Matthew Chapter Twenty-Six
Plots and Preparations, 26:1-56
Fourth Prediction of His Death, 1, 2
1, 2. after two days.—This expression, in Jewish usage, means, on the second day after the one then present. As the Passover that year was on Friday, this remark, and the entire speech of which it was the concluding part (verse 1), were delivered on Wednesday. This is the fourth time, as recorded by Matthew, that Jesus predicted his own death. (Comp. Mattjew 16:21-23; 17:22, 23; 20:17-19.)
Council at the House of Caiaphas, 3-5.
(Mark 14:1, 2; Luke 22:1, 2)
3. Then assembled.--Then connects the assembling of this council with the preceding remark of Jesus, showing that it was on the same day; that is, Wednesday. (See also Mark 14:1, 2.) The denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees contained in chap. 23, was pronounced on the morning of Wednesday, and the prophetic discourse of chaps. 24 and 25, in the after part of the same day. Before the close of the same day, the chief priests and elders, filled with bitter resentment for the denunciations of the morning, assembled together, as here declared.
4, 5. by subtilty.—The fear of the people, which had restrained these parties earlier in the week (Mattjew 21:46), was still the chief obstacle to the revenge which they sought. The subtilty which was in requisition now was needed for the purpose of getting possession of Jesus and securing his condemnation before the people could interfere. So far as the future could be foreseen, plans for this purpose were now devised.
The Anointing at Bethany, 6-13.
(Mark 14:3-9; John 12:2-8)
6. when Jesus was in Bethany.—This language is indefinite as to time. John mentions the same feast, and dates it six days before the Passover, which fixes it on Sunday night. (John 12:1.) Matthew's indefinite language is entirely consistent with this date. He mentions it here, out of its chronological order, because it is associated in thought with the counsel of the priests and elders to put Jesus to death (verses 3-5), and with Jesus' own prediction just mentioned (verses 1, 2). The accounts of the feast, as given by Matthew and John, are too nearly identical to allow the supposition that two different feasts are referred to. (Compare with this paragraph John 12:1-8.)
house of Simon the leper.—As the law forbade a leper to mingle with the people (Lev. 13:45, 46), this man had probably been healed of the leprosy by Jesus, and was still called Simon the leper from habit. Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead, was at the supper; the woman who anointed Jesus (verse 7) was Mary; while Martha, according to her well known habit (Luke 10:40), was one of those who served. (John 12:2, 3.) It was an interesting group of notable persons, who were full of gratitude for benefits conferred, and whose unfeigned love was about the only human solace enjoyed by the Savior during the last week of his sufferings.
7. on his head.—Matthew's account of the act of anointing is quite indefinite. He mentions neither the quantity of the ointment nor its value; nor does he state that the feet of Jesus were anointed as well as his head. It was the fact that ointment so precious was lavished on his feet, that gave especial cause for the indignation expressed by Judas. These items are supplied by Mark and John.
8, 9. they had indignation.—Not all of the disciples, for Judas alone made the complaint. (John 12:4.) This is an instance in which Matthew uses the plural indefinitely to represent what came from a group of persons, although it was uttered by only one of them.
10. a good work.—It was a good work, because it was a manifestation of devotion and gratitude. Mary thought that nothing was too costly to be lavished on Jesus, and he indorsed the sentiment. The incident shows that no expenditure is unacceptable to Jesus that is prompted by unmixed love for him. Let us beware, however, of extravagant expenditures in the name of Jesus which are prompted in part by love of show, or by any other earthly lust.
11. poor always with you.—This is one of those far-reaching sayings of Jesus, which display his superhuman foresight and the intensely practical view which he took of human life. He was not a humanitarian visionary, dreaming of the day when all poverty should be banished from the earth, and when men should all be equal in worldly goods. He contemplated as the perpetual condition of his earthly kingdom, the inequalities of riches and poverty, the blessedness of receiving gifts in the name of Christ, and the still greater blessedness of bestowing them. How literally has the prediction been fulfilled!
12. for my burial.—If we understand these words as expressing the purpose of Mary, and this is their natural force, we must conclude that she realized, as the other disciples did not, the truth of what Jesus had predicted concerning his death. It was not merely gratitude for past blessings, but womanly sympathy for him in view of his expected sufferings, which prompted her costly expression of love.
13. wherever this gospel.—Persons frequently perform, without the least thought of notoriety, actions which are destined to make them famous. No human being could have foreseen what Jesus here declares concerning the future fame which would attach to Mary and her simple act of love. On the contrary, the act at first appeared reprehensible, and was favorably regarded by none present except Jesus. His divine foreknowledge is demonstrated by the literal fulfillment of his prediction, and as the knowledge of this incident reaches forward into coming ages and spreads abroad still farther in the earth, the demonstration becomes continually more surprising
The Agreement with Judas, 14-16
(Mark 14:10, 11; Luke 22:3-6)
14. went to the chief priests.—Judas knew, by public rumor, the desire of the chief priests to secure the death of Jesus, and he had probably heard of their lately formed purpose "to take him by subtilty (verse 4). When such a plot is concocted among a number of men, it is very likely to reach the ears of some one friendly to the intended victim. (Comp. Acts 23:12-22.) Judas was therefore well assured that he could make a profitable bargain with the enemy.
15. for thirty pieces of silver.—The pieces of silver were most likely the Jewish shekel, and the amount $15.00. This was a low price for so base a deed: but Judas anticipated no personal danger; he shut out from his mind the thought of all other evil consequences to himself, and he expected his task to cost him but a few minutes of labor when the time should come.
16. he sought opportunity.—He soon found the opportunity; for this contract was entered into on Wednesday or Thursday (verses 2, 3), and on Thursday night the betrayal occurred.
The Passover Prepared, 17-19.
(Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13)
17. first day of the feast.—Not the first of the seven days during which they ate unleavened bread, but the day in which they performed the first act of preparation for the feast, the slaying of the paschal lamb at evening, and called the first day on this account (See Ex. 12:14-20.)
18. at thy house.—It was customary for all the residents of Jerusalem to open their houses for guests during this feast, and therefore Jesus might have presumed on the hospitality of almost any one; but the probability is that the man to whom he sent this message was an acquaintance and a friend.
19. made ready the passover.—The making ready consisted in slaying and roasting the lamb, and providing the unleavened bread and bitter herbs which were eaten with it. (Ex. 12:8.)
Conversation about the Betrayal, 20-25.
(Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:21-23, John 13:21-35)
20. when the even was come.—The preparation had been made during the afternoon of Thursday, and this is the only incident reported by any of the evangelists which certainly occurred on that day. Jesus seems to have remained at Bethany in the quiet circle of his intimate friends until the paschal supper was ready at the close of the day. He was certainly outside of the city when he sent the disciples to make preparation. (See verse 18.)
21, 22. Lord, is it I?—If the disciples had known what kind of a betrayal was meant, and that it was to occur that night, they would have answered as positively as they did in reference to denying him that night (verse 35 below); but they knew not what they might be tempted to do in the distant future, and each only wished to know at present whether he were the person referred to.
23. dippeth his hand with me.—It was customary, as it is yet in Palestine, for several persons to dip bits of bread into a vessel of sauce which was served to them in common. The answer did not distinctly designate Judas, for he still inquired (verse 25), "Master, is it I?" but it narrowed the field of inquiry to the group of which he was one, and proved to the disciples that Jesus was not speaking vaguely. The more definite answer which he gave privately to John was given at a later moment. (John 13:24-26.)
24. but woe unto that man.—Although it was written of the Son of man, and predetermined by God, that he should go as Judas had covenanted, yet the woe is pronounced on Judas, and it is said of him that it had been good for him if he had not been born. This shows that a man who, by a wicked act, brings about a purpose of God, bears the same guilt as though God had no purpose in it. It is his own act and motive for which he is judged, and not the results which God may have intended to bring out of his act. The statement that "it had been good for that man if he had not been born," is a denial of the doctrine of universal salvation; for if a man, after any conceivable amount of suffering, shall at last enjoy everlasting life, it is not true of him that it had been better for him if he had not been born.
25. Then Judas... answered.—The object of this conversation was both to show the foreknowledge of Jesus, and to give Judas a solemn warning in reference to the crime which he was about to commit. If it had been the purpose of Jesus to overwhelm the guilty wretch with fear and dismay, and thereby compel him to desist from his horrible undertaking, we can not conceive words better adapted to this purpose. Yet so utterly callous had the conscience of Judas become that with brazen effrontery he asks, "Master, is it I?" Such hardihood in crime is a more convincing evidence of deep depravity than his previous covenant with the chief priests.
The Lord's Supper Instituted, 26-30.
(Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25)
26. took bread.—As none but unleavened bread was eaten during the paschal supper, the bread which is here spoken of must hare been unleavened, and this makes it a matter of propriety at least that unleavened bread be still used in the Lord's Supper.
this is my body.—It is held by the advocates of the doctrine of transubstantiation that these words are to be understood literally, and that the bread, therefore, was transformed into the actual body of Jesus. It is also affirmed, although it would by no means follow, that when a priest consecrates the wafer there is a similar transformation, and the communicants eat not bread, but the actual body of Christ under the appearance of bread. Waiving all that may be said as to the absurdity of this doctrine, we content ourselves with the inquiry whether the words of Jesus can be thus understood; and in order to the settlement of the question we place ourselves in the position of the apostles to whom the words were first addressed. If, as Jesus spoke the words, "this is my body," he had suddenly disappeared, and the apostles had seen nothing but the bread, they would have understood that the body had been miraculously transformed into the loaf. But as his body was still there, and the loaf which he held in his hands was also there; and as his body still remained there after the loaf had been broken, and passed around, and eaten up, it is impossible that they could have understood him as meaning that the loaf was literally his body, and impossible that he could have intended to be so understood. This is an end of the controversy. The language declares only that the bread was a symbol of his body, and it is the usual mode of expressing such an idea; e. g., "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil," etc. (Matt. 13:38, 39. See also verses 19, 20, 22, 23 of the same chapter, and the note on verse 29 below.)
27. Drink ye all of it.—All the persons, not all of the wine. Whether Judas was still present, we are unable to determine with certainty. John, the only writer who mentions the departure of Judas, says that he went out immediately after the conversation about the betrayal: "He then having received the sop went immediately out." (John 13:30.) This would settle the question if we could ascertain whether the supper was instituted before or after this conversation; but John says nothing about the institution of the supper, and while Luke mentions it before the conversation in question, Matthew and Mark both mention it after the conversation, and none of them gives any notes of time by which we can determine the chronological order of the two events. (Comp. Mark 14:18-25; Luke 22:19-23.) The probability is, however, that there was no eating done after the institution of the Lord's Supper, that the sop given to Judas was therefore given before the supper, and that he had already gone out when the supper was instituted.
28. blood of the testament.—Instead of testament, the rendering should be covenant. The term new, pronounced an interpolation here by the critical authorities, is found in Paul's report of the institution of the supper (1 Cor. 11:25), whence it was doubtless obtained by the interpolator. The covenant referred to is the one mentioned prophetically by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and quoted with comments by Paul in Heb. 8:7-13.
shed for many.—The term many is not used in contradistinction from all, for we know by explicit statements in other passages that Jesus died for every man. (Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15.) It is used here as in Rom. 5:15, 19, where the context shows that it means all. When the persons included are contemplated individually, the term many is employed on account of the vast number of them; for no man can number the individuals for whom Christ died. But when they are contemplated under the feebler conception of the whole, the term all is employed.
for the remission of sins.—These words declare the prime object of the death of Christ. All other purposes which it served are subordinate to this, and all other blessings which his death secures to us are consequent upon this. Without the remission of sins there could be no happiness for man in time or in eternity; with it there is peace of mind here and heaven hereafter: for he who dies with all the sins of his life forgiven has nothing to fear beyond the grave, and he who lives in the daily forgiveness of his daily sins, lives in blissful communion with God.
29. drink it new with you.—The literal use of wine is not here meant; for Jesus does not literally drink wine with his disciples in the kingdom as it now is, nor will he do so in the eternal kingdom. The term drink, therefore, is used figuratively for that communion which Jesus has with his disciples while they are drinking the wine of the Lord's Supper. The term new is most naturally understood as modifying wine, but as the wine of the supper is not necessarily new wine, I think it rather indicates the new method of drinking wine just indicated.
Observe here that Jesus still calls the wine "the fruit of the vine" after he had said of it, "This is my blood"—a clear proof that it was still wine, and had not been changed into his actual blood.
30. when they had sung.—It was a custom of the Jews, though the law did not require it to sing Ps. 113-118, during the paschal supper. They called this passage in the Psalms the Hallel, because it begins in the Hebrew with Hallelujah.
into the mount of Olives.—The garden called Gethsemane, the precise place to which they went (verse 36), was at the base of the Mount of Olives and was included within its limits.
Desertion and Denial Predicted, 31-35.
(Mark 14:26-31; Luke 22:31-38; John 13:36-38)
31. offended because of me.—Mr. Green renders it, "shall be stumbled in me." This is literal and accurate. "Stumbled" is used metaphorically for their partial fall when they fled from the danger, and "in me" indicates that the occasion of the stumbling would be found in him: it was in his voluntary and unexpected surrender to the guards who arrested him.
for it is written.—In Zechariah 13:7, where the connection shows plainly that the reference is to the Messiah. The smiting of a shepherd and the consequent scattering of his flock of sheep, is a striking symbol of the scene at the arrest of Jesus.
32. before you into Galilee.—This appointment to meet the disciples in Galilee after the resurrection, was afterward referred to by the angel at the sepulcher, and by Jesus himself when he appeared to the women. (28:7, 10.)
33-35. will I never be offended--Never be stumbled.—No reader of this passage, not even a child, can fail to see reflected in it the uncertainty of human resolutions, and man's ignorance of himself. We can not, for our own good, too frequently reflect on the incident, nor too earnestly pray, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
Agony in Gethsemane, 36-46.
(Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46; John 18:1)
36. a place called Gethsemane.--Gethsemane means a place of oil-presses, and doubtless this place had once been used for pressing out olive-oil, but it was at this time a garden. (John 18:1.)
37. he took with him.—To the main body of the disciples he had said, "Sit ye here while I go and pray yonder," (36) but now he takes Peter and the two sons of Zebedee nearer to the spot which he had selected for his prayer.
38. then saith Jesus.—Matthew's remark in verse 37, that Jesus "began to be sorrowful and very heavy," expresses what was apparent to the disciples from his manner. Here he gives the words in which the sorrow was expressed.
even unto death.—He felt as if he could not survive the pressure that was upon his soul, and the utter helplessness into which he had sunk is seen in the request to the chosen three, "Tarry ye here, and watch with me." He who had been their comforter in every hour of trouble and danger, now calls on them for the help which their wakeful sympathy would give him in the hour of his agony. Wonderful sight! The Son of God longing for the sympathy of human hearts, and leaning in a time of weakness on the arm of human friendship! Leaning, too, as so many sufferers have done, on a broken reed!
39. fell on his face and prayed.—He first kneeled down (Luke 22:41), and then bowed his face to the ground—the lowliest attitude of prayer, assumed only when the strength of man gives way under a load of sorrow, and some unutterable desire struggles within the soul. The burden on the soul of Jesus is revealed in the piteous cry, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." There is a pause—a solemn and momentous pause freighted with the destinies of a world—when there follows the ever blessed words, "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."
if it be possible.—In one point of view it was possible. As he could, an hour later, have called for twelve legions of angels to deliver him (verse 53), so now the cup would have passed from him had he refused to drink it. But it was impossible without frustrating the purpose for which he had come into the world, and disregarding the will of Him who had sent him. If that purpose, the salvation of men, could have been accomplished without it, the cup both could and would have passed from him. On the figurative use of the word cup, see note on 20:22.
40. findeth them asleep.—After uttering once his prayer he returns to the three disciples, that he may get close to their side and feel the support of their sympathy. How shameful that he finds them asleep and utterly oblivious of his sorrow! He can not endure this: he wakes them up; and how touching the reproof, "Could you not stay awake with me one hour?"
41. Watch and pray.—Though sinking under the weight of his own sorrow, he forgets not the danger which threatens his disciples. He exhorts them to watch for it and against it, and to pray that they "enter not into temptation;" that is, into the power and dominion of the temptation which was coming. Then, as they awaken full of self-reproach, he apologizes for them by the remark, "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
42-44. the second time... the third time.—The severity of the struggle is seen in the fact that although at the close of his first prayer he was able to say, "Not as will, but as thou wilt," he returned to repeat the same prayer a second and a third time. The struggle was perhaps in some degree protracted by the indifference of his disciples, whom he found asleep at each return to their presence.
45, 46. Sleep on now... Rise.—The command, "Rise, let us be going," follows so closely on the words, "Sleep on now, and take your rest," that some have suggested the propriety of pointing the latter clause interrogatively: "Do you sleep on now, and take your rest?" But this is not at all necessary, nor does it yield a sense in so complete harmony with the context. We have only to suppose, in order to remove all difficulty, that between the two remarks he saw the torches of the approaching band of officers led on by Judas. Coming the third time to his slumbering disciples, resigned now to his fate, and feeling able to bear without sympathy the burden that was on his soul, he says to the three, "Sleep on now, and take your rest"—I will not disturb your slumber again on my account. But just then the glimmer of torches is seen in the distance; he knows what it means, and he exclaims, "Rise, let us be going: for he is at hand that doth betray me." The words, "let us be going," were intended for them, not for himself.
It is perhaps in vain to attempt an explanation of the extreme agony which Jesus endured in the garden. That it was not an unmanly fear of death is sufficiently proved by the entire course of his previous life, and is demonstrated by the fortitude with which he actually endured his cruel fate when it came upon him. The natural fear of death, it is true, was saddening to his soul, and the remembrance of the world's cruelty in the past, mingled with the anticipation of their still greater cruelty and their base ingratitude yet to be developed, must have greatly increased the intensity of this sadness; but when we consider all this, and all that we can by imagination distinctly realize, we feel that we are still snort of the reality. There was something in the dual nature of Jesus which gave him an experience when about to die for the sins of the world into which the human heart can not enter. Even when Paul attempts a remark on the subject, he contents himself with these words: "Who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him who was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered." (Heb. 5:7, 8.) Here let our attempts at explanation rest, and let us rather direct our thoughts to the everlasting bonds of love with which he has bound us by enduring agony so great in our behalf.
The Arrest of Jesus, 47-56.
(Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-12)
47. one of the twelve.—As Matthew had not mentioned the departure of Judas from the supper-table, he thought it necessary to identify him here as one of the twelve. The multitude who accompanied him with swords and staffs were considered necessary to overpower any resistance which might be offered, and to prevent a rescue. Perhaps, also, each needed the encouragement of numbers to embolden him to lay hands on one who had wrought such miracles.
48, 49. gave them a sign.—In the dim light of the sinking moon, and in the shadow of the temple mount, which probably stretched across the valley, only those very familiar with the features of Jesus could distinguish him from his disciples; hence the sign which Judas was to give. That he selected a kiss as the sign, shows that he foolishly expected to deceive Jesus until the guards would lay hold of him. When a man is engaged in crime, he is sure to be guilty of some folly in the planning, or in the execution. Judas forgot the superhuman knowledge of Jesus, and in the act of kissing him gave the finishing touch to the picture of his own infamy. Little did he think that the kiss of Judas would become a proverb in every nation.
50. wherefore art thou come?—Jesus makes no parade of his foreknowledge, but, as if he were taken by surprise, he calls on Judas for a statement of his purpose. John reports more fully the conversation which here ensued (John 18:4-8).
51. drew his sword.—The apostles were not in the habit of wearing swords, but Jesus had made a remark at the supper which, being misconstrued, had caused them to procure two of these weapons. (Luke 22:36-38.) Peter had one of them, and used it as here described (John 18:10), but the other was in less valiant hands. The blow was aimed at the head of the servant, and would probably have proved fatal had he not dodged and escaped with the loss of an ear.
52. shall perish with the sword.—As it is not true in history that all individuals who take the sword perish with the sword we must understand this remark rather of organized communities of men, both political and religious. In this sense the statement has proved true, so far as history has had time to test it. Every kingdom which was built up in ancient times by violence has perished, and doubtless those of modern times will. Popery, also, which established itself by the sword and the fagot, has been compelled at last to succumb to military power, and will probably be eventually overthrown by the same instrumentality. So with Mohammedanism. It should be further observed here, that the reason for commanding Peter to put up his sword, was not drawn from the circumstances of the case. It was not because the use of the sword would prevent Jesus from dying for the world; nor because its use was wrong in the cause of Jesus but innocent in other causes; but because "all who take the sword shall perish with the sword." The universality of the proposition made it applicable to the case of Peter. The statement has the form of a prediction, and the force of a prohibition in reference to appeals to the sword, whether by churches, nations, or other organized bodies of men.
53, 54. twelve legions of angels.—Peter's resistance, even if allowable, would have been in vain, for the guards had come expecting resistance and prepared for it; but Jesus here reminds Peter of the proper and infinitely more effective defense which God has provided for his children. The ministering angels are our guardians, and they would have rescued Jesus had he demanded it; but then the scriptures and the purpose of God declared in them would not have been fulfilled; so he submitted.
55, 56. as against a thief,—Jesus tantalizes the guards with their cowardice in coming against him with such an array of weapons, instead of making an open arrest in broad daylight. He was not like a thief plotting resistance or seeking concealment, but "sat daily teaching in the temple."
forsook him and fled.—In their alarm the disciples forgot the prediction about their dispersion like sheep when the shepherd is smitten (verses 31, 35), or else they thought it was best to fulfill it; and Jesus had himself demanded for them the privilege of retreat, by saying, "It you seek me, let these go their way." (John 18:8.)
Argument of Section 7
If Jesus had been put to death after violent resistance, or after exhausting all means within his reach to escape death, he could not have been preached to the world as a voluntary sacrifice for sin; and his cross, if robbed of this element, would have been robbed of the chief part of its power over men. In the preceding section, Matthew has exhibited more fully than before the fact that his death was voluntary. Again and again, within the section, have we seen Jesus referring to it as an event about to take place; the symbols which are to commemorate it throughout all time had been appointed; the final consent of his soul, after a protracted struggle in prayer, had been given; all aid looking to his release, whether from earth or from heaven, had been declined; and he now extended his hands to receive the bonds which were to be loosed only at the foot of the cross.
The second object of the section is to show that the death of Jesus, which was thus voluntary on his part, was brought about by malice and corruption on the part of his enemies. It shows that the plot for his arrest was instigated by malice and tainted with hypocrisy (3-5); that it was rendered practicable by bribery and corruption, as exhibited in the covenant with Judas; and that its execution was marked by that cowardice which usually attends corrupt transactions. All of these circumstances constitute an argument for his innocence, by proving the malice, the hypocrisy, and the cowardice of his enemies.
The Trial of Jesus, 26:57-27:26
Testimony Sought in Vain, 57-63.
(Mark 14:53-59; Luke 22:71; John 18:19-23)
57. to Caiaphas.—Matthew omits the fact mentioned by John (18:13), that they led Jesus first to Annas, and that Annas sent him to Caiaphas.
were assembled.—While Matthew here represents "the scribes and the elders" as already assembled, Luke represents them as coming together "as soon as it was day." (Luke 22:66.) Doubtless a part of them, having been notified when Judas started with the band to arrest Jesus, were already assembled, but the main body of them did not arrive till about daylight, nor did the regular proceedings begin till that time.
58. Peter followed him.—For a more circumstantial account of Peter's movements, and of his admission into the palace of the high priest, see John 18:15-18.
59, 60. but found none.—The statement that "they found none"—that is, no false witness—though many false witnesses came, appears self-contradictory. But the term witness, in verse 59, means testimony; and testimony "to put him to death,"—testimony on which he could be condemned to death; and it was such testimony that they found not, "though many false witnesses came."
60-62. At the last came two.—These two came nearer giving the required testimony than the others: but while their statement, if true, would have convicted Jesus of what might be considered a very boastful speech, it could hardly have been construed as blasphemy; and consequently, though Caiaphas demanded of Jesus, in a tone of triumph, "Answerest thou nothing," he was evidently unwilling to rest the case on this testimony.
63. Jesus held his peace.—Had Jesus answered, and explained what he really meant by the speech about building the temple in three days (see John 2:19-22), it would have made his cause appear no better in the eyes of his judges, and it would have given his enemies a fresh notice, which he did not wish them to have, of his intended resurrection. He wisely chose, therefore, to hold his peace.
Condemned on His own Confession, 63-68.
(Mark 14:60-65; Luke 22:66-71)
63. the high priest answered.—The silence of Jesus had a significance, and to this the high priest answered. It meant that the testimony of the witnesses was unworthy of an answer; and the high priest therefore called on him for his own testimony. The words, "I adjure thee by the living God," were intended to put Jesus on his oath. The question, "whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God," shows that Caiaphas understood correctly and fully the claims of Jesus.
64. Thou hast said.—Jesus might with all propriety have refused to be made a witness against himself, but he declined to take advantage of his privilege, and answered the question in the affirmative, by the Jewish formula, "Thou hast said;" that is, thou hast said what I am.
Hereafter ye shall see.—Not content with answering the question, Jesus announces another meeting between himself and the assembled elders, in which their relative positions will be reversed; then he will be on the right hand of power, and they will be the prisoners before his bar.
65. rent his clothes.—Here Caiaphas acted the hypocrite. He was glad to hear the statement of Jesus; it was the answer he ways trying to extort from him; and yet he pretended to be exceedingly shocked when he heard it.
66. guilty of death.—That is guilty of a crime worthy of death—the crime of blasphemy in claiming to be the Son of God.
67, 68. they spit in his face.— The spitting and buffeting were done, not by the members of the court, but by "the men that held Jesus." (Luke 22:63-65.) Matthew speaks indefinitely, not using the pronoun in close connection with the preceding context. He also omits the blindfolding mentioned by Luke; but his statement that they demanded, "Prophesy unto us; who is he that smote thee," implies the blindfolding. Had he not been blindfolded he could have seen who smote him. Here one of the sacred narratives incidentally supplements the other, and furnishes evidence for the truthfulness of both.
Peters Denial of Jesus, 69-75.
(Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:17, 18; 25-27)
69. without in the palace.—He was without as regards the apartment in which the Sanhedrim was in session, but within as regards the palace; for he was in the open court around which the palace was built.
69, 70. a damsel came.—She came to the gate, at John's request, to let Peter in (John 18:16, 17), and then she came to him at the fire where he was warming himself (Mark 14:66, 67).
71, 72. into the porch.—Not a porch, in our sense of the term. It was the arched passage (πυλῶν) which led from the street through the front part of the building into the court.
another maid.—By comparing the parallel passages the reader will see that after the charge was first made by the porteress, it was repeated by quite a number of others, both male and female, and that Peter made various answers, though all amounted to but three denials.
73. they that stood by.—Here the bystanders in general unite in the clamor, and Matthew ceases to designate individuals.
thy speech bewrayeth thee.--Bewrayeth is obsolete for betrayeth. Peter and the other Galileans spoke the same language as the Jews of Jerusalem, but they had some peculiar pronunciations like the provincialisms of our own country, by which they were distinguished. From his being a Galilean, they inferred that he was a follower of Jesus—an illogical conclusion, and yet a correct one.
74, 75. Peter remembered.—The wonder is that he did not remember the words of Jesus the moment he began to fulfill them; but the excitement of the moment rendered him oblivious of every thing except the present danger, until a cock, perhaps at roost in the very court where he was, rang out his clarion notes on the morning air, and brought back the entire speech of Jesus to Peter's memory. A glance from the eye of Jesus at the same moment helped to bring him to consciousness. Overwhelmed and forced to tears, he went out, that he might hide his bitter weeping.
It is surprising that Peter was capable of such a denial, but there are several considerations that help to account for it. When he said, the night before, that he would follow Jesus to prison and to death, he spoke his real sentiment; and that he would, under ordinary circumstances, have been true to his pledge, is proved by the fact that when the guards appeared he was ready to fight the whole band single-handed. But when Jesus commanded him to put up his sword, and then allowed himself to be bound and led away, Peter foresaw the result; his hope of the coming kingdom expired, his faith in Jesus as the expected Messiah wavered, and with the loss of faith and hope he lost all courage. Then, having denied once, he was driven to desperation, and plunged headlong into guilt, until the reproachful glance of Jesus accompanying the shrill signal of the cock roused again the man that was in him, and brought him to repentance. His speedy recovery attests the nobility of his character: for the good man is not he who never sins, but he who quickly repents of sin and makes all possible atonement for it.
The honesty and candor of the sacred historians are strikingly exhibited in the fact that they all mention Peter's denial. When the narratives of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were published, Peter was in the midst of his career as chief of the apostles to the Circumcision; and when John's was published he had ended his career, and his memory was embalmed in the hearts of millions. His reputation was a large part of the reputation of the entire Church, and while he was still alive it would be supposed that undue mention of so discreditable an incident in his history would be offensive to him. Yet, without regard either to the feelings of Peter or to the good name of the Church, they all mention it They mention it, too, after having omitted many things, in preference to which we would suppose that they would have omitted this. An uninspired historian would have been certain to omit it, or to give the most ample apology for it.
The New Testament Commentary: Vol. I - Matthew and Mark.
Fourth Prediction of His Death, 1, 2
1, 2. after two days.—This expression, in Jewish usage, means, on the second day after the one then present. As the Passover that year was on Friday, this remark, and the entire speech of which it was the concluding part (verse 1), were delivered on Wednesday. This is the fourth time, as recorded by Matthew, that Jesus predicted his own death. (Comp. Mattjew 16:21-23; 17:22, 23; 20:17-19.)
Council at the House of Caiaphas, 3-5.
(Mark 14:1, 2; Luke 22:1, 2)
3. Then assembled.--Then connects the assembling of this council with the preceding remark of Jesus, showing that it was on the same day; that is, Wednesday. (See also Mark 14:1, 2.) The denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees contained in chap. 23, was pronounced on the morning of Wednesday, and the prophetic discourse of chaps. 24 and 25, in the after part of the same day. Before the close of the same day, the chief priests and elders, filled with bitter resentment for the denunciations of the morning, assembled together, as here declared.
4, 5. by subtilty.—The fear of the people, which had restrained these parties earlier in the week (Mattjew 21:46), was still the chief obstacle to the revenge which they sought. The subtilty which was in requisition now was needed for the purpose of getting possession of Jesus and securing his condemnation before the people could interfere. So far as the future could be foreseen, plans for this purpose were now devised.
The Anointing at Bethany, 6-13.
(Mark 14:3-9; John 12:2-8)
6. when Jesus was in Bethany.—This language is indefinite as to time. John mentions the same feast, and dates it six days before the Passover, which fixes it on Sunday night. (John 12:1.) Matthew's indefinite language is entirely consistent with this date. He mentions it here, out of its chronological order, because it is associated in thought with the counsel of the priests and elders to put Jesus to death (verses 3-5), and with Jesus' own prediction just mentioned (verses 1, 2). The accounts of the feast, as given by Matthew and John, are too nearly identical to allow the supposition that two different feasts are referred to. (Compare with this paragraph John 12:1-8.)
house of Simon the leper.—As the law forbade a leper to mingle with the people (Lev. 13:45, 46), this man had probably been healed of the leprosy by Jesus, and was still called Simon the leper from habit. Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead, was at the supper; the woman who anointed Jesus (verse 7) was Mary; while Martha, according to her well known habit (Luke 10:40), was one of those who served. (John 12:2, 3.) It was an interesting group of notable persons, who were full of gratitude for benefits conferred, and whose unfeigned love was about the only human solace enjoyed by the Savior during the last week of his sufferings.
7. on his head.—Matthew's account of the act of anointing is quite indefinite. He mentions neither the quantity of the ointment nor its value; nor does he state that the feet of Jesus were anointed as well as his head. It was the fact that ointment so precious was lavished on his feet, that gave especial cause for the indignation expressed by Judas. These items are supplied by Mark and John.
8, 9. they had indignation.—Not all of the disciples, for Judas alone made the complaint. (John 12:4.) This is an instance in which Matthew uses the plural indefinitely to represent what came from a group of persons, although it was uttered by only one of them.
10. a good work.—It was a good work, because it was a manifestation of devotion and gratitude. Mary thought that nothing was too costly to be lavished on Jesus, and he indorsed the sentiment. The incident shows that no expenditure is unacceptable to Jesus that is prompted by unmixed love for him. Let us beware, however, of extravagant expenditures in the name of Jesus which are prompted in part by love of show, or by any other earthly lust.
11. poor always with you.—This is one of those far-reaching sayings of Jesus, which display his superhuman foresight and the intensely practical view which he took of human life. He was not a humanitarian visionary, dreaming of the day when all poverty should be banished from the earth, and when men should all be equal in worldly goods. He contemplated as the perpetual condition of his earthly kingdom, the inequalities of riches and poverty, the blessedness of receiving gifts in the name of Christ, and the still greater blessedness of bestowing them. How literally has the prediction been fulfilled!
12. for my burial.—If we understand these words as expressing the purpose of Mary, and this is their natural force, we must conclude that she realized, as the other disciples did not, the truth of what Jesus had predicted concerning his death. It was not merely gratitude for past blessings, but womanly sympathy for him in view of his expected sufferings, which prompted her costly expression of love.
13. wherever this gospel.—Persons frequently perform, without the least thought of notoriety, actions which are destined to make them famous. No human being could have foreseen what Jesus here declares concerning the future fame which would attach to Mary and her simple act of love. On the contrary, the act at first appeared reprehensible, and was favorably regarded by none present except Jesus. His divine foreknowledge is demonstrated by the literal fulfillment of his prediction, and as the knowledge of this incident reaches forward into coming ages and spreads abroad still farther in the earth, the demonstration becomes continually more surprising
The Agreement with Judas, 14-16
(Mark 14:10, 11; Luke 22:3-6)
14. went to the chief priests.—Judas knew, by public rumor, the desire of the chief priests to secure the death of Jesus, and he had probably heard of their lately formed purpose "to take him by subtilty (verse 4). When such a plot is concocted among a number of men, it is very likely to reach the ears of some one friendly to the intended victim. (Comp. Acts 23:12-22.) Judas was therefore well assured that he could make a profitable bargain with the enemy.
15. for thirty pieces of silver.—The pieces of silver were most likely the Jewish shekel, and the amount $15.00. This was a low price for so base a deed: but Judas anticipated no personal danger; he shut out from his mind the thought of all other evil consequences to himself, and he expected his task to cost him but a few minutes of labor when the time should come.
16. he sought opportunity.—He soon found the opportunity; for this contract was entered into on Wednesday or Thursday (verses 2, 3), and on Thursday night the betrayal occurred.
The Passover Prepared, 17-19.
(Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13)
17. first day of the feast.—Not the first of the seven days during which they ate unleavened bread, but the day in which they performed the first act of preparation for the feast, the slaying of the paschal lamb at evening, and called the first day on this account (See Ex. 12:14-20.)
18. at thy house.—It was customary for all the residents of Jerusalem to open their houses for guests during this feast, and therefore Jesus might have presumed on the hospitality of almost any one; but the probability is that the man to whom he sent this message was an acquaintance and a friend.
19. made ready the passover.—The making ready consisted in slaying and roasting the lamb, and providing the unleavened bread and bitter herbs which were eaten with it. (Ex. 12:8.)
Conversation about the Betrayal, 20-25.
(Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:21-23, John 13:21-35)
20. when the even was come.—The preparation had been made during the afternoon of Thursday, and this is the only incident reported by any of the evangelists which certainly occurred on that day. Jesus seems to have remained at Bethany in the quiet circle of his intimate friends until the paschal supper was ready at the close of the day. He was certainly outside of the city when he sent the disciples to make preparation. (See verse 18.)
21, 22. Lord, is it I?—If the disciples had known what kind of a betrayal was meant, and that it was to occur that night, they would have answered as positively as they did in reference to denying him that night (verse 35 below); but they knew not what they might be tempted to do in the distant future, and each only wished to know at present whether he were the person referred to.
23. dippeth his hand with me.—It was customary, as it is yet in Palestine, for several persons to dip bits of bread into a vessel of sauce which was served to them in common. The answer did not distinctly designate Judas, for he still inquired (verse 25), "Master, is it I?" but it narrowed the field of inquiry to the group of which he was one, and proved to the disciples that Jesus was not speaking vaguely. The more definite answer which he gave privately to John was given at a later moment. (John 13:24-26.)
24. but woe unto that man.—Although it was written of the Son of man, and predetermined by God, that he should go as Judas had covenanted, yet the woe is pronounced on Judas, and it is said of him that it had been good for him if he had not been born. This shows that a man who, by a wicked act, brings about a purpose of God, bears the same guilt as though God had no purpose in it. It is his own act and motive for which he is judged, and not the results which God may have intended to bring out of his act. The statement that "it had been good for that man if he had not been born," is a denial of the doctrine of universal salvation; for if a man, after any conceivable amount of suffering, shall at last enjoy everlasting life, it is not true of him that it had been better for him if he had not been born.
25. Then Judas... answered.—The object of this conversation was both to show the foreknowledge of Jesus, and to give Judas a solemn warning in reference to the crime which he was about to commit. If it had been the purpose of Jesus to overwhelm the guilty wretch with fear and dismay, and thereby compel him to desist from his horrible undertaking, we can not conceive words better adapted to this purpose. Yet so utterly callous had the conscience of Judas become that with brazen effrontery he asks, "Master, is it I?" Such hardihood in crime is a more convincing evidence of deep depravity than his previous covenant with the chief priests.
The Lord's Supper Instituted, 26-30.
(Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25)
26. took bread.—As none but unleavened bread was eaten during the paschal supper, the bread which is here spoken of must hare been unleavened, and this makes it a matter of propriety at least that unleavened bread be still used in the Lord's Supper.
this is my body.—It is held by the advocates of the doctrine of transubstantiation that these words are to be understood literally, and that the bread, therefore, was transformed into the actual body of Jesus. It is also affirmed, although it would by no means follow, that when a priest consecrates the wafer there is a similar transformation, and the communicants eat not bread, but the actual body of Christ under the appearance of bread. Waiving all that may be said as to the absurdity of this doctrine, we content ourselves with the inquiry whether the words of Jesus can be thus understood; and in order to the settlement of the question we place ourselves in the position of the apostles to whom the words were first addressed. If, as Jesus spoke the words, "this is my body," he had suddenly disappeared, and the apostles had seen nothing but the bread, they would have understood that the body had been miraculously transformed into the loaf. But as his body was still there, and the loaf which he held in his hands was also there; and as his body still remained there after the loaf had been broken, and passed around, and eaten up, it is impossible that they could have understood him as meaning that the loaf was literally his body, and impossible that he could have intended to be so understood. This is an end of the controversy. The language declares only that the bread was a symbol of his body, and it is the usual mode of expressing such an idea; e. g., "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil," etc. (Matt. 13:38, 39. See also verses 19, 20, 22, 23 of the same chapter, and the note on verse 29 below.)
27. Drink ye all of it.—All the persons, not all of the wine. Whether Judas was still present, we are unable to determine with certainty. John, the only writer who mentions the departure of Judas, says that he went out immediately after the conversation about the betrayal: "He then having received the sop went immediately out." (John 13:30.) This would settle the question if we could ascertain whether the supper was instituted before or after this conversation; but John says nothing about the institution of the supper, and while Luke mentions it before the conversation in question, Matthew and Mark both mention it after the conversation, and none of them gives any notes of time by which we can determine the chronological order of the two events. (Comp. Mark 14:18-25; Luke 22:19-23.) The probability is, however, that there was no eating done after the institution of the Lord's Supper, that the sop given to Judas was therefore given before the supper, and that he had already gone out when the supper was instituted.
28. blood of the testament.—Instead of testament, the rendering should be covenant. The term new, pronounced an interpolation here by the critical authorities, is found in Paul's report of the institution of the supper (1 Cor. 11:25), whence it was doubtless obtained by the interpolator. The covenant referred to is the one mentioned prophetically by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and quoted with comments by Paul in Heb. 8:7-13.
shed for many.—The term many is not used in contradistinction from all, for we know by explicit statements in other passages that Jesus died for every man. (Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15.) It is used here as in Rom. 5:15, 19, where the context shows that it means all. When the persons included are contemplated individually, the term many is employed on account of the vast number of them; for no man can number the individuals for whom Christ died. But when they are contemplated under the feebler conception of the whole, the term all is employed.
for the remission of sins.—These words declare the prime object of the death of Christ. All other purposes which it served are subordinate to this, and all other blessings which his death secures to us are consequent upon this. Without the remission of sins there could be no happiness for man in time or in eternity; with it there is peace of mind here and heaven hereafter: for he who dies with all the sins of his life forgiven has nothing to fear beyond the grave, and he who lives in the daily forgiveness of his daily sins, lives in blissful communion with God.
29. drink it new with you.—The literal use of wine is not here meant; for Jesus does not literally drink wine with his disciples in the kingdom as it now is, nor will he do so in the eternal kingdom. The term drink, therefore, is used figuratively for that communion which Jesus has with his disciples while they are drinking the wine of the Lord's Supper. The term new is most naturally understood as modifying wine, but as the wine of the supper is not necessarily new wine, I think it rather indicates the new method of drinking wine just indicated.
Observe here that Jesus still calls the wine "the fruit of the vine" after he had said of it, "This is my blood"—a clear proof that it was still wine, and had not been changed into his actual blood.
30. when they had sung.—It was a custom of the Jews, though the law did not require it to sing Ps. 113-118, during the paschal supper. They called this passage in the Psalms the Hallel, because it begins in the Hebrew with Hallelujah.
into the mount of Olives.—The garden called Gethsemane, the precise place to which they went (verse 36), was at the base of the Mount of Olives and was included within its limits.
Desertion and Denial Predicted, 31-35.
(Mark 14:26-31; Luke 22:31-38; John 13:36-38)
31. offended because of me.—Mr. Green renders it, "shall be stumbled in me." This is literal and accurate. "Stumbled" is used metaphorically for their partial fall when they fled from the danger, and "in me" indicates that the occasion of the stumbling would be found in him: it was in his voluntary and unexpected surrender to the guards who arrested him.
for it is written.—In Zechariah 13:7, where the connection shows plainly that the reference is to the Messiah. The smiting of a shepherd and the consequent scattering of his flock of sheep, is a striking symbol of the scene at the arrest of Jesus.
32. before you into Galilee.—This appointment to meet the disciples in Galilee after the resurrection, was afterward referred to by the angel at the sepulcher, and by Jesus himself when he appeared to the women. (28:7, 10.)
33-35. will I never be offended--Never be stumbled.—No reader of this passage, not even a child, can fail to see reflected in it the uncertainty of human resolutions, and man's ignorance of himself. We can not, for our own good, too frequently reflect on the incident, nor too earnestly pray, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
Agony in Gethsemane, 36-46.
(Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46; John 18:1)
36. a place called Gethsemane.--Gethsemane means a place of oil-presses, and doubtless this place had once been used for pressing out olive-oil, but it was at this time a garden. (John 18:1.)
37. he took with him.—To the main body of the disciples he had said, "Sit ye here while I go and pray yonder," (36) but now he takes Peter and the two sons of Zebedee nearer to the spot which he had selected for his prayer.
38. then saith Jesus.—Matthew's remark in verse 37, that Jesus "began to be sorrowful and very heavy," expresses what was apparent to the disciples from his manner. Here he gives the words in which the sorrow was expressed.
even unto death.—He felt as if he could not survive the pressure that was upon his soul, and the utter helplessness into which he had sunk is seen in the request to the chosen three, "Tarry ye here, and watch with me." He who had been their comforter in every hour of trouble and danger, now calls on them for the help which their wakeful sympathy would give him in the hour of his agony. Wonderful sight! The Son of God longing for the sympathy of human hearts, and leaning in a time of weakness on the arm of human friendship! Leaning, too, as so many sufferers have done, on a broken reed!
39. fell on his face and prayed.—He first kneeled down (Luke 22:41), and then bowed his face to the ground—the lowliest attitude of prayer, assumed only when the strength of man gives way under a load of sorrow, and some unutterable desire struggles within the soul. The burden on the soul of Jesus is revealed in the piteous cry, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." There is a pause—a solemn and momentous pause freighted with the destinies of a world—when there follows the ever blessed words, "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."
if it be possible.—In one point of view it was possible. As he could, an hour later, have called for twelve legions of angels to deliver him (verse 53), so now the cup would have passed from him had he refused to drink it. But it was impossible without frustrating the purpose for which he had come into the world, and disregarding the will of Him who had sent him. If that purpose, the salvation of men, could have been accomplished without it, the cup both could and would have passed from him. On the figurative use of the word cup, see note on 20:22.
40. findeth them asleep.—After uttering once his prayer he returns to the three disciples, that he may get close to their side and feel the support of their sympathy. How shameful that he finds them asleep and utterly oblivious of his sorrow! He can not endure this: he wakes them up; and how touching the reproof, "Could you not stay awake with me one hour?"
41. Watch and pray.—Though sinking under the weight of his own sorrow, he forgets not the danger which threatens his disciples. He exhorts them to watch for it and against it, and to pray that they "enter not into temptation;" that is, into the power and dominion of the temptation which was coming. Then, as they awaken full of self-reproach, he apologizes for them by the remark, "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
42-44. the second time... the third time.—The severity of the struggle is seen in the fact that although at the close of his first prayer he was able to say, "Not as will, but as thou wilt," he returned to repeat the same prayer a second and a third time. The struggle was perhaps in some degree protracted by the indifference of his disciples, whom he found asleep at each return to their presence.
45, 46. Sleep on now... Rise.—The command, "Rise, let us be going," follows so closely on the words, "Sleep on now, and take your rest," that some have suggested the propriety of pointing the latter clause interrogatively: "Do you sleep on now, and take your rest?" But this is not at all necessary, nor does it yield a sense in so complete harmony with the context. We have only to suppose, in order to remove all difficulty, that between the two remarks he saw the torches of the approaching band of officers led on by Judas. Coming the third time to his slumbering disciples, resigned now to his fate, and feeling able to bear without sympathy the burden that was on his soul, he says to the three, "Sleep on now, and take your rest"—I will not disturb your slumber again on my account. But just then the glimmer of torches is seen in the distance; he knows what it means, and he exclaims, "Rise, let us be going: for he is at hand that doth betray me." The words, "let us be going," were intended for them, not for himself.
It is perhaps in vain to attempt an explanation of the extreme agony which Jesus endured in the garden. That it was not an unmanly fear of death is sufficiently proved by the entire course of his previous life, and is demonstrated by the fortitude with which he actually endured his cruel fate when it came upon him. The natural fear of death, it is true, was saddening to his soul, and the remembrance of the world's cruelty in the past, mingled with the anticipation of their still greater cruelty and their base ingratitude yet to be developed, must have greatly increased the intensity of this sadness; but when we consider all this, and all that we can by imagination distinctly realize, we feel that we are still snort of the reality. There was something in the dual nature of Jesus which gave him an experience when about to die for the sins of the world into which the human heart can not enter. Even when Paul attempts a remark on the subject, he contents himself with these words: "Who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him who was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered." (Heb. 5:7, 8.) Here let our attempts at explanation rest, and let us rather direct our thoughts to the everlasting bonds of love with which he has bound us by enduring agony so great in our behalf.
The Arrest of Jesus, 47-56.
(Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-12)
47. one of the twelve.—As Matthew had not mentioned the departure of Judas from the supper-table, he thought it necessary to identify him here as one of the twelve. The multitude who accompanied him with swords and staffs were considered necessary to overpower any resistance which might be offered, and to prevent a rescue. Perhaps, also, each needed the encouragement of numbers to embolden him to lay hands on one who had wrought such miracles.
48, 49. gave them a sign.—In the dim light of the sinking moon, and in the shadow of the temple mount, which probably stretched across the valley, only those very familiar with the features of Jesus could distinguish him from his disciples; hence the sign which Judas was to give. That he selected a kiss as the sign, shows that he foolishly expected to deceive Jesus until the guards would lay hold of him. When a man is engaged in crime, he is sure to be guilty of some folly in the planning, or in the execution. Judas forgot the superhuman knowledge of Jesus, and in the act of kissing him gave the finishing touch to the picture of his own infamy. Little did he think that the kiss of Judas would become a proverb in every nation.
50. wherefore art thou come?—Jesus makes no parade of his foreknowledge, but, as if he were taken by surprise, he calls on Judas for a statement of his purpose. John reports more fully the conversation which here ensued (John 18:4-8).
51. drew his sword.—The apostles were not in the habit of wearing swords, but Jesus had made a remark at the supper which, being misconstrued, had caused them to procure two of these weapons. (Luke 22:36-38.) Peter had one of them, and used it as here described (John 18:10), but the other was in less valiant hands. The blow was aimed at the head of the servant, and would probably have proved fatal had he not dodged and escaped with the loss of an ear.
52. shall perish with the sword.—As it is not true in history that all individuals who take the sword perish with the sword we must understand this remark rather of organized communities of men, both political and religious. In this sense the statement has proved true, so far as history has had time to test it. Every kingdom which was built up in ancient times by violence has perished, and doubtless those of modern times will. Popery, also, which established itself by the sword and the fagot, has been compelled at last to succumb to military power, and will probably be eventually overthrown by the same instrumentality. So with Mohammedanism. It should be further observed here, that the reason for commanding Peter to put up his sword, was not drawn from the circumstances of the case. It was not because the use of the sword would prevent Jesus from dying for the world; nor because its use was wrong in the cause of Jesus but innocent in other causes; but because "all who take the sword shall perish with the sword." The universality of the proposition made it applicable to the case of Peter. The statement has the form of a prediction, and the force of a prohibition in reference to appeals to the sword, whether by churches, nations, or other organized bodies of men.
53, 54. twelve legions of angels.—Peter's resistance, even if allowable, would have been in vain, for the guards had come expecting resistance and prepared for it; but Jesus here reminds Peter of the proper and infinitely more effective defense which God has provided for his children. The ministering angels are our guardians, and they would have rescued Jesus had he demanded it; but then the scriptures and the purpose of God declared in them would not have been fulfilled; so he submitted.
55, 56. as against a thief,—Jesus tantalizes the guards with their cowardice in coming against him with such an array of weapons, instead of making an open arrest in broad daylight. He was not like a thief plotting resistance or seeking concealment, but "sat daily teaching in the temple."
forsook him and fled.—In their alarm the disciples forgot the prediction about their dispersion like sheep when the shepherd is smitten (verses 31, 35), or else they thought it was best to fulfill it; and Jesus had himself demanded for them the privilege of retreat, by saying, "It you seek me, let these go their way." (John 18:8.)
Argument of Section 7
If Jesus had been put to death after violent resistance, or after exhausting all means within his reach to escape death, he could not have been preached to the world as a voluntary sacrifice for sin; and his cross, if robbed of this element, would have been robbed of the chief part of its power over men. In the preceding section, Matthew has exhibited more fully than before the fact that his death was voluntary. Again and again, within the section, have we seen Jesus referring to it as an event about to take place; the symbols which are to commemorate it throughout all time had been appointed; the final consent of his soul, after a protracted struggle in prayer, had been given; all aid looking to his release, whether from earth or from heaven, had been declined; and he now extended his hands to receive the bonds which were to be loosed only at the foot of the cross.
The second object of the section is to show that the death of Jesus, which was thus voluntary on his part, was brought about by malice and corruption on the part of his enemies. It shows that the plot for his arrest was instigated by malice and tainted with hypocrisy (3-5); that it was rendered practicable by bribery and corruption, as exhibited in the covenant with Judas; and that its execution was marked by that cowardice which usually attends corrupt transactions. All of these circumstances constitute an argument for his innocence, by proving the malice, the hypocrisy, and the cowardice of his enemies.
The Trial of Jesus, 26:57-27:26
Testimony Sought in Vain, 57-63.
(Mark 14:53-59; Luke 22:71; John 18:19-23)
57. to Caiaphas.—Matthew omits the fact mentioned by John (18:13), that they led Jesus first to Annas, and that Annas sent him to Caiaphas.
were assembled.—While Matthew here represents "the scribes and the elders" as already assembled, Luke represents them as coming together "as soon as it was day." (Luke 22:66.) Doubtless a part of them, having been notified when Judas started with the band to arrest Jesus, were already assembled, but the main body of them did not arrive till about daylight, nor did the regular proceedings begin till that time.
58. Peter followed him.—For a more circumstantial account of Peter's movements, and of his admission into the palace of the high priest, see John 18:15-18.
59, 60. but found none.—The statement that "they found none"—that is, no false witness—though many false witnesses came, appears self-contradictory. But the term witness, in verse 59, means testimony; and testimony "to put him to death,"—testimony on which he could be condemned to death; and it was such testimony that they found not, "though many false witnesses came."
60-62. At the last came two.—These two came nearer giving the required testimony than the others: but while their statement, if true, would have convicted Jesus of what might be considered a very boastful speech, it could hardly have been construed as blasphemy; and consequently, though Caiaphas demanded of Jesus, in a tone of triumph, "Answerest thou nothing," he was evidently unwilling to rest the case on this testimony.
63. Jesus held his peace.—Had Jesus answered, and explained what he really meant by the speech about building the temple in three days (see John 2:19-22), it would have made his cause appear no better in the eyes of his judges, and it would have given his enemies a fresh notice, which he did not wish them to have, of his intended resurrection. He wisely chose, therefore, to hold his peace.
Condemned on His own Confession, 63-68.
(Mark 14:60-65; Luke 22:66-71)
63. the high priest answered.—The silence of Jesus had a significance, and to this the high priest answered. It meant that the testimony of the witnesses was unworthy of an answer; and the high priest therefore called on him for his own testimony. The words, "I adjure thee by the living God," were intended to put Jesus on his oath. The question, "whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God," shows that Caiaphas understood correctly and fully the claims of Jesus.
64. Thou hast said.—Jesus might with all propriety have refused to be made a witness against himself, but he declined to take advantage of his privilege, and answered the question in the affirmative, by the Jewish formula, "Thou hast said;" that is, thou hast said what I am.
Hereafter ye shall see.—Not content with answering the question, Jesus announces another meeting between himself and the assembled elders, in which their relative positions will be reversed; then he will be on the right hand of power, and they will be the prisoners before his bar.
65. rent his clothes.—Here Caiaphas acted the hypocrite. He was glad to hear the statement of Jesus; it was the answer he ways trying to extort from him; and yet he pretended to be exceedingly shocked when he heard it.
66. guilty of death.—That is guilty of a crime worthy of death—the crime of blasphemy in claiming to be the Son of God.
67, 68. they spit in his face.— The spitting and buffeting were done, not by the members of the court, but by "the men that held Jesus." (Luke 22:63-65.) Matthew speaks indefinitely, not using the pronoun in close connection with the preceding context. He also omits the blindfolding mentioned by Luke; but his statement that they demanded, "Prophesy unto us; who is he that smote thee," implies the blindfolding. Had he not been blindfolded he could have seen who smote him. Here one of the sacred narratives incidentally supplements the other, and furnishes evidence for the truthfulness of both.
Peters Denial of Jesus, 69-75.
(Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:17, 18; 25-27)
69. without in the palace.—He was without as regards the apartment in which the Sanhedrim was in session, but within as regards the palace; for he was in the open court around which the palace was built.
69, 70. a damsel came.—She came to the gate, at John's request, to let Peter in (John 18:16, 17), and then she came to him at the fire where he was warming himself (Mark 14:66, 67).
71, 72. into the porch.—Not a porch, in our sense of the term. It was the arched passage (πυλῶν) which led from the street through the front part of the building into the court.
another maid.—By comparing the parallel passages the reader will see that after the charge was first made by the porteress, it was repeated by quite a number of others, both male and female, and that Peter made various answers, though all amounted to but three denials.
73. they that stood by.—Here the bystanders in general unite in the clamor, and Matthew ceases to designate individuals.
thy speech bewrayeth thee.--Bewrayeth is obsolete for betrayeth. Peter and the other Galileans spoke the same language as the Jews of Jerusalem, but they had some peculiar pronunciations like the provincialisms of our own country, by which they were distinguished. From his being a Galilean, they inferred that he was a follower of Jesus—an illogical conclusion, and yet a correct one.
74, 75. Peter remembered.—The wonder is that he did not remember the words of Jesus the moment he began to fulfill them; but the excitement of the moment rendered him oblivious of every thing except the present danger, until a cock, perhaps at roost in the very court where he was, rang out his clarion notes on the morning air, and brought back the entire speech of Jesus to Peter's memory. A glance from the eye of Jesus at the same moment helped to bring him to consciousness. Overwhelmed and forced to tears, he went out, that he might hide his bitter weeping.
It is surprising that Peter was capable of such a denial, but there are several considerations that help to account for it. When he said, the night before, that he would follow Jesus to prison and to death, he spoke his real sentiment; and that he would, under ordinary circumstances, have been true to his pledge, is proved by the fact that when the guards appeared he was ready to fight the whole band single-handed. But when Jesus commanded him to put up his sword, and then allowed himself to be bound and led away, Peter foresaw the result; his hope of the coming kingdom expired, his faith in Jesus as the expected Messiah wavered, and with the loss of faith and hope he lost all courage. Then, having denied once, he was driven to desperation, and plunged headlong into guilt, until the reproachful glance of Jesus accompanying the shrill signal of the cock roused again the man that was in him, and brought him to repentance. His speedy recovery attests the nobility of his character: for the good man is not he who never sins, but he who quickly repents of sin and makes all possible atonement for it.
The honesty and candor of the sacred historians are strikingly exhibited in the fact that they all mention Peter's denial. When the narratives of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were published, Peter was in the midst of his career as chief of the apostles to the Circumcision; and when John's was published he had ended his career, and his memory was embalmed in the hearts of millions. His reputation was a large part of the reputation of the entire Church, and while he was still alive it would be supposed that undue mention of so discreditable an incident in his history would be offensive to him. Yet, without regard either to the feelings of Peter or to the good name of the Church, they all mention it They mention it, too, after having omitted many things, in preference to which we would suppose that they would have omitted this. An uninspired historian would have been certain to omit it, or to give the most ample apology for it.
The New Testament Commentary: Vol. I - Matthew and Mark.
