gave it to them” means the vessel with its contents. The order to drink ἐξαὐτοῦ means to drink the contents of the vessel. But τοῦτο refers to the consecrated contents alone.

The cup contained wine mingled with water, on which all are agreed save those who for special reasons believe that wine was not used. When Matthew 26:29 writes, “of this fruit of the vine,” i.e., that which the Passover cup contained, he shuts out any and all other products of the vine save actual wine and thwarts all modern efforts that speak of unfermented grape juice, raisin tea, or diluted grape syrup. The expression “fruit of the vine” is derived from the Hebrew pheri hagiphen, a choice liturgical formula for wine. The matter is of utmost importance and lies beyond our powers to alter. To alter a testament is to invalidate that document. Hence the use of any other liquid than actual wine that is made from grapes—this alone was “wine” in Christ’s day, this alone was used in the Passover—renders the sacrament invalid so that it ceases to be the sacrament. Christ’s testament is valid only in the form in which he made it and not as men today may alter it.

We note that Jesus adds πάντες to the command to drink, “all” of the eleven are to drink; and Mark adds that “all” did drink. This “all” indicates the necessity that all who ate must also drink in order properly to receive the sacrament. The contents of the cup are thus to be drunk so that all will receive a portion and none be left without such a portion. The fact that the πάντες in Matthew and in Mark plainly contradicts the Roman Catholic practice is obvious. But Rome makes an asset of this πάντες: it claims that this word is not used in connection with the bread because this bread is intended for all Christians; but “all” is added to the cup, and this has reference only to all those present, the apostles and then their successors in the priestly office, “all the clergy alone.” In other words, “all” means “not all but only some”—the opposite of what Jesus actually says.

Matthew 26:28

28 Here the explanatory γάρ is inserted; in substance it is present also in the statement regarding the bread. We have τοῦτο exactly as in v. 26: “this,” the consecrated wine; “this,” that I bid you drink. So also ἐστί is the copula and nothing more. And τὸαἷμάμου matches exactly τὸσῶμάμου, and all that indicates the reality of the latter likewise indicates the reality of the former. “Body” and “blood” are given separately, for in the sacrifice the blood flows out and is separated from the body.

By means of a separate article, and thus as a kind of emphatic apposition, Jesus adds: τὸτῆςδιαθήκης, and then also τὸπερὶπολλῶνἐκχυννόμενονκτλ. On the force of these articulated additions see R. 776; and on the force of the article with the predicate τὸσῶμάμου and τὸαἷμάμου, cf. R. 768. These grammatical points are valuable exegetically in order to perceive just what Jesus says. Monographs have been written on the term διαθήκη, “testament,” in connection with the Hebrew berith, “covenant.” We see how the translators of our versions waver, the A. V. using “testament” in our passage, the R.

V. “covenant” with “testament” in the margin. Compare on the subject C.-K. 1062. We offer the sum of the matter. The Old Testament dealt with the promises God gave to his chosen people. God placed himself in “covenant” relation to Israel. The heart of this relation, like the promises and the gifts of God to Israel, is wholly onesided.

In is always God’s covenant not Israel’s; and it is never a mutual agreement. This covenant, indeed, obligates Israel, and Israel assumes these obligations, but the covenant itself emanates wholly from God.

The LXX translated berith, “covenant,” διαθήκη, “testament,” since this term has the strongest onesided connotation. A will and testament emanates only from the testator. Christ, however, brought the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. The result of this was that now God’s people have the inheritance and are God’s heirs, joint-heirs of Christ, Rom. 8:17. It is thus that in the New Testament berith becomes διαθήκη, “will and testament,” by which God bequeathes to us the blessings Christ has brought.

Both the old berith or covenant and the testament of Christ’s fulfillment were connected with blood. The former could be sealed with the blood of animal sacrifice: “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words,” Exod. 24:4–8. This blood typified and promised the blood of Christ, God’s own Son, to seal “the new testament” by which we inherit all that this blood has purchased and won for us. The old covenant could be written in animal blood because it consisted of promise; the new testament could be written only in the blood of the Son of God because it conveys the complete fulfillment of the promise, the actual purchase of our redemption.

The word “blood” is not merely a reference to “death,” because a specific death, namely a sacrificial death, is involved. No other type of death could establish the “testament.” Hence the crowning modifier with another τό, “that in the act of being poured out for many.” Jesus means that now this pouring out of his sacrificial blood has begun. And, indeed, he has truly entered upon his sacrifice. So “body” and “blood” appear separately in the sacrament; nevertheless, the two always appear together. No sacrificial body without sacrificial blood and vice versa. The Scriptures never speak of the glorified body or the glorified blood.

The miracle of the sacrament is not that Christ makes us partakers of his glorified body and blood but of the body given and of the blood shed for us on the cross. The sacrament draws on Calvary not on heaven.

The phrase περὶπολλῶν means, “concerning or in regard to many,” and conveys the general idea that the pouring out of the blood took place for their benefit; and the next phrase completes the thought, “unto remission of sins.” Thus περί indicates the persons involved and εἰς the purpose or contemplated effect upon these persons. The absence of the articles stresses the nouns: “remission,” sending away and complete removal, “of sins,” whereby we miss the mark. These πολλοί are all men, for all of whom the blood was shed “for remission of sins,” and not merely the believers in whom this remission was realized. They are “many,” and thus extend far, far beyond the eleven. Mark combines this by using ὑπὲρπολλῶν, “in behalf of many” in the sense of “in place of many,” ὑπὲρ having the idea of substitution. See Robertson, The Minister and his Greek New Testament, the entire chapter on ὑπέρ. Matthew’s wording conveys the same idea.

Matthew 26:29

29 Moreover, I say to you, that in no wise will I drink from now on of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall be drinking it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. The sacrament has been instituted. The sacrament was also made the conclusion of the Passover, save for the singing of the hymn (v. 30), the second part of the hallel. The importance of the statement is evidenced by the formula, “I say to you,” and Mark shows that Jesus even used “amen” as the first word. With verity and with authority Jesus declares that he will die that very day (Friday), for he will not taste another cup of wine. But to this sad announcement he adds one that is most glorious, that the day is coming when he will be drinking wine that is wonderful and new with his disciples in the kingdom.

The negative οὐμή is the strongest form of negating a subjunctive or a future indicative; and πίω is the aorist subjunctive, punctiliar to express a single act: not once will Jesus drink. He had offered the cup of the blood of his testament to the disciples; but for Jesus there remained only the cup of his suffering. But the following πίνω is the durative present subjunctive; in the kingdom the drinking will be repeated.

Because οἶνος does not appear in this account, the use of wine is at least gravely questioned, which means practically denied. The fact that Matthew writes not merely “fruit of the vine,” pheri hagiphen, the lovely liturgical term for wine used in the Passover ritual, but most definitely “this fruit of the vine,” the one regularly used in the Passover and thus used by the Lord also for his Supper, is not appreciated by those who will not use wine in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, for they think that grape juice fits this phrase better than wine although in April such a thing as grape juice was an impossibility in the Holy Land of Christ’s time. It could be had only when grapes were freshly pressed out, before the juice started to ferment.

Jesus not only dies on this day, but by his dying all the Jewish Passovers have served their purpose and have really come to an end. That is why Jesus instituted the sacrament of the New Testament; this is to be used by his disciples “until that day” when Jesus will drink the fruit of the vine “new” in the heavenly, glorious kingdom of his Father. On this heavenly feast compare 8:11; Luke 22:30; Rev. 19:9. Note the present subjunctive πίνω, “be drinking,” for that feast shall never end; also καινόν, “new,” as compared with what is old, not νέον, “new,” as never having existed before. All descriptions of heaven are necessarily figurative, so also this one regarding the drinking of wine at the heavenly feast. Yet from Luke 22:16 we gather that the heavenly feast will be a heavenly fulfillment of the Passover plus the Lord’s Supper. All that is promised in the latter regarding our union and communion with Christ will then be brought to its eternal climax.

“In the kingdom” has been used to find chiliasm in this statement of Jesus’, and this affords opportunity to revive the chiliastic dream of Papias concerning “this fruit of the vine” in heaven which grows endlessly in enormous clusters on the most astounding vine that ever was imagined. When the floodgates of imagination are opened, the strangest romances appear.

Matthew 26:30

30 And having sung the hymn, the second part of the hallel, Ps. 115–118, perhaps also the last part, Ps. 120–137, with which the Passover was usually concluded, they went out to the Mount of Olives, namely to the Garden of Gethsemane.

Matthew 26:31

31 Then Jesus says to them: All you shall be trapped in connection with me in this night. For it has been written, I will smite the shepherd, and scattered wide shall be the sheep of the flock. But after I am raised up I will go before you into Galilee. On the way to Gethsemane, Jesus makes this disclosure. We see that all he needs to know concerning the details of his passion is most clearly known to him. All of the eleven, not one excepted, σκανδαλισθήσεσθε, shall be caught as in a trap, ἐνἐμοί, in connection with Jesus.

The idea of the verb is that of a crooked stick to which the bait is affixed and by which the trap is sprung. So this night the trap will catch all the disciples. They will be trapped by what will happen to Jesus; it will completely upset them. On retaining the native meaning of the verb see M.-M. 576. The translations, “ye shall be offended because of me,” and, “in me,” are both incorrect and misleading. The disciples took no offense because of Jesus, of anything that he was or did this night.

They took no offense at all. They were simply caught (trapped) and overwhelmed by what happened to Jesus, namely his sudden arrest and trial. And this that caught them was ἐνἐμοί, “in connection with Jesus,” and not “in (within) me” or “because of me.”

“For” intends to explain by pointing to what “has been written” and thus is still on record, the prophecy of Zech. 13:7. Jesus uses only two statements of the prophecy and himself translates these from the Hebrew. Whatever other fulfillment Zechariah’s prophecy may have, Jesus here uses it with reference to his own death and its effect upon the disciples. “I will smite the shepherd,” etc., means that Yahweh will give Jesus into death. And this ordeal the disciples cannot be spared. We now see what being caught in a trap means: the disciples will be so upset that they will leave Jesus and like a shepherdless flock will flee in all directions. But though this sad and terrible thing is now about to happen, it means much that Jesus himself informs the disciples of it in advance. This advance warning contemplates bringing these scattered sheep together again.

Matthew 26:32

32 And that is exactly what Jesus promises. The accusative with the infinitive ἐγερθῆναίμε is converted into a substantive by means of the article τό and is then made the object of μετά. Jesus will be raised from the dead by Yahweh who gave him over to death. Repeatedly Jesus had announced his resurrection to his disciples and had stated definitely that it would occur on the third day after his death. Now in consolation and blessed assurance Jesus adds that, after he has risen from the dead and is glorified, he will precede the disciples into Galilee. In other words, as the great Shepherd that leads his flock he will appear to them in Galilee where he had gathered most of that flock.

That this was to be a signal and an exceptional meeting we see from the constant references to this gathering in Galilee, 28:7, 10, 16. The only direct mention we have of it is found in 1 Cor. 15:6, to which must be added Matt. 28:16, etc.

Matthew 26:33

33 And Peter, answering, said to him, If all shall be trapped in connection with thee, I at least will never be trapped. Jesus warned Peter twice: first, in the upper room, John 13:36, etc., and Luke 22:31, etc.; secondly, on the way to Gethsemane, Matthew and Mark. On this question see the author’s commentary on John 13:36. Peter is not checked by the warning received in the upper room. On the contrary, he is more sure of himself than ever. Openly he contradicts Jesus: not all will be trapped, Peter will be the exception. Openly Peter compares himself with the other disciples to his own great advantage; note the emphatic ἐγώ, “I at least.” Instead of the simple negative οὐ he also uses the universal οὐδέποτε, “never.” He will now get a second positive warning, but he will disregard this as he did the first.

Matthew 26:34

34 Jesus said to him, Amen, I say to you, that in this night, before a cock crows, three times wilt thou deny me. This time Jesus adds the seal of verity and of authority (see 5:18). He no longer combines Peter with the others but singles out Peter and tells him the outrageous acts he alone will perform. Peter will give his own grand words the lie by doing exactly the opposite of what he says. He will even deny Jesus, utterly disown him, and that no less than on three separate occasions this very night. He will do this, not by implication, but with the same loud voice he is now using and in public before even more witnesses than hear him now. The verb ἀπαρνέομαι means, “to say no,” and thus to deny and to disown. The aorist subjunctive is volitive, “wilt (not shalt) deny me.”

The crowing of a cock is not some casual crowing of some individual cock. Two crowings were distinguished: one, sometime after midnight; the other, just before dawn. They divided the night into the midnight or the silent period, the period before dawn, and the period after dawn. Pliny calls the fourth watch secundum gallicinium. The second warning to Peter (Mark 14:30) refers to both crowings, “before the cock crow twice,” i.e., before the day dawns. Luke and John refer to the crowing that took place before dawn. The phrase is not a mere expression of time but refers to the actual crowing of the cocks on that night.

This word is spoken with a special purpose. It does more than merely to foretell how soon Peter will sin, it prepares the help to raise Peter from his fall into sin. Peter will actually hear the crowing when it begins; that will bring Jesus’ word to his mind; and this, together with a look from Jesus’ eyes (Luke 22:61), will cause the tears of repentance to flow. The effort to discredit the reliability of the evangelists by stating that in a city such as Jerusalem no chickens were kept, and that thus no cocks crowed within range of Peter’s ears, has been met by ample evidence to the contrary.

Matthew 26:35

35 Peter says to him, Even if I must die with thee, in no wise will I deny thee. Likewise also all the disciples said. In the upper room Peter had already declared his willingness to die with Jesus. Of course, he can now do no less. He now uses the condition of expectancy which pictures the situation vividly and combines Jesus’ death and Peter’s dying with him (σύν, accompaniment, R. 628). And now he again flatly contradicts Jesus’ “three times wilt thou deny me” by stating, “In no wise will I deny thee” (the future is volitive, R. 875). Carried away by Peter’s mighty assertions and promises, the rest of the disciples spoke in the same way. Jesus is silent, for his object is already attained; he had paved the way for Peter’s repentance.

Matthew 26:36

36 Then Jesus comes with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he says to his disciples. Sit here until, having gone yonder, I pray. And having taken Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sad and worried. Then he says to them: Exceedingly sad is my soul unto death. Remain here and be watching with me. There are various opinions in regard to Gethsemane, the Hebrew words most likely meaning “Oilpress.” Some call it a Meierei, a regular farm, and think that there were buildings on the place.

They base this view on χωρίον and on the strange young man mentioned in Mark 14:51, but this is rather slender evidence. The statements made in the Gospels lead us to believe only that it was a large grove of olive trees, a secluded place that had nothing further on it than what was needed to take care of the olives, which were probably a building for tools and an oilpress. Jesus used this place because it was so quiet and secluded.

The place now shown to tourists lies too near the road and is too close to the bottom of Olivet. Titus cut down all the trees, and although olive trees become very old, the present trees shown to tourists are of later growth and are located on the wrong site. A stone wall most likely encircled Gethsemane. The whole country is full of stone.

A short distance inside the entrance Jesus tells his disciples to sit down while he proceeds “yonder” (he probably pointed to the place) to pray, προσεύξωμαι, aorist subjunctive, “to make a definite prayer and to complete it,” not merely “to engage in prayer.”

Matthew 26:37

37 But Jesus does a strange thing; he takes three of his disciples that on other occasions had served as special witnesses again to serve as such, “Peter and the two sons of Zebedee,” James and John (Mark 5:37; Matt. 17:1). As he walks with them beyond earshot of the others, his agitation becomes visible to them even before he speaks. It was so great that Matthew, like Mark, uses two strong verbs, “he began to be sad and worried.” The ἤρξατο indicates that this condition sets in, and the two present infinitives picture its duration. Instead of λυπεῖσθαι, “to be sad, grieved, distressed with sorrow,” Mark has ἐκθαμβεῖσαι, “to be completely upset by distress.” As the second verb both Matthew and Mark have ἀδημονεῖν, “to be away from one’s δῆμος or home,” mir ist unheimlich, to be filled with uneasiness and dread. In this pitiful condition these three disciples see Jesus as they walk on with him. All his power seems to be gone; he is crushed and beaten down and has only one recourse: prayer to his Father.

Matthew 26:38

38 Now the Lord utters his distress in words. The predicate περίλυπος, “exceedingly sad,” is placed forward, περί intensifying the preceding verb λυπεῖσθαι. Jesus tells how sad he is, “until death,” and we shall soon see that this phrase conveyed the actuality: Jesus was now on the very verge of death. It is his ψυχή which animates his body that is in such deep distress; just as distress takes hold also of our “soul.” But the rapid approach of phyical suffering and death did not bring about this agony in Jesus’ soul.

Jesus now orders the three disciples to stay where they are (μείνατε, aorist, punctiliar) and to keep watching (γρηγορεῖτε, present, durative) with him. Their nearness and their watching are to be a slight comfort to Jesus in his distress of soul. Alas, this comfort was denied him, for the three disciples slept. But the battle that Jesus fights in this hour he must necessarily fight alone. He alone must now will “to lay down his life” (John 10:17, 18), “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28), to be made sin and a curse for us (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13). The imagination faints before the images thus rising up before it.

Who can imagine all this abominable sin, all this damnable curse! And the holy Son of God is now to plunge into it—the great and awful moment is almost here. Shall Jesus go on, or since his pure and holy nature recoils from the unspeakable ordeal, is there yet a way out?

Matthew 26:39

39 And having gone forward a little, he fell on his countenance, praying and saying: My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me! Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou. And he comes to the disciples and finds them sleeping and says to Peter: So—you had not the strength to finish watching one hour with me? Be watching and praying lest you come into temptation. The spirit is eager, but the flesh weak.

The agony of Jesus is revealed by his attitude. Having gone forward “a little,” he kneeled down, but Matthew and Mark say that he fell on his countenance, that he lay on the ground like a worm (Ps. 22:6). From the kneeling position he must have sunk prone upon the ground. Never had these three disciples seen him thus. Otherwise, when Jesus prayed, he said merely, “Father,” but under the pressure of his soul he cries, “my Father,” reaching up as closely as possible to his Father’s heart. From Heb. 5:7 we learn that these words of prayer in Gethsemane were uttered with “strong crying (κραυγῆςἰσχυρᾶς) and tears” and were certainly heard by the three disciples.

We must note that from the first word of the prayer to the last Jesus submits to his Father’s will. Even a mere supposition of not doing so is foreign to his soul. The true humanity of Jesus is revealed by these prayers; it had to be thus revealed because his entire passion was undergone by way of his human nature. The word “cup” is here used figuratively and does not refer only to contents but to bitter, burning, deadly contents. “If it is possible” leaves the decision in regard to that to the Father. The condition is one of reality and assumes that, if such a possibility existed, the Father would avail himself of it. Back of the brief condition lies the thought, “if it is possible to redeem the world without drinking this horrible cup of death and wrath” then relieve me of this cup. “Let it pass from me” means, “Do not put it to my lips.”

With πλήν, “nevertheless,” Jesus implies, “whatever may be involved in this possibility.” Although in his agony Jesus has mentioned the possibility, he really intends to yield everything to his Father’s will and to put aside his own will. It is the human will of Jesus that speaks here. The agony suffered in Gethsemane will always bear an element of mystery for us because of the mystery involved in the union of Christ’s two natures. For one thing, we have no conception of what sin, curse, wrath, death meant for the holy human nature of Jesus. Because he was sinless, he should not die; and yet, because he was sinless and holy, he willed to die for our sin. The death of Jesus was far different from that of the courageous martyrs; they died after Jesus’ death had removed their sin and guilt, the sting had been removed from their death through Christ’s death, but Jesus died under sin and its curse, the sting of death tortured him with all its damnable power. The world’s sin had, indeed, been assumed by Jesus during his whole life, but here in Gethsemane the final moment of that assumption had come: with the coming of Judas and his band Jesus now actually stepped into the death that would expiate the world’s sin.

Matthew 26:40

40 Intense were the prayer and the agony, but the words were few. Jesus returns to the three disciples whom he had bidden to keep awake with him. Any comfort he might derive from a word or two with them is denied him. Their nearness is no support whatever, for they are nodding in sleep. Jesus addresses Peter, but the words apply to all three disciples. This brave, mighty Peter had promised to die with Jesus and now he cannot even stay awake at his Master’s bidding! The word plainly shows the disappointment of Jesus: “So—you had not the strength to finish watching one hour with me?” The aorist infinitive γρηγορῆσαι means, “to finish watching,” and “one hour” in the sense of “only one hour” indicates how long Jesus wanted the three disciples to watch with him.

Matthew 26:41

41 Jesus rouses them out of sleep with a renewed call to watch, to be awake, to be ready, to be on their guard, and to pray. And now he does not say, “watch with me,” but he combines watching and praying both of which are to be for themselves, “lest you come into temptation,” i.e., come into it in an unready state and be caught accordingly. To watch is to be ready in advance, and to pray is to receive from God the help needed in the critical hour. The remarkable thing is that the rebuke of Jesus is so gentle, and that even in his agony and distress Jesus can think of the needs of these sleepers. The πειρασμός is a trial or test and a “temptation” in that sense. With μέν and δέ the two members of the next sentence are neatly balanced, but the English cannot reproduce this delicate balance. “The spirit is eager, but the flesh is weak,” reveals the situation exactly.

All true disciples are no longer simple but altogether complex personalities. Regeneration has produced “the spirit” in them, the new divine life, we may call it faith. This spirit is open to God and to Christ and thus ready to respond to their promises and their directions. Every Christian constantly has this experience.

On the other hand, he still has in himself ἡσάρξ, “the flesh,” which, when it is thus placed in opposition to τὸπνεῦμα, refers not to the body or σῶμα, or to the substance of which it is composed, but the old sinful nature that still clings to our being after conversion. This flesh opposes the spirit (Gal. 5:17), in fact, would like again to get complete control of the personality. When Jesus says the flesh is ἀσθενής, “weak,” “sick,” he speaks of it from the standpoint of the spirit. The spirit is eager enough to endure and to overcome the temptation, but the flesh in us is “weak,” utterly helpless in temptation, a drag and a terrible handicap to the spirit in us. By calling on the disciples to watch and to pray Jesus seeks to rouse their spirit into full activity. By sleeping and giving way to sleep-producing sorrow of heart they were yielding to the flesh. So the word of Jesus warns them in regard to this flesh; and the test of their trial is almost at hand.

The idea that this statement regarding spirit and flesh applies also to Jesus himself in his agony, is unwarranted. No duality such as spirit and flesh ever existed in Jesus; no trace of sin ever appeared in him. His agony was not due to sinful flesh as were the sleeping and the lack of prayer in the disciples. It was the pure and holy sinless human nature that shrank from the ordeal, not of death as death, but of death as a curse for the world’s sin. Jesus stood on a higher level than Peter and his companions.

Matthew 26:42

42 Again, having gone away a second time, he did pray, saying, My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, let thy will be done. And having gone back, he found them sleeping, for their eyes had been made heavy. A second time Jesus turns to his Father as the only source of help. The second prayer is identical with the first save in the wording. It has the same reference to possibility, “if it is possible.” The Greek is more obvious, εἰδυνατόν, “if it can”; εἰοὐδύναται, “if it cannot.” A positive thought is changed only in form by being expressed negatively. Here again is the same absolute submission to the Father’s will, “let thy will be done,” i.e., the will of the Father regarding the redemption of the world, that will which Jesus had come into the world to do, that will which is now attaining its climax in the redemptive passion and death of the incarnate Son. To match “let this cup pass away from me,” we have in the second prayer the corresponding positive thought, “unless I drink it,” πίω, aorist subjunctive to indicate the one act of emptying the bitter cup.

It is unwarranted to say that “if it can be” in v. 39 means that Jesus thinks that it actually can be and that he prays accordingly; and that now in v. 42, “if it cannot be,” indicates a change to the conviction that after all it cannot be and that he now prays differently. This overlooks the two equally strong expressions of absolute submission to the Father’s will. Both conditions, the positive as well as the negative, are realizations that the escape from drinking the cup and yet redeeming the world are impossible. Note the strong negative οὐ in the condition of reality with εἰ, R. 1160; B.-D. 428, 1; it is not found often in the classics but is more frequent in the Koine.

Matthew 26:43

43 Torn hither and thither in his agony, Jesus comes back to his three disciples. He finds that his admonition has produced no result whatever. The disciples are asleep, in fact, their eyes are weighed down with heavy sleep, they cannot keep them open even now when Jesus returns to them. He is compelled to fight his dreadful battle without even a word of comfort from his own dearest friends.

It has been claimed that under these circumstances this sleeping is a psychological impossibility. But this view cannot be sustained on psychological grounds; for great and continued sorrow of soul brings on an inner dulness of mind and thus the physical reaction of profound sleep when the soul yields to its burden and no longer rails against it as Jesus urged the disciples to do by watching and by prayer. From Mark we learn that Jesus spoke to the disciples, but that they did not know what they answered him, their replies were unintelligent; and so he again left them.

Matthew 26:44

44 And having left them, again having gone away, he prayed for the third time, saying the same words again. Then he comes to the disciples and says to them: Go on sleeping for the rest and take your ease! Lo, the hour has arrived, and the Son of man is being betrayed into sinners’ hands. Be rising, let us be going, lo, he has arrived that is betraying me! The three prayers are throughout couched in the same words, i.e., the same in substance (τὸναὐτὸνλόγον) certainly not also the same verbatim. As a rule, the commentators do not discuss the question as to how Luke 22:43, 44 are to be combined with Matthew and with Mark.

In connection with which of the three prayers did Jesus sweat blood and have an angel strengthen his body that was already so near to dissolution? We are satisfied with John Bugenhagen’s Passion History which places the supreme agony and the angel’s strengthening last. Then the agony ceased, and Jesus now speaks to his disciples in a different tone.

Matthew 26:45

45 He now tells these sleepers to go sleep and take their rest. In τὸλοιπόν we have an adverb (R. 487), which, like others when the adjectival idea encroaches, retains the article (R. 294). On account of this adverb we cannot regard the words as an exclamatian, “You are still (τὸλοιπόν does not mean still) sleeping!” or as a question, “Are you still sleeping?” Both imperatives are permissive (R. 948) and, of course, durative (R. 890), “Go ahead and sleep for the rest of the time and take your ease!” Sentimental reasons deny a touch of irony to these words. We are told that the solemnity of the occasion forbids the use of irony. But the deepest sorrow of heart, when it is coupled with full mental clearness, is not averse to the use of irony. The view that irony is not proper for Jesus misunderstands him.

Here the situation is such that all interpreters almost automatically feel the touch of irony, and then some seek to remove it in some fashion. O these dreadful sleepers! They slept throughout their Lord’s agony! Well, let them go ahead and sleep on for the few moments that are left!

The idea is not that Jesus now leaves them undisturbed so they may sleep some more. No; he makes two mighty announcements that ought to drive every trace of sleep from any disciple’s eyes. First: “Lo, the hour has come” and thus is now here, perfect tense, ἤγγικεν. After we have previously been told that his hour has not yet come, namely the hour to endure suffering and death at his enemies’ hands; now the cry suddenly rings from the Savior’s lips: “Lo, the hour is here!” (“your hour and the power of darkness,” Luke 22:53). Secondly, the hour that is referred to is placed beyond question, “and the Son of man (see 8:20) is being betrayed into sinners’ hands” (the absence of the articles stressing the quality of the nouns), into the power (hands) of sinners who have their wills set against God. What this traitorous act means to the Son of man need not be said.

Matthew 26:46

46 It is not necessary to think that an interval occurred between the call to sleep on and the announcement of the hour. So there was not an interval between the announcement of the betrayal and the call to go to meet the traitor. We need think only of sufficient time to permit the disciples to awake from their sleep and to utter some words to the strong, courageous, victorious Jesus now standing before them. Here are bold commands without a connective, “Be rising (present imperative), let us be going” (present subjunctive, hortative); it is like our, “Up, let us be off!” When R. 430 says that this combination of verbs is paratactic in origin and hypotactic in logical sequence and thus lends life and movement (R. 428) to the language he intends to say that from the start verbs such as this were used side by side, and yet the first verb is only subordinate to the second, ἄγωμεν, “let us be going!” expressing the main thought. These two verbs and the following “lo” reveal the excitement of the tragic moment. Even these heavy-lidded sleepers could now begin to see the distant lights and hear the noise and surmise that something fearful was about to happen. “Has arrived,” perfect tense, has the same connotation it had in v. 45 “and is now here,” namely, “he that is engaged in betraying me,” substantivized present participle.

47 And while he was still speaking, lo, Judas, one of the Twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and clubs from the high priests and elders of the people. The eleven must have stared in wide-eyed fashion at the crowd that was assembled before the entrance of Gethsemane. The multitude was indeed great. The only hint Matthew gives as to its composition is the mention of the weapons, μάχαιραι, “short-swords” that were carried only by the Roman legionaries, and ξύλα, “clubs,” the regular weapons of the ὑπηρέται, “underlings,” or Temple police. John adds the detail that they carried also torches and lanterns. He also adds the details concerning the heavy detachment sent out with Judas.

The Levitical police were under their στρατηγός or “general,” the Roman cohort, not the entire 600 stationed at Antonia but about 200, were under their chiliarch or chief commander. The Sanhedrin had sent this entire force. Their own men had failed them on a previous occasion (John 7:45, etc.), and so they now took no chances. Because of the danger (Jerusalem being full of pilgrims) the Sanhedrists had no trouble in persuading the chiliarch to accompany the expedition and to take with him a force of legionaries that would be able to cope with any eventualities that might arise when Jesus was brought to the city as a prisoner. Yet we nowhere have an intimation that Pilate’s cooperation was sought. See the author’s comments on John 18:1, etc.

All four evangelists make Judas the guide of this multitude, and the synoptists call him “one of the Twelve” in this connection. The fact that this intends to agree with the information given in v. 14 is obvious. There is no canon in literature which would forbid a writer to express his horror more than once. If “one of the Twelve” is tragic in v. 14, it has a right to be even more so in v. 47, for now the traitor’s act is actually being carried out. “The high priests and the elders of the people” is a designation for the Sanhedrin; see 2:4 and 16:21.

48 Now the one betraying him gave them a sign, saying: Whomever I shall kiss, he it is. Arrest him. And immediately, having gone to Jesus, he said, Greetings, rabbi! and he kissed him thoroughly. About 200 Roman soldiers and certainly at least as many Temple police and besides that a nondescript rabble that ran along to see the excitement block the entrance to Gethsemane. Jesus meets this crowd, his disciples are ranged behind him. He is perfect master of the situation, and all that occurs does so only with his consent.

Things seem to be playing into Judas’ hands, but this only seems so. The traitor gave the men a sign by which they could without fail know whom to seize and to arrest. “Whom I shall kiss (φιλεῖν is used in this intensive sense), he it is.” Judas is the inventor of this “sign.” A devilish refinement distinguishes it. The symbol of most intimate affection and love, the kiss, is made the signal for marking this traitor’s victim for the army of his captors.

49 Judas at once steps forward and gives this sign. The verb χαίρειν is used to indicate all kinds of friendly greeting and always expresses the wish of happiness and well-being. So Judas acts overjoyed when he meets Jesus and exclaims so that all the soldiers and the police may hear, “Greetings, rabbi!” Without waiting for a response, κατεφίλησεναὐτόν, he threw his arms about Jesus and kissed him not once, as the simplex of the verb denotes (v. 48 but showered him with kisses, the addition of κατά thus intensifying the verb: er kuesste ihn ab. This intensive act was evidently for the sake of the captors, it was prolonged in order not to leave anyone in doubt. “This,” Judas intended to say, “see, this is the man you want!” With his excessive kissing Judas at the same time acts the black hypocrite toward Jesus, he pretends that his heart is breaking because of what is now to happen to Jesus. He acts like one that is overcome, even now he thinks that he is still deceiving Jesus. Another motive for all this kissing is suggested; he intended to close the mouth of Jesus as long as possible and thus to disarm him at this critical moment. Jesus is not to display his strange power before this mob and thus to prevent his arrest.

Jesus does not hurl the traitor from him nor use his omnipotent power to blast him. Jesus submits to this traitorous kissing; it is his Father’s and his own will to accept all the indignities, shame, suffering, agonies men will heap upon him even unto death. Again Judas (see v. 25 addresses Jesus only as “rabbi,” and perhaps unconsciously reveals his real estimate of Jesus. Here, too, is a hint as to how the traitor’s mind must have worked when he thought that he was really deceiving Jesus until this moment. This is possible in the case of evil minds, for their very hypocrisy and falseness lead them to reason fallaciously, especially when it comes to judging the character and the actions of the holy Jesus.

50 But Jesus said to him, Fellow, for this thou art here?! Then, having come forward, they laid the hands on Jesus and arrested him. For the last time Jesus strikes at Judas’ conscience. It is just one brief, penetrating word. The conscience was seared; no repentance followed. On the address ἑταῖρε see 20:13, and 22:12. It is anything but our mild, gentle “friend,” the Greek φίλε. In all three places in which it occurs it is like our “fellow,” and this word thrusts a man away. No other disciple of his did Jesus ever address as ἑταῖρε.

There is uncertainty in regard to the brief, striking word of Jesus: ἐφʼ ὅπάρει. R. 725 admits that a direct question may be possible; on the other hand (696), he finds that ὅ may be demonstrative. The old grammatical dictum is that ὅς can never appear in questions, but this is not so certain in the usage of the Koine. We pass by the surmises of B.-D. 300, 2. Also the idea of an ellipsis such as that of the R. V., “Friend, do that for which thou hast come!” and other ellipses.

Judas had done that for which he has come (the betrayal), why should Jesus tell him to do it? The word is half a question, half an exclamation: “for this thou art here?!”—think of it, “for this”! “O is simply demonstrative. And πάρει is derived from παρεῖναι, “thou art here.” It is interesting to note that Deissmann defends the question (A. V.), “wherefore art thou come?” Licht vom Osten, 100, etc.; E T XXXIII, 1922, p. 941–945, on the basis of an inscription found on a Syrian cup that dates from the time of the Gospels. The grammars will have to reckon with that.

Before a move is made to arrest Jesus what John 18:4–9 records takes place: Jesus delivers himself into the hands of this multitude. The betrayal of Judas was worth nothing. Jesus points himself out, prevents any molestation of the eleven, and actually gives himself up. His passion was wholly voluntary. It is thus that the chiliarch and possibly also the strategos order men to step forward in order to take Jesus prisoner. John says they bound him. Yet they never touched a more willing prisoner.

Matthew 26:51

51 Now comes Peter’s rashness that, but for Jesus’ immediate intervention, might have caused a calamity. And lo, one of those with Jesus, having stretched out his hand, drew his short sword and, having struck the slave of the high priest, slashed off his ear. Luke 22:38 tells us that there were two μάχαιραι, Roman short-swords in the upper room at the celebration of the Passover, and we are not surprised to learn that Peter has one of them. The moment a move is made to take Jesus captive, out flashes Peter’s sword. Luke 22:49 tells us that about the same moment the other disciples asked whether they should smite with a sword. Peter delivers his blow at the first man that is near him, the slave of the high priest, intending to split his head open; but the man evidently sought to avoid the blow, and the sword sheared off his right ear, being stopped by the heavy armor on the shoulder.

We must reckon with the excitement of the moment. The falling back of the entire armed force at the one word of Jesus may have led the disciples and Peter to feel that, although they were armed with only one sword, they might rout this opposing army. Had not Peter protested his readiness to lay down his life for Jesus? Had not the others, stimulated by Peter, done the same? So Peter here redeems his word. Jesus is to see that he was in earnest.

But the disciples and Peter act as though Jesus were not laying down his life by a deliberate act and at the same time commanding his captors to let the disciples go free. Was this not a command also to them to go their way and to let Jesus submit to arrest? Peter acts as though Jesus meant none of the things he said. His love does not listen and obey, it assumes to dictate and to rule.

The remarkable fact that none of the synoptists mentions Peter’s name in connection with this incident might be due to consideration for Peter, the Sanhedrin being still in power when the synoptists wrote; but this is doubtful. A similar case is that of Mary, v. 7. The article τὸυδοῦλον puts this man in a class by himself. He is not one of the “underlings,” ὑπηρέται, or police force; he belongs to the high priest himself personally. He must have been a trusted and an important member of the high priest’s own household who had been sent with this expedition as the high priest’s personal representative. That explains why he is out in front within reach of Peter’s sword. That, too, is why John, who was so well acquainted in the high priest’s family, mentions his name (Malchus) and refers even to his relative.

Matthew 26:52

52 Then says Jesus to him: Return thy sword into its place! For all that take a sword by a sword perish. Or dost thou think that I am not able to appeal to my Father, and he shall present me on the instant more than twelve legions of angels? How, then, shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be? Jesus takes instant control of the situation and we hear about no untoward results of Peter’s rashness. Peremptorily he orders Peter to return his sword to its place and by this order completely disavows Peter’s act, and he does that before all concerned.

John 18:11 likewise reports that Peter was summarily rebuked. This is a threefold rebuke. In “all that take the sword,” λαβόντες is timeless, “take it” at any time (R. 859); and the aorist participle is effective, “all who resort to the sword as their final effort.” This statement does not include those to whom God delegates the sword (government and legal authorities) but those who, like Peter, arrogate the sword to themselves, i.e., the sword that represents violence and bloodshed. This sword shall strike back at them with just retribution. It is the old law of Gen. 9:6, the basis of all Jewish criminology, which is reiterated in Rev. 13:10. Jesus holds it up to Peter in warning, and it is futile to quote him and the Scriptures against capital punishment.

Peter had started on a wrong course; Jesus points out what its end would be. The use of ἐν is equivalent to the instrumental case, R. 534.

Matthew 26:53

53 Does Peter think that Jesus is dependent on him for help, if he, indeed, sought help at this late moment? Peter interferes with God who forbids us to resort to the sword and at the same time with Jesus who knows what help he could most surely get. One word of appeal (“beseech” is misleading as a translation of παρακαλέσαι) and for every apostle (including Judas) the Father of Jesus “shall present,” have ready right there, ἄρτι, “now,” this moment, “on the instant” (the idea of verb and the adverb being, without a second’s delay), not only twelve legions of angels but more than that number. A legion had 6, 000 foot soldiers and a body of horsemen. This is the consciousness with which Jesus goes into his death: at any moment, at his simple word, the sky could blaze forth with a tremendous host of mighty angels, whose swords could annihilate all these or any other enemies of his. That is the real help Jesus can call. How silly for Peter to flash his little human sword!

We must note ἄρτι, “now,” at this moment. It points back to the prayers in Gethsemane, to the subjection of Jesus’ will to that of his Father, to the perfect voluntariness of his suffering and his death. But here the true nature of this submission and this voluntariness comes clearly to view: it is combined with the ability (δύναμαι) at any moment (ἄρτι) to avoid this suffering and this death and to do this with absolute moral perfection. As in the Father, so in the incarnate Son, the will to redeem us by that Son’s blood and death was his and his alone with absolutely nothing outside to coërce that will. From the beginning to the end of the passion this was true. It is again evident in John 19:11.

Matthew 26:54

54 Since these tremendous possibilities are ever open to him in his passion, Jesus rejects the blind, pitiful help Peter here tries to offer him. But all these things have long been decided by the divine will, hence this οὖν, which bases the statement regarding the Scriptures on the one regarding the possibility of receiving instant help from heaven. The subjunctive is an effective aorist (R. 851) in a question of deliberation, which is here rhetorical (R. 934) and does not expect or need an answer. Does Peter intend to thwart the fulfillment of the Scriptures, αἱγραφαί, plural, in their divine statements “that thus it must be,” δεῖ in the divine redemptive will of incomprehensible love? This δεῖ or necessity lies in God alone, that is, in the eternal, free volition he has exercised to save us through his Son. And as such it is recorded in the Scriptures.

The basic assumption is that it is absolutely certain that the Scriptures are to be fulfilled. But how shall they be fulfilled if Peter follows his idea of smiting with the sword? There is no answer to such an assumption; the only answer would be that Peter would instantly be brushed aside.

This answer is given only to Peter, but it reveals the divine background of the voluntariness of Jesus’ passion. We catch a brief glimpse of the depths that lie beneath what Jesus here does by giving himself up without a struggle. Only Luke informs us that Jesus healed the severed ear of Malchus; that he performs a miracle of healing for the benefit of one of his own captors. In that healed ear this man to his dying day bore the mark of Jesus’ omnipotence and grace. This is one of those plain miracles which show that faith on the part of the person healed is not necessary. Did Malchus have faith?

Matthew 26:55

55 In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes: As against a robber did you come out with short-swords and clubs to capture me? Day by day I was sitting in the Temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this all has come to pass in order that the Scriptures of the prophets should be fulfilled. Then the disciples all, having left him, fled. All the synoptists record the protest of Jesus against his arrest and against the manner in which it was made. Mark writes that he “answered” his captors, Matthew that he spoke to them “in that hour,” right there at the time and not later on.

Luke adds that high priests, commanders of the Temple, and elders were present. The priests and the elders followed, we may assume, because they were too excited to stay in the city, too anxious to find out whether the effort would succeed. The words of the captive, whose hands are bound with a rope, who is apparently helpless, are calm and measured without a trace of excitement; but they are keen and cutting to these leaders who now gloat over their capture.

Jesus asks them just what they have done. They have come as though they were going out to meet a robber from whom the most violent resistance might be expected; they went out with a great expedition that was armed “with short-swords and clubs” as though they expected a regular battle—and all this, Jesus asks, “to capture me?” The whole thing is actually ridiculous. Why, “from day to day (κατά is distributive) I made a practice of sitting (iterative imperfect, R. 884) in the Temple engaged in teaching (durative participle), and you did not arrest me.” And now all this violent demonstration, this army of legionaries and Temple police! Jesus, the harmless teacher, is not responsible for this arrest and such an arrest; they, these blind, fear-filled leaders, have perpetrated this. If there were any cause for arresting Jesus, why had they failed to act day after day in the Temple? Jesus had not hidden from them.

He had no cause to hide. He had none now, nor had he hidden; on the contrary, he had handed himself over to them when they said they wanted him. A man, whom they permitted to sit and to teach publicly and frequently in the Temple, they now come to arrest with an army? Of course, the protest is useless; and yet no proper protest is useless although men disregard it, for it registers the truth, and truth stands forever.

Matthew 26:56

56 Nor are these men to think that with their superior cunning in hiring a traitor and with their crush of arms they have really captured Jesus. Not a bit of it. They could and would have captured nothing. This whole thing (τοῦτοὅλον) has occurred for one reason and for one alone: “in order that the Scriptures of the prophets (subjective genitive: written by the prophets) should be fulfilled.” Here are the real forces at work in what is taking place this night: God is carrying out his prophetic plans, Jesus is thus voluntarily putting himself into his captors’ hands. That and that alone is why this army is scoring such a huge victory against a single humble man! But let these victors think of the part they are playing in God’s plan as recorded in the Scriptures.

Now v. 36 was fulfilled. As Jesus is led away, all the disciples fled, Matthew, too, and Peter, the hero. But Matthew uses the participle ἀφέντες which expresses an action that is subordinate to that of ἔφυγον and yet conveys a sadder touch. They all had “to leave him,” think of it, “leave him” in order to flee! So entirely alone he was led away to his death.

Matthew 26:57

57 Now they that arrested Jesus led him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. Matthew omits an account of the preliminary judicial examination before Annas, John 18:19, and at once takes us to the Sanhedrin and the main trial. On Caiaphas see v. 3. When news came that they were really bringing Jesus as a prisoner, the leaders knew that delay was not advisable. Messengers hastened through the dark streets of the city to summon at least a legal quorum for a session of the Sanhedrin. This body was ready for action after Annas had detained Jesus for awhile.

The session must have been held in the same hall that was mentioned in v. 3; and by comparing v. 69 we see that this could not have been the open inner court of the palace but was a hall in the building proper. Since the high priest has been mentioned, Matthew is content to name only the scribes and the elders; in v. 59 we have the term “Sanhedrin.”

The legal restrictions that forbade trials at night were summarily set aside in the case of Jesus. Modern Jews make every possible effort to discredit the evidence of the evangelists regarding this vital point and declare outright that this night trial never took place. Aside from the motive back of these efforts, the evidence of the four Gospels is a bulwark that modern Jewish tactics and bold assertion cannot overthrow. The leaders who deliberately plotted the murder of Jesus were not men to balk at a technicality of legal procedure when they finally had their victim in their grasp.

Matthew 26:58

58 But Peter was following him from afar up to the court of the high priest and, having gone inside, he was sitting with the underlings to see the outcome. This is really a parenthetical statement that is inserted here in preparation for v. 69–75. All the disciples fled when Jesus was made a prisoner in Gethsemane. But two, Peter and John, recovered sufficiently to follow Jesus from a distance by keeping themselves out of sight. Love drew them, fear held them at a distance. The imperfects ἠκολούθει and ἐκάθητο are descriptive of the actions.

To the very court of the high priest’s palace Peter manages to follow. The entrance, it seems, was a passageway that had a doorkeeper at the street end. This passageway led to the open inner court. Jesus was led in. The Roman soldiers marched off to their fortress barracks. A sufficient number of the Temple police went into the court.

John, too, had no trouble in entering. But at first Peter got only “up to the court,” i.e., its entrance, and feared to go farther.

“Having gone inside” simply states the fact that Peter got inside; John 18:16 shows how this was managed, how John himself abetted Peter’s disobedience to Jesus and thus helped Peter on to his denials. So on the inside Peter was sitting together with the underlings, the ὑπηρέται, the Temple police, hypocritically pretending to be one of their number. The other evangelists mention the fire around which the men warmed themselves. The reason Peter gave himself for venturing in here was that he wished to see τὸτέλος, “the end” or “outcome” of the affair, as though Jesus had not told him exactly what this would be. We always invent good reasons for doing what we ought not to do. The two imperfect verbs, however, intimate that something final is to follow

Matthew 26:59

59 Now Matthew reports the essentials of the night trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Now the high priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking false witness against Jesus in order to put him to death; and they did not find it although many false witnesses came forward. “The high priests” are the leaders of this supreme Jewish court: Caiaphas as its president, Annas, and others of his family; and τὸσυνέδριον (from ἕδρα, “seat”) are the rest of the members of this court. As they were seated on a raised platform in a semicircle, the prisoner, under guard, faced them from the floor. Matthew presents the center of the whole illegal action of this court when he pictures it as “seeking false witness against Jesus in order to put him to death.” The Jewish law required an indictment first of all and then on the strength of that indictment the arrest. The trial would begin with that indictment and with the testimony on which it had originally been issued. But here was a prisoner against whom no indictment had been found and no witnesses had been heard in order to arrive at an indictment.

In an illegal and a most high-handed way he had been arrested, and no crime had as yet been charged against him. Thus, unindicted, illegally arrested he stands before the Sanhedrin at this illegal hour.

The situation was legally frightful. A large number of the judges should have risen up and protested against such outrageous proceedings. It casts a black moral pall on all Judaism of this time that such a session of the Sanhedrin should have been possible. But remember v. 3–5. The Sanhedrin had drawn far more than an indictment, it had already without witness, indictment, or anything else decreed its victim’s death. That death is to be secured, no matter how.

Those who could decree that death would certainly now not be squeamish about the means to be employed to attain their end. It is an old observation that the most villanous judges still cling to a show of legal formalities. So here this Sanhedrin seeks for some accusation, however irregularly it may be obtained, on which they can with at least some show of right pass the verdict of death. Only one way is open to them to stage this legal farce: they must seek false witness against Jesus, lying, perjured testimony, to bring him to death.

Matthew 26:60

60 This they proceed to do. But to their dismay they do not find what they thought would be so easy. A whole array of witnesses offers itself, man after man is brought in and testifies falsely, but no two witnesses agree, to say nothing of three or more, so as to charge something fatal against Jesus. He lived and taught openly, thousands saw and heard him, and now nothing of a criminal nature can be proved against him even by lying witnesses. Many of the ὑπηρέται probably volunteered testimony in order to curry favor with these leaders or on promise of good pay—remember the money given to Judas. But it is all in vain.

Matthew 26:61

61 And finally two, having come forward, said: This fellow said, I am able to destroy the Sanctuary of God and after three days to build it. We may well imagine a collusion between these two. They, of course, testified singly, one stepping into the hall after the other. Matthew gives us their testimony; Mark’s version of it is more detailed. They claim to quote what Jesus had said about three years ago when he cleansed the Temple the first time, John 2:19. A glance shows that Jesus never said what these witnesses allege, that they garbled his words and put a malicious meaning into them.

He never said, “I am able to destroy the Sanctuary of God,” or, “I will destroy this Sanctuary.” He spoke of the Jews destroying their own Sanctuary; see the author on John 2:19. Matthew does not need to say that also this malicious effort failed; but Mark reports that even then their testimony was not ἴση, “equal,” the version of the one witness failed to agree with that of the other. In what respect they disagreed we are not told. When two testify that they heard the accused say a certain thing they dare not differ on any vital point in regard to what they claim to have heard. Even after a collusion it was a difficult matter to get two witnesses such as this to testify in such a way that their witness would be acceptable.

The ναός is the central building of the Temple area which contains the Holy of Holies and the Holy; the ἱερόν is the entire Temple complex with its courts as well as its structures. The phrase with διά denotes an interval of time: “through three days,” i.e., there being that many days between. So we must translate, “after three days” although διά does not mean “after,” R. 581. Of course, οὗτος is derogatory, “this fellow,” R. 697.

Matthew 26:62

62 Here was the great Sanhedrin that finally had Jesus in its power, and all its efforts to fasten something of a criminal nature upon him had proved abortive. The situation had grown desperate. Resolved that Jesus must die and die quickly, it now appeared as though, for lack of indictment and testimony, the case would have to be adjourned. It is Caiaphas who then saves the situation. And the high priest, having risen, said to him: Dost thou answer nothing? What are these witnessing against thee?

And Jesus remained silent. Sitting gravely on the platform, the Sanhedrists watched the futile proceedings. Caiaphas, as chairman, now arises, as Mark adds, “in their midst,” thus confronting Jesus, and puts on his actor’s stunt. He is so outraged and indignant because of what the two witnesses have just testified that he cannot wait for a finding on the competency of this testimony. He acts as though it were a closed matter. Regular legal procedure has led to nothing, he will try something else.

He turns on Jesus, and his display of passion is of such a nature that the grammarians are undecided as to whether τί introduces a direct and thus separate question or an indirect question that is still a part of the first question (R. 738). “Dost thou answer nothing? What are these witnessing against thee?” Such incriminating testimony, and not a word in reply from thee? The object of Caiaphas is transparent: He aims to hasten Jesus into some explanation that may be distorted into a corroboration of the perverted testimony of the last two witnesses. He thus snatches the right to pass on the legitimacy of that testimony from the Sanhedrin. His dramatics direct all eyes toward Jesus.

Matthew 26:63

63 Calmly undisturbed, Jesus looks at Caiaphas with unflinching eyes. The silence grows more and more intense. Jesus utters never a word. Ἐσιώπα, “he continued silent,” a dramatic, descriptive imperfect. And gradually it dawns on the Sanhedrin that this significant silence is the actual answer to the hollow questions of the excited high priest, an answer that is more meaningful and more crushing than any words could have been. That answer went home. Even Caiaphas dares not regard it as a silent admission of guilt on the part of Jesus. He would lose out completely before the Sanhedrists if he did.

What did this silence say? Opinions differ as men visualize this scene. These points are certain: The Sanhedrin had not yet admitted the false and conflicting testimony as competent. Until that time a reply on the part of Jesus would have been as disorderly as was the show-acting of Caiaphas himself. To testimony of this kind, however Caiaphas might try to play it up, the only competent reply of Jesus was—absolute silence. Innocence and dignity could make no other reply.

Then this was a loud silence that literally spoke volumes. As it grew and grew in the ears of all present it fairly shouted that the whole proceeding, plus this last act of Caiaphas’, was absolutely illegal, and no more upsetting conviction of this travesty of a just court could be borne in upon the minds of this court. We need add no more.

That this was, indeed, the significance of Jesus’ silence is shown by the sudden abandonment of the testimony of the last two witnesses and by the new turn of Caiaphas. And the high priest said to him, I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us, whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God! Caiaphas, feeling the full force of Jesus’ silence, intends to counteract that silence. And he acts with instant quickness. The one and real matter on account of which the Sanhedrists wanted Jesus out of the way was not some individual act of his or some one word that caused offense but his great claim that he was the promised Messiah, the Son of God. Caiaphas sees how flimsy the testimony of the many witnesses was, how futile even the last two bits of testimony. So he boldly and in the most dramatic way presents the main issue fully and squarely.

We do not agree with those who think that Caiaphas still tries to retain the testimony of the last two witnesses and makes the deduction that, if Jesus claims that he will replace the Sanctuary, he must claim to be the Messiah and God’s omnipotent Son. But Caiaphas does not propound his oath and his question because he reasoned in such a roundabout way. Unscrupulous type of man that he is, he leaps directly to the main issue. He acted in the very same manner in John 11:49, 50. The testimony of the two witnesses, Caiaphas saw, could at best lead only to a charge of blasphemy—and what would that avail before Pilate? So Caiaphas makes the bold strike to obtain more.

As the head of the court he puts Jesus under oath: ἐξορκίζωσε, “I put thee under oath,” “I adjure thee.” This was the regular Jewish way of placing a man under oath and implied that anything he would say would be regarded as a sworn statement. On whom or what the oath was made κατά indicated, here, “by the living God.” The idea of this preposition “down” is that of swearing by placing the hand down on the thing by which the oath is taken, R. 607. The participle “the living One,” refers to the God who, as living, hears what is sworn by him and will without fail punish any falsehood that is uttered in his name. The ἵνα clause is subfinal (R. 993) and states the substance of the oath: “that thou tell us (the legal authority of Israel) whether (εἰ in indirect questions, R. 1045) thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” Regarding this supreme point Jesus is to make a sworn statement: yea or nay. Jesus is to say under oath who he is officially and essentially.

We at once see what Caiaphas has in mind: the Baptist’s word, “This is the Son of God,” John 1:34; Nathanael’s word, “Thou art the Son of God,” John 1:49; the Jewish realization that Jesus said, “God was his Father, making himself equal with God,” John 5:18; “I and my Father are one,” and the effort to stone Jesus “because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God,” John 10:30, 33. Throughout his teaching Jesus had spoken of his Father and his Sender in the most unmistakable way, cf., John 5:19–47; 8:16–19, 53, 58. The supreme objection to Jesus on the part of all the Jewish leaders was the claim of Jesus to be “the Son of God.” With this was combined his claim that he was the Messiah. But the two were a unit in the case of Jesus; he, the Son of God, was the Messiah. No less a person could be the Messiah. All his miracles (John 10:37–39) attested his Sonship and his Messiahship.

The claim that the question of Caiaphas did not imply that Jesus was “the Son of God” metaphysically in the sense of deity is refuted by the story of the Gospels, in which this is the very point on which the issue between Jesus and the Jewish leaders turns (John 5:18; 10:30, 33; and other passages). If Jesus had claimed a sonship in any other sense, this would not have been regarded as a criminal claim by the Jews, for they all claimed such sonship. Nor can we agree to the thesis that “the Son of God” was equivalent to “Messiah” in the Jewish mind. Modernism claims that “the Son of God” was but a current “Jewish category of thought” for “the Messiah.” The term did not involve deity. This was a sense that was later given to it. In this way modernists would eliminate the deity of Jesus from the sacred pages.

But the simple Gospel facts are a decisive answer to it. Caiaphas himself calls Jesus’ claim blasphemy when Jesus declares himself to be the Messiah in the sense of the Son of God. If Son of God had been equivalent to Messiah, blasphemy would have been out of the question; Caiaphas could have called Jesus only a fanatic or a lying pretender.

Matthew 26:64

64 Jesus says to him: Thou didst say. Nevertheless, I say to you, from now on you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of the power and coming on the clouds of the heaven. Jesus breaks his silence. Since the truth is demanded of him regarding his office and his person, silence would be a wrong answer, and so Jesus speaks. By his affirmation Jesus swears that he is, indeed, just what the adjuration asks, “the Messiah, the Son of God.” The reply of Caiaphas puts the sense of the answer of Jesus beyond question. The assertion is sometimes made that Jesus never called himself “the Son of God.” Here he swears that he is no less.

As regards πλήν, R. 1187; B.-D. 449, 1 settle the point that, when it is used as a conjunction, the sense is always adversative, it is like “nevertheless.” Here the statement thus introduced is not adverse to the one just made (“Thou hast said”) but to this statement as it was received by Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. They consider it blasphemy when Jesus says, σὺεἶπας; “nevertheless” they themselves shall see with their own eyes that what Jesus here swears to is true. Some think that Jesus here speaks of his Parousia, and that then, at the end of the world, these Sanhedrists, too, shall see him enthroned in glory. But ἀπʼ ἄρτι, “from now on,” obviates that view. The phrase must modify ὄψεσθε; it would be rather meaningless as a modifier of λέγω. “From now on,” namely from the time of the death of Jesus onward, which death the Sanhedrin is bound to effect and which will usher Jesus into glory, they, too, shall see his glorification. In the miracles occurring at the time of his death they shall begin to see, in his resurrection likewise, and thus onward in every manifestation of his power, including especially the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish nation.

But ὄψεσθε does not refer to physical or spiritual seeing but to experimental perception. It is like the seeing mentioned in John 1:51, but is without the faith there indicated.

Jesus calls himself “the Son of man” (see 8:20) because his glorious enthronement refers to his human nature joined to the divine. This is, indeed, his great self-chosen Messianic title which always points to both of his natures. “The right hand of the power” names the power instead of the omnipotent God himself; yet the genitive is not possessive, “the right hand that belongs to the power”; but appositional, “the right hand that is the power.” To sit at the right hand of God is to exercise the power of this hand; and this invariably refers to the human nature of Jesus. This is the nature that was glorified at the time of the resurrection and ascended visibly to heaven. In deepest humiliation that nature appeared before the Sanhedrin, and this body of men could not conceive the thought that in a little while all this lowliness would give way to divine glory. Without indicating it, Jesus is using Ps. 110, the very psalm with which he had silenced the Pharisees on Tuesday, 22:41, etc. Some displays of divine power the humble Jesus had made during his ministry (the last, John 18:4–6; Luke 22:51); but these would be as nothing compared to the everlasting operation of his power through his human nature in glory.

“And coming on the clouds of heaven,” together with “the Son of man,” is a reference to Dan. 7:13, whence also this title is derived by Jesus. “The clouds” cannot here refer only to the majesty and the greatness of Jesus; as in the original passage in Daniel, and then also in Matt. 24:30 and in Rev. 1:7, the clouds symbolize the divine judgment. These Sanhedrists shall soon have their obdurate shell pierced, they shall see Jesus ruling in divine majesty and power and coming to judgment in divine glory. Event after event shall drive this conviction home to their wicked hearts, no matter how they may resist it.

This helps to answer the question that is often asked as to why Jesus added this word regarding his rule and his judgment. He is not threatening these human judges of his with his divine judgment (1 Pet. 2:23). On the other hand, this is not a declaration of grace and forgiveness. Jesus adds this statement in order to bring his judges to a realization of just whom they are about to condemn to death. He is defining for them who “the Messiah, the Son of God” is: he whom they themselves will see in his divine power, rule, and majesty. At this supreme moment and before this supreme court of his nation Jesus, put under oath, must make a full and a complete and not merely an abbreviated statement of the full realities concerning his office and his person.

Incidentally we see that Jesus unhesitatingly swears an oath before the constituted governmental authority of his nation. This settles the interpretation of 5:34, and at the same time bars out all oaths that are demanded by self-constituted authorities, whoever these may be. Jesus swears to his own harm. Truth must be uttered though it be turned to our own damage by wicked men.

Matthew 26:65

65 Then the high priest rent his robes, saying: He blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? See, now you heard the blasphemy! What do you think? And they, answering, said, Guilty is he of death! Caiaphas has exactly what he wants and he makes the most of it.

His dramatics are hypocritical and histrionical and are intended to sweep the whole Sanhedrin along with him over all legal requirements to the one goal on which he knows all are set: the condemning of Jesus to death. Some think that Caiaphas was sincere or at least partly sincere when he seemed shocked by what he regarded as blasphemy. But this Sadducee who deliberately plotted the judicial murder of Jesus was past shock in regard to God or the manner in which men spoke of God. So, instead of submitting the sworn statement of Jesus to the court for its judicial decision as the law required, Caiaphas himself makes that decision. In great excitement he shouts as one who can scarcely believe his own ears, “He blasphemed!” the aorist whereas we prefer the perfect to indicate what has just happened, R. 842. Suiting the action to the word, “he rent his ἱμάτια,” Mark says, “his χιτῶνας‚” in the Jewish fashion to symbolize his outraged feeling.

The inner or the outer garments, sometimes both, as seems to have been the case here, were gripped at the neck by both hands and with a jerk a rent about the width of a man’s palm was torn down the front and exposed the chest, so that all could see that something terrible had happened.

The assertion that the high priest dared not rend his garment is untenable; Lev. 10:6 and 21:10 forbid this only in connection with the dead; in 1 Macc. 11:71 we see a high priest rending his clothes. This custom was followed by Greeks, Romans, and barbarians, as well as by Jews. And all Jews were expected to rend their garments upon hearing blasphemy, all except the witnesses. We should not think that the high priest wore his official robes and rent these; these robes the Romans kept locked up and passed out only at the time of the three great festivals, and the high priest wore these robes only on those three occasions. Painters have disregarded this when depicting the passion scenes. To Caiaphas the blasphemy is beyond question, and it is just the thing he wants for his purpose, for the penalty of death had been decreed for this crime, Lev. 24:16, and death was what Caiaphas wanted for Jesus, summary death.

With one sweep he brushes aside the long proceedings that tried to secure false witness: “What need have we of witnesses? See, now you heard the blasphemy!” With this quick turn Caiaphas gets rid of all the ineffectual testimony and inadvertently reveals the hollowness of his previous demand that Jesus make a reply to these witnesses. As far as Caiaphas was concerned, the case is settled right here and now.

Matthew 26:66

66 So he demands a verdict from the Sanhedrin on the instant: “What do you think?” Now according to Jewish legal procedure in capital cases the verdict could be passed only at a second session of the court that was to be held on another day and never on the same day. And this verdict was arrived at in a fixed, formal way: two scribes recorded the votes which had to be written, the one scribe tabulating the votes for acquittal, the other those reading guilty. All these legal safeguards that had been established in the interest of justice are here summarily overthrown. Yet not a single voice is raised in question, to say nothing of protest. The hatred of Jesus that was focused in the passionate demand of Caiaphas animates every judge present. To Matthew’s “they, answering, said,” Mark adds “all”; the viva voce vote was unanimous.

No reflection, no careful consideration was needed. All of that had been attended to when the plot for the judicial murder of Jesus had been definitely planned. Matthew records the verdict itself: “Guilty is he of death!” Mark describes: “They all condemned him to be guilty of death.” The criminal deed had been put across.

Matthew 26:67

67 What follows is an outrage that is so beastly and brutal as to seem almost incredible. Then they did spit into his countenance and they hit him with fists. Some slapped him, saying, Prophesy to us, Christ, who is it that slapped thee? The Sanhedrists, the supreme judges of the nation, in whom all the dignity and the grandness of the nation should be vested, here show their real inner nature: they are rowdies of the lowest kind. The proud Sadducees, the aristocrats of the Sanhedrin and the nation, here reveal what they really are: low-down rabble of the coarsest type. Once they have shouted their illegal verdict, definitely repudiating all reverence for God and for his laws, they lose even common human decency.

They leap to their feet and crowd around the lone, bound prisoner. We now get to see what is in the hearts of these men who pretended to try Jesus.

Matthew reports only their main acts. “They spat into his countenance,” any number of them. This is the climax of personal insult. By this they show what they think of “the Son of God” about to sit at the right hand of power and to come on the clouds of heaven. They cannot act vile enough toward him. And now comes the most cowardly brutality: “they strike him with their fists.” A man who is wholly unable to defend himself—upon him they vent this viciousness just to hurt him as much as possible. They act like savages. Here we combine Mark and Luke with Matthew: somebody conceived the idea of mocking the prophetic claims of Jesus. He threw a cloth over Jesus’ face so that Jesus could not see; and then slap after slap rained upon Jesus’ face, blows of the fist, too, according to Mark.

Matthew 26:68

68 Then they cried derisively, “Prophesy to us, Christ, who is it that did slap thee?” Ribald laughter, no doubt, accompanied this supposed joke regarding this Christ and regarding the idea of his being a prophet. But this was not all. The Sanhedrists tired of their abuse of Jesus, and the high priest turned him over to the ὑπηρέται, “the underlings,” or police guard, and Mark reports that they received him with fisticuffs, following the noble pattern of their superiors. How long this went on who will say? The condition of Jesus at the end of this experience can more easily be imagined than described. Here Isa. 50:6, and Jesus’ own prophecy, Mark 10:34 and Luke 18:32, in regard to being spitted upon, were fulfilled literally.

Matthew 26:69

69 Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And there came to him a certain maid, saying, Thou, too, wast with Jesus of Galilee! This carries forward the story of Peter begun in v. 58, where Peter was sitting in the courtyard, among the ὑπηρέται or Temple police. He imagined that he could succeed in carrying out his plan, and that no one would pay attention to him. But he was sadly mistaken. From John we learn that it was the very maid who had admitted Peter that exposed him. From the synoptists we supply the details that she left her post at the entry, came over to Peter, fixed her eyes upon him, and then made her startling assertion. This must have happened some time after she had admitted Peter.

But what made her do this? Was she afraid that she had let the wrong man in and did she take this means of making herself safe? If so, then what about John whom she knew much better? The καί in the assertion shows that this maid arrived at the conclusion that Peter must have been a disciple of Jesus (“with Jesus” means this) from the way in which John intervened to have Peter admitted. Yet she makes no issue of John. Was she merely teasing Peter, trying to make him uncomfortable when she saw that he was trying to hide his identity?

Her words do not sound like banter. She most likely wanted to make herself important. She wanted these men to know that she knew something they did not know. Here they were talking about Jesus and about what had just taken place and yet did not know that right in their own midst sat one of Jesus’ own disciples. No doubt, all cocked their ears when she made her assertion.

Matthew 26:70

70 But he denied in front of them all, saying, I do not know what thou art saying. The suddenness of his exposure, its publicity before the crowd about the fire, the feeling that he was in danger at once upset Peter and filled him with panic. He saw no way out except to lie

out. The devil loves to pounce upon the foolhardy and to sweep boasters off their feet. The words of the denial were scarcely as brief as any one of the four evangelists records them. Matthew writes, “I do not know what thou art saying!” to which Mark adds a second verb; but Luke has, “I know him not,” for which John writes simply, “I am not,” i.e., one of his disciples.

It took only a menial maid to fell the chief of the Twelve. Gone were all his high and heroic protestations to Jesus; gone was the spurious courage from his heart and from the hand that had snatched out the sword in Gethsemane. Here stands the arrant coward, unable to confess his heavenly Lord, cringing with lying denial. Some think that Peter was frightened without real cause, that he misjudged the situation and really should have confessed. But whether it is with or without cause, fright operates, nevertheless. Peter was undoubtedly in danger. Surely he would have been arrested forthwith, taken before Annas, and held at least for a time; and if his slashing off the ear of Malchus should have become known, serious punishment might have been the result.

Matthew 26:71

71 Now another maid saw him after he went into the entryway and says to those there, This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth! Peter waited long enough to have attention safely withdrawn from him and then quietly approached the πυλών, the long entryway that led out from the courtyard to the street through the front side of the building. Mark calls it the προαύλιον, “the vestibule” (M.-M. 537); it was not another courtyard in front of the palace. It is his evident intention to get away unobserved.

The second αὐτόν is the object, to which the accusative participle and another αὐτόν are added. But this very move precipitates the second and severer denial. Matthew says that “another” (feminine, hence “maid”) saw him. Mark says, “The maid, having seen him, began again to say,” etc., which must refer to the maid who exposed Peter in the first place. Luke writes that after a little ἕτερος, masculine, “another man,” saw him. This appears to be a contradiction, but it harmonizes most naturally when we keep the situation in mind.

Peter had been exposed, and the matter was being talked about. On a night like this more than one maid would be on duty at the entry. Peter meets two maids and a man, all three of whom are certain that he is a disciple of Jesus. There are also others in the entrance since a large crowd is present. So Peter is again recognized, and that by three persons, and his case now seems more desperate than it was before.

While these were one after the other addressing, not Peter, but each other and the others that were there, and were saying that “this fellow” (derogatory οὗτος) had been “with Jesus of Nazareth” (the most ordinary way of naming Jesus), Mark says the cock crowed. That marks the time of night as being beyond midnight; for Mark notes this crowing as being a fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus, Mark 14:30, “before the cock crow twice.” This was the first crowing. In his excitement Peter never heard it. This first crowing, too, is not as loud and as continuous as the second.

Matthew 26:72

72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man! Matthew alone mentions the oath with which Peter tried to secure credence for this denial. He recognized that he would have to offer something stronger than he had offered at the time of the first denial. He swears that he does not even know Jesus and acts as though he really does not know Jesus’ name. Yet these lips had uttered 16:16; John 6:68, 69!

Matthew 26:73

73 Peter promptly gave up the idea of trying to get out through the entryway. Twice he had been positively recognized, and we can imagine the uneasiness and the fear with which he now tried to efface himself in the crowded courtyard. Now after a little those standing by came forward and said to Peter: Of a truth, thou, too, art one of them! For even thy dialect makes thee evident. Luke makes the interval “about an hour.” The most decisive effort is now made to identify Peter as a disciple of Jesus. Matthew and Mark mention only the fact that some of the men who were standing by and had evidently been discussing Peter came up and again confronted him.

Luke makes one of the men the spokesman, and John is able to supply the detail that this was a relative of the Malchus whose ear Peter had cut off. Here, then, was danger indeed.

With great positiveness they say, “Of a truth,” i.e., in spite of thy previous denials, “thou art one of them!” So Peter had not succeeded in allaying suspicion regarding himself, he had only strengthened it. And this time the λαλία, “utterance,” namely the Galilean brogue with which Peter spoke was brought forward as evidence (γάρ) that Peter was “one of them,” for all of them save Judas hailed from Galilee. But John tells us that the relative of Malchus was able to add more to this personal connection and this circumstantial evidence: he is almost certain that he saw Peter in Gethsemane.

Matthew 26:74

74 Then he began to curse and to swear, I do not know the man. And immediately a cock crowed. He called down all manner of evil on himself and with oaths called God to witness that he did not know him. In fact, we see that he is ready to resort to anything to save himself from discovery. Peter was no longer a man of even ordinary manhood; he was a groveling coward who was too pitiful to look upon. Somehow even now Peter was not arrested on suspicion and held for judicial investigation. But immediately after his curses and his oaths “a cock crowed.” He began his crowing just before the dense morning dark began to lighten (see v. 34).

Matthew 26:75

75 Nobody paid attention to this crowing of the cock save one man. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said, Before a cock crows, thrice shalt thou deny me. And having gone out, he sobbed bitterly. Jesus had spoken that word about the cock’s crowing because he foresaw Peter’s situation and intended that Peter should recall that word to his great benefit. That cock’s crowing thus released the tension of fear, recalled Jesus’ love and warning, and thus opened the door to genuine repentance. Luke adds the detail that at this very moment Jesus turned and looked at Peter, and that this led to his repentance.

But the cock’s crowing and the Lord’s look move Peter to the same end. In divine providence all this had been timed so as to effect this gracious result. There is some discussion as to how Jesus could look upon Peter at this moment. The best answer is that the Temple police were leading him from the hall of trial to a place for safekeeping until he should again be wanted. With his face all contused and black and blue from the blows he had received, with spittle still defiling his countenance, Jesus looked upon poor Peter as he passed through the courtyard. No wonder that look went home.

It seems that Peter encountered no difficulty in getting out of the courtyard. Some therefore conclude that he would have had no difficulty at any time. But the maids kept the door locked, and Peter did not risk it to make a demand to be permitted to leave. But the transfer of Jesus changed this situation. The crowd of the ὑπηρέται, Temple police, that had been kept waiting in the courtyard until this time were ordered out, and so Peter could leave without difficulty.

His repentance is stated in two words: ἔκλαυσεπικρῶς, the verb denoting loud, audible weeping, “he sobbed bitterly.” The adverb does not refer to the physical sobbing but to the bitterness of the contrition that was back of it. Contrition includes the realization that we have sinned and the consequent genuine sorrow for our sin. The story of Peter has two important features: first, Jesus’ prophecies and their fulfillment, which were at first frantically denied; secondly, the foremost of the apostles sins most terribly and is yet restored by true repentance. For all time this calls sinners to the pardon which Jesus has ready for them.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.