Matthew 26

Matthew 26:1-2

1, 2. FINAL OF HIS , NOW CLOSE AT HAND. (Mark 14:1. Luke 22:1.) The public office of our Lord as a Teacher having been now fulfilled, His priestly office begins to be entered upon. He had not completed all his discourses, for He delivered, after this, those contained in John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26—but not in public; only to the inner circle of his disciples. From this point commences THE OF HIS PASSION.

Matthew 26:2

2. μετὰδύοἡμ.] This gives no certainty as to the time when the words were said: we do not know whether the current day was included or otherwise. But thus much of importance we learn from them: that the delivery of our Lord to be crucified, and the taking place of the Passover, strictly coincided. The solemn mention of them in this connexion is equivalent to a declaration from Himself, if it were needed, of the identity, both of time and meaning, of the two sacrifices; and serves as the fixed point in the difficult chronological arrangement of the history of the Passion. The latter clause, καὶὁυἱὸςκ.τ.λ. depends on οἴδατε as well as the former. Our Lord had doubtless before joined these two events together in his announcements to his disciples. To separate this clause from the former, ‘and then’ &c. seems to me to do violence to the construction. It would require καὶτότε.

Matthew 26:3-5

3–5. OF THE JEWISH . Mark 14:1. Luke 22:2. This assembling has no connexion with what has just been related, but follows rather on the end of ch. 23.

ὁλεγόμενοςΚ. is in Jos. Antt. xviii. 2. 2, ἸώσηποςὁκαὶΚαϊάφας. Valerius Gratus, Procurator of Judæa, had appointed him instead of Simon ben Kamith. He continued through the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, and was displaced by the proconsul Vitellius, A.D. 37. See note on Luke 3:2, and chronological table in Prolegg. to Acts, Vol. II.

τοῦλεγ. does not mean ‘surnamed,’ but (see Matthew 26:14) implies that some name is to follow, which is more than, or different from, the real one of the person.

μὴἐντ. ἑ.] This expression must be taken as meaning the whole period of the feast—the seven days. On the feast-day, i.e. the day on which the Passover was sacrificed (E. V.), they could not lay hold of and slay any one, as it was a day of sabbatical obligation (Exodus 12:16). See note on Matthew 26:17.

Matthew 26:6

6. Σίμωνοςτοῦλ.] Not at this time a leper, or he could not be at his house receiving guests. It is at least possible, that he may have been healed by our Lord. Who he was, is wholly uncertain. From Martha serving (John 12:2), it would appear as if she were at home in the house (Luke 10:38 sqq.); and that Lazarus was one τῶνἀνακειμένων need not necessarily imply that he was a guest properly so called. He had been probably (see John 12:9) absent with Jesus at Ephraim, and on this account and naturally for other reasons would be an object of interest, and one of the ἀνακείμενοι.

Matthew 26:7

7. ἀλάβαστρον] ἄγγοςμύρουμὴἔχονλαβάς, λίθινος, ἢλίθινοςμυροθήκη. Suidas. See Herod. iii. 20. It was the usual cruse or pot for ointment, with a long narrow neck, and sealed at the top. It was thought (Plin. xiii. 3) that the ointment kept best in these cruses. On the nature of the ointment, see note on νάρδουπιστικῆς, Mark 14:3.

τὴνκεφ. αὐτ.] His feet, according to John 12:3. See Luke 7:38, and note there.

ἀνακειμένου is not to be taken with αὐτοῦ, but is a separate gen. absol. by itself; on His head while He was reclining at table. See on this construction, Kühner, Gr. Gr. ii. p. 368, where many examples are given.

Matthew 26:8

8. οἱμαθηταί] Judas alone is mentioned, John 12:4. It may have been that some were found ready to second his remark, but that John, from his peculiar position at the table,—if, as is probable, the same as in John 13:23,—may not have observed it. If so, the independent origin of the two accounts is even more strikingly shewn.

ἀπώλεια] Bengel remarks, ‘Immo tu, Juda, perditionis es (ὁυἱὸςτῆςἀπωλείας, John 17:12).’

Matthew 26:9

9. πολλοῦ] 300 denarii (John),—even more than that (Mark). On the singular relation which these three accounts bear to one another, see notes on Mark. δοθῆναι, viz. the πολύ for which the ointment might have been sold: the subject being supplied out of the preceding sentence. So Herod. ix. 8, τὸνἰσθμὸνἐτείχεονκαίσφιἦνπρὸςτέλεϊ, sc. τὸτεῖχος. See other examples in Kühner, Gr. Gr. ii. pp. 36, 7.

Matthew 26:10

10. ἔργ. γὰρκαλ. εἰργ.] Stier remarks that this is a stronger expression than ἔργ. ἀγαθὸνἐποίησεν would have been. See ch. Matthew 5:16. It was not only ‘a good work,’ but a noble act of love, which should be spoken of in all the churches to the end of time. On Matthew 26:11, see notes on Mark, where it is more fully expressed.

Matthew 26:12

12. I can hardly think that our Lord would have said this, unless there had been in Mary’s mind a distinct reference to His burial, in doing the act. All the company surely knew well that His death, and that by crucifixion, was near at hand: can we suppose one who so closely observed His words as Mary, not to have been possessed with the thought of that which was about to happen? The προέλαβενμυρίσαιμουτὸσῶμα of Mark (Mark 14:8), and the ἵναεἰςτὴνἡμ. τοῦἐνταφ. μουτηρήσῃαὐτό of John (John 12:7), point even more strongly to her intention.

Matthew 26:13

13. The only case in which our Lord has made such a promise. We cannot but be struck with the majesty of this prophetic announcement; introduced with the peculiar and weighty ἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν,—conveying, by implication, the whole mystery of the εὐαγγέλιον which should go forth from His Death as its source,—looking forward to the end of time, when it shall have been preached in the whole world,—and specifying the fact that this deed should be recorded wherever it is preached. We may notice (1) that this announcement is a distinct prophetic recognition by our Lord of the existence of written records, in which the deed should be related; for in no other conceivable way could the universality of mention be brought about: (2) that we have here (if indeed we needed it) a convincing argument against that view of our three first Gospels which supposes them to have been compiled from an original document: for if there had been such a document, it must have contained this narrative, and no one using such a Gospel could have failed to insert this narrative, accompanied by such a promise, in his own work; which St. Luke has failed to do: (3) that the same consideration is equally decisive against Luke having used, or even seen, our present Gospels of Matthew and Mark. (See the English translation of Schleiermacher’s Essay on Luke, p. 121.) (4) As regards the practical use of the announcement, we see that though the honourable mention of a noble deed is thereby recognized by our Lord as a legitimate source of joy to us, yet by the very nature of the case all regard to such mention as a motive is excluded. The motive was Love alone.

Matthew 26:14-16

14–16. COMPACT OF JUDAS WITH THE CHIEF PRIESTS TO BETRAY HIM. Mark 14:10-11. Luke 22:3-6. (See also ἤδη, John 13:2.) When this took place, does not appear. In all probability, immediately after the conclusion of our Lord’s discourses, and therefore coincidently with the meeting of the Sanhedrim in Matthew 26:3. As these verses bring before us the first overt act of Judas’s treachery, I will give here what appears to me the true estimate of his character and motives.

In the main, my view agrees with that given by Neander, in his Leben Jesu, p. 688. I believe that Judas at first became attached to our Lord with much the same view as the other Apostles. He appears to have been a man with a practical talent for this world’s business, which gave occasion to his being appointed the Treasurer, or Bursar, of the company (John 12:6; John 13:29). But the self-seeking, sensuous element, which his character had in common with that of the other Apostles, was deeper rooted in him; and the spirit and love of Christ gained no such influence over him as over the others, who were more disposed to the reception of divine things. In proportion as he found our Lord’s progress disappoint his greedy anticipations, did his attachment to Him give place to coldness and aversion. The exhibition of miracles alone could not keep him faithful, when once the deeper appreciation of the Lord’s Divine Person failed.

We find by implication a remarkable example of this in John 6:60-66; John 6:70-71, where the denunciation of the one unfaithful among the twelve seems to point to the (then) state of his mind, as already beginning to be scandalized at Christ. Add to this, that latterly the increasing clearness of the Lord’s announcements of his approaching passion and death, while they gradually opened the eyes of the other Apostles to some terrible event to come, without shaking their attachment to Him, was calculated to involve in more bitter disappointment and disgust one so disposed to Him as Judas was.

The actually exciting causes of the deed of treachery at this particular time may have been many. The reproof administered at Bethany (on the Saturday evening probably),—disappointment at seeing the triumphal entry followed, not by the adhesion, but by the more bitter enmity of the Jewish authorities,—the denunciations of our Lord in ch. Matthew 22:23. rendering the breach irreparable,—and perhaps his last announcement in Matthew 26:2, making it certain that his death would soon take place, and sharpening the eagerness of the traitor to profit by it:—all these may have influenced him to apply to the chief priests as he did. With regard to his motive in general, I cannot think that he had any design but that of sordid gain, to be achieved by the darkest treachery. See further on this the note on ch. Matthew 27:3.

Matthew 26:15

15. ἔστησαν may be either weighed out, or appointed. That the money was paid to Judas (ch. Matthew 27:3) is no decisive argument for the former meaning; for it may have been paid on the delivery of Jesus to the Sanhedrim. The συνέθεντο of Luke and ἐπηγγείλαντο of Mark would lead us to prefer the other.

τριάκονταἀργύρια] thirty shekels, = the price of the life of a servant, Exodus 21:32. Between three and four pounds of our money. St. Matthew is the only Evangelist who mentions the sum. De Wette and others have supposed that the mention of thirty pieces of silver with the verb ἔστησαν, has arisen from the prophecy of Zechariah (ref.), which St. Matthew clearly has in view.

The others have simply ἀργύριον. It is just possible that the thirty pieces may have been merely earnest-money: but a difficulty attends the supposition; if so, Judas would have been entitled to the whole on our Lord being delivered up to the Sanhedrim (for this was all he undertook to do); whereas we find (ch. Matthew 27:3) that, after our Lord’s condemnation, Judas brought only the thirty pieces back, and nothing more. See note there.

Matthew 26:17

17. τᾖπρ. τ. ἀζ.] If this night had been the ordinary time of sacrificing the Passover, the day preceding would not indeed have been strictly the first day of unleavened bread; but there is reason to suppose that it was accounted so. The putting away leaven from the houses was part of the work of the day, and the eating of the unleavened bread actually commenced in the evening. Thus Josephus, Antt. ii. 15. 1, ἑορτὴνἄγομενἐφʼ ἡμέραςὀκτώ, τὴντῶνἀζύμωνλεγομένην,—including this day in the feast.

ποῦθέλεις] The ‘making ready’ would include the following particulars: the preparation of the guest-chamber itself (which however in this case was already done, see Mark 14:15 and note);—the lamb already kept up from the 10th (Exodus 12:3) had to be slain in the fore-court of the temple (2 Chronicles 35:5; see also Jos. B. J. vi. 9. 3);—the unleavened bread, bitter herbs, &c., prepared;—and the room arranged. This report does not represent the whole that passed: it was the Lord who sent the two disciples; and in reply this enquiry was made (Luke).

Matthew 26:18

18. The person spoken of was unknown even by name, as appears from Mark and Luke, where he is to be found by the turning in of a man with a pitcher of water. The Lord spoke not from any previous arrangement, as some have thought, but in virtue of His knowledge, and command of circumstances. Compare the command ch. Matthew 21:2 sq., and that in ch. Matthew 17:27. In the words πρὸςτὸνδεῖνα here must be involved the additional circumstance mentioned by Mark and Luke, but perhaps unknown to our narrator: see note on Luke 22:10, where the fullest account is found.

The words ὁδιδάσκ., common to the three accounts, do not imply that the man was a disciple of our Lord. It was the common practice during the feast for persons to receive strangers into their houses gratuitously, for the purpose of eating the Passover: and in this description of Himself in addressing a stranger, our Lord has a deep meaning, as (perhaps, but see note) in ὁκύριος in ch. Matthew 21:3. ‘Our Master and thine says.’ It is His form of ‘pressing’ for the service of the King of this earth, the things that are therein.

ὁκαιρόςμου is not ‘the time of the feast,’ but my time, i.e. for suffering: see John 7:8 a[169]. freq. There is no reason for supposing from this expression that ὁδεῖνα was aware of its meaning. The bearers of the message were; and the words, to the receiver of it, bore with them a weighty subjective reason, which, with such a title as ὁδιδάσκαλος prefixed, he was bound to respect. For these words we are indebted to St. Matthew’s narrative.

[169] alii = some cursive mss.

Matthew 26:20-25

20–25. JESUS, THE , HIS . Mark 14:17-21. John 13:21 ff. Our Lord and the twelve were a full Paschal company; ten persons was the ordinary and minimum number. Here come in (1) the expression of our Lord’s desire to eat this Passover before His suffering, Luke 22:15-16; (2) the division of this first cup, ib.

Luke 22:17, Matthew 18:3) the washing of the disciples’ feet, John 13:1-20 (? see note, John 13:22). I mention these, not that I have any desire to reduce the four accounts to a harmonized narrative, for that I believe to be impossible, and the attempt wholly unprofitable; but because they are additional circumstances, placed by their narrators at this period of the feast. I shall similarly notice all such additional matter, but without any idea of harmonizing the apparent discrepancies of the four (as appears to me) entirely distinct and independent reports.

Matthew 26:21

21. This announcement is common to Matt., Mark, and John. In the part of the events of the supper which relates to Judas, St. Luke is deficient, giving no further report of them than Matthew 26:21-23. The whole minute detail is given by St. John, who bore a considerable part in it.

Matthew 26:22

22. In the accounts of Luke and John, this enquiry is made πρὸςἑαυτούς or εἰςἀλλήλους. The real enquiry from the Lord was made by John himself, owing to a sign from Peter. This part of John’s narrative stands in the highest position for accuracy of detail, and the facts related in it are evidently the ground of the other accounts.

Matthew 26:23

23. These first words represent the answer of our Lord to John’s question (John 13:26). The latter (Matthew 26:24) were not said now, but (Luke 21:1-38; Luke 22:1-71) formed part of the previous announcement in our Matthew 26:21.

Matthew 26:25

25. I cannot understand these words (which are peculiar to our Gospel) otherwise than as an imperfect report of what really happened, viz. that the Lord dipped the sop, and gave it to Judas, thereby answering the general doubt, in which the traitor had impudently presumed to feign a share. If the question μήτιἐγώεἰμι; before, represented ἔβλεπονεἰςἀλλήλουςἀπορούμενοι, and was our author’s impression of what was in reality not a spoken but a signified question,—why now also should not this question and answer represent that Judas took part in that ἀπορία, and was, not by word of mouth, but by a decisive sign, of which our author was not aware, declared to be the traitor? Both cannot have happened;—for (John 13:28) no one knew (not even John, see note there) why Judas went out; whereas if he had been openly (and it is out of the question to suppose a private communication between our Lord and him) declared to be the traitor, reason enough would have been furnished for his immediately leaving the chamber. (Still, consult the note on Luke 22:24-30, where I have left room for modifying this view.) I am aware that this explanation will give offence to those who believe that every part of each account may be tessellated into one consistent and complete whole. Stier (Reden Jesu, vi. 46) handles the above supposition very roughly, and speaks of its upholders in no measured terms. Valuable as are the researches of this Commentator into the inner sense of the Lord’s words, and ready as I am to acknowledge continual obligation to him, I cannot but think that in the whole interpretation of this part of the Gospel-history, he and his school have fallen into the error of a too minute and letter-serving exposition.

In their anxiety to retain every portion of every account in its strict literal sense, they are obliged to commit many inconsistencies. A striking instance of this is also furnished in Mr. Birks’s Horæ Evangelicæ, p. 411: where in treating of this difficulty he says, “If we suppose St. Matthew to express the substantial meaning of our Lord’s reply, rather than its precise words, the two accounts are easily reconciled. The question of Judas might concur with St. John’s private enquiry, and the same sign which revealed the traitor to the beloved disciple, would be an affirmative reply to himself, equivalent to the words in the Gospel—‘Thou hast said.’ ” Very true, and nearly what I have maintained above: but the literal harmonizers seem to be quite blind to the fact, that this principle of interpretation, which they use when it suits them, is the very one against which they so vehemently protest when others use it, and for the use of which they call them such hard names.

On σὺεἶπας, see below, Matthew 26:64, note.

Matthew 26:26

26. While they were eating, during the meal,—as distinguished from the distribution of the cup, which was after it.

No especial stress must be laid on the article before ἄρτον, if read; it would be the bread which lay before Him: see below. The bread would be unleavened, as the day was ἡπρώτητῶνἀζύμων (see Exodus 12:8).

εὐλογήσας and εὐχαριστήσας amount to the same in practice. The looking up to heaven and giving thanks was a virtual ‘blessing’ of the meal or the bread.

εὐλογ. must be construed transitively (1 Corinthians 10:16).

ἄρτον is governed by all four verbs, λαβών, εὐλογήσας, ἔκλασεν, ἐδίδου (see also Luke 9:16, and the reff. to the text here). It was customary in the Paschal meal for the Master, in breaking the bread, to give thanks for the fruit of the earth. But our Lord did more than this: “Non pro veteri tantum creatione, sed et pro nova, cujus ergo in hunc orbem venerat, preces fudit, gratiasque Deo egit pro redemtione humani generis quasi jam peracta.” Grotius.

From this giving of thanks for and blessing the offering, the Holy Communion has been from the earliest times also called εὐχαριστία, viz. by Justin Martyr, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Clem. Alex[170], Chrysostom, &c. The passages may be seen in Suicer’s Thesaurus, under the word.

[170] Alex. Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

ἔκλασεν] It was a round cake of unleavened bread, which the Lord broke and divided: signifying thereby both the breaking of his body on the Cross, and the participation in the benefits of his death by all His. Hence the act of communion was known by the name ἡκλάσιςτοῦἄρτου, Acts 2:42. See 1 Corinthians 10:16, also Isaiah 58:7; Lamentations 4:4.

ἐδίδου, imperf. He gave to each, distributed.

λάβετεφάγετε] Our Gospel alone has both words. φάγετε is spurious in Mark: both words, in 1 Corinthians 11:24. Here, they are undoubted: and seem to shew us (see note on Luke 22:17) that the Lord did not Himself partake of the bread or wine. It is thought by some however that He did: e.g. Chrysostom, Hom. lxxxii. 1, p. 783, τὸἑαυτοῦαἷμααὐτὸςἔπιεν. But the analogy of the whole, as well as these words. and πίετεἐξαὐτοῦπάντες below, lead us to a different conclusion. Our Lord’s non-participation is however no rule for the administrator of the rite in after times.

Although in one sense he represents Christ, blessing, breaking, and distributing; in another, he is one of the disciples, examining himself, confessing, partaking. Throughout all Church ministrations this double capacity must be borne in mind. Olshausen (ii. 449) maintains the opposite view, and holds that the ministrant cannot unite in himself the two characters. But setting the inner verity of the matter for a moment aside, how, if so, should an unassisted minister ever communicate?

τοῦτόἐστιντὸσῶμάμου] τοῦτο, this, which I now offer to you, this bread. The form of expression is important, not being οὗτοςὁἄρτος, or οὗτοςὁοἶνος, but τοῦτο, in both cases, or τοῦτοτὸποτήριον, not the bread or wine itself, but the thing in each case;—precluding all idea of a substantial change.

ἐστιν] On this much controverted word itself no stress is to be laid. In the original tongue in which our Lord spoke, it would not be expressed: and as it now stands, it is merely the logical copula between the subject, this, and the predicate, my Body. The connexion of these two will require deeper consideration. First we may observe, as above of the subject, so here of the predicate, that it is not ἡσάρξμου (although that very expression is didactically used in its general sense in John 6:51, as applying to the bread), but τὸσῶμάμου. The body is made up of flesh and blood; and although analogically the bread may represent one and the wine the other, the assertion here is not to be analogically taken merely: τοῦτο, this which I give you, (is) τὸσῶμάμου. Under this is the mystery of my Body: the assertion has a literal, and has also a spiritual or symbolic meaning.

And it is the literal meaning which gives to the spiritual and symbolic meaning its fitness and fulness. In the literal meaning then, this (is) my Body, we have BREAD, ‘the staff of life,’ identified with THE BODY OF THE LORD: not that particular ἄρτος with that particular σάρξ which at that moment constituted the Body before them, nor any particular ἄρτος with the present Body of the Lord in heaven: but τοῦτο, the food of man, with τὸσῶμάμου. This is strikingly set forth in John 6:51, καὶὁἄρτοςδὲὃνἐγὼδώσωἡσάρξμουἐστὶνὑπὲρτῆςτοῦκόσμουζωῆς. Now the mystery of the Lord’s Body is, that in and by it is all created being upheld: τὰπάνταἐναὐτῷσυνέστηκεν, Colossians 1:17; ἐναὐτῷζωὴἦν, John 1:4. And thus generally, and in the widest sense, is the Body of the Lord the sustenance and upholding of all living. Our very bodies are dependent upon his, and unless by his Body standing pure and accepted before the Father, could not exist nor be nourished.

So that to all living things, in this largest sense, τὸζῇν, χριστός. And all our nourishment and means of upholding are Christ. In this sense his Body is the Life of the world. Thus the fitness of the symbol for the thing now to be signified is shewn, not merely by analogy, but by the deep verities of Redemption. And this general and lower sense, underlying, as it does, all the spiritual and higher senses in John 6:1-71, brings us to the symbolic meaning which the Lord now first and expressly attaches to this sacramental bread.

Rising into the higher region of spiritual things,—in and by the same Body of the Lord, standing before the Father in accepted righteousness, is all spiritual being upheld, but by the inward and spiritual process of feeding upon Him by faith: of making that Body our own, causing it to pass into and nourish our souls, even as the substance of the bread passes into and nourishes our bodies. Of this feeding upon Christ in the spirit by faith, is the sacramental bread the symbol to us. When the faithful in the Lord’s Supper press with their teeth that sustenance, which is, even to the animal life of their bodies, the Body of Christ, whereby alone all animated being is upheld,—they feed in their souls on that Body of righteousness and acceptance, by partaking of which alone the body and soul are nourished unto everlasting life. And as, in the more general and natural sense, all that nourishes the body is the Body of Christ given for all,—so to them, in the inner spiritual sense, is the sacramental bread symbolic of that Body given for them,—their standing in which, in the adoption of sons, is witnessed by the sending abroad of the Spirit in their hearts. This last leads us to the important addition in Luke and 1 Cor. (but omitted here and in Mark) τὸὑπὲρὑμῶν (διδόμενον, Luke,—omitted in 1 Cor.),—τοῦτοποιεῖτεεἰςτὴνἐμὴνἀνάμνησιν. On these words we may remark (1) that the participle is present: and, rendered with reference to the time when it was spoken, would be which is being given.

The Passion had already begun; in fact the whole life on earth was this giving and breaking, consummated by His death: (2) that the commemorative part of the rite here enjoined strictly depends upon the symbolic meaning, and that, for its fitness, upon the literal meaning. The commemoration is of Him, in so far as He has come down into Time, and enacted the great acts of Redemption on this our world,—and shewn himself to us as living and speaking Man, an object of our personal love and affectionate remembrance:—but the other and higher parts of the Sacrament have regard to the results of those same acts of Redemption, as they are eternized in the counsels of the Father,—as the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8).

Matthew 26:27

27. ἔδωκεν, aor. He gave, not to each, but once for all: in remarkable coincidence with Luke 22:17, λάβετετοῦτοκ. διαμερίσατεἑαυτοῖς. This was after the meal was ended: ὡσαύτωςκαὶτὸποτήριονμετὰτὸδειπνῆσαι. (Luke and 1 Cor.) As remarked above, it is quite uncertain whether our Lord followed minutely the Jewish practices, and we cannot therefore say whether the cup was one of wine and water mixed. It hardly follows from the expression of Mat 26:29, ἐκτούτουτοῦγεν. τ. ἀμπ., that it was of unmixed wine. The word ὡσαύτως (in Luke and 1 Cor.) contains our λαβὼνκαὶεὐχαρ. ἔδωκ.

πίετεἐξαὐτοῦπάντες] Peculiar to Matthew, preserved however in substance by Mark’s καὶἔπιονἐξαὐτοῦπάντες. The πάντες is remarkable, especially with reference to the practice of the Church of Rome, which forbids the cup to the laity. Calvin remarks: “Cur de pane simpliciter dixit ut ederent; de calice, ut omnes biberent? Ac si Satanæ calliditati ex destinato occurrere voluisset.” (Cited in Stier, vi. 115.) It is on all accounts probable, and this command confirms the probability, that Judas was present, and partook of both parts of this first communion. The expressions are such throughout as to lead us to suppose that the same persons, οἱδώδεκα, were present. On the circumstance mentioned John 13:30, which has mainly contributed to the other opinion, see note there.

Matthew 26:28

28. τοῦτογάρἐστιντὸαἷμάμουτῆς [καινῆς] διαθ.] So Mark also, omitting γάρ and καινῆς. In Luke and 1 Cor. there is an important verbal difference. τοῦτοτὸποτήριονἡκαινὴδιαθ. [ἐστὶν] ἐντῷἐμῷαἵματι. But if we consider the matter closely, the real difference is but trifling, if any. Let us recur to the Paschal rite. The lamb (χριστὸςτὸπάσχαἡμῶν) being killed, the blood (τὸαἷματῆςδιαθήκης, Exodus 24:8) is sprinkled on the doorposts, and is a sign to the destroying angel to spare the house. The blood of the covenant is the blood of the lamb.

So also in the new covenant. The blood of the Lamb of God, slain for us, being not only, as in the former case, sprinkled on, but actually partaken spiritually and assimilated by, the faithful soul, is the blood of the new covenant; and the sacramental cup, is, signifies, sets forth (καταγγέλλει, 1 Corinthians 11:26), this covenant in His blood, i.e. consisting in a participation in His blood. With this explanation let us recur to the words in our text. First it will be observed that there is not here that absolute assertion which τοῦτόἐστιντὸσῶμάμου conveyed. It is not τοῦτόἐστιντὸαἷμάμου absolutely. Wine, in general, does not represent by itself the effects (on the creation) of the blood of Christ; it, like every other nourishment of the body, is nourishment to us by and in Him, forasmuch as in Him all things consist: but there is no peculiar propriety whereby it is to us his Blood alone.

But it is made so by a covenant office which it holds in his own declaration. Without shedding of blood was no remission of sins under the old covenant: and blood was, throughout, the covenant sign of forgiveness and acceptance. (See ref. Heb., where the Author, substituting τοῦτο for ἰδού in the LXX of Exo 24:8, seems to be alluding to this very formula.) Now all this blood of sacrifice finds its true reality and fulfilment in the blood of Christ, shed for the remission of sins. This is the very promise of the new covenant, see Hebrews 8:8-13, as distinguished from the old: the ἄφεσιςἁμαρτιῶν, once for all,—whereas the old had continual offerings, which could not do this, Hebrews 10:3-4. And of this ἄφεσις, the result of the outpouring of the blood of Christ,—first and most generally in bringing all creation into reconciliation with the Father (see Colossians 1:20),—secondly and individually, in the application by faith of that blood to the believing soul,—do the faithful in the Lord’s Supper partake.

τὸπερὶπολλῶν (Luke, ὑμῶν) ἐκχ.] On the present participle, see above. The situation of the words in Luke is remarkable; for τὸποτήριον is the subject of the sentence, and ἡκ. διαθήκη the predicate. See note there.

πολλῶν] see note, ch. Matthew 20:28. Cf. also Hebrews 9:28.

εἰςἄφεσινἁμαρτιῶν] Peculiar to Matthew: see above. The connexion is not πίετε.… εἰςἄφεσινἁμ. In the Sacrament, not the forgiveness of sins itself, but the refreshing and confirming assurance of that state of forgiveness is conveyed. The disciples (with one exception) were clean before the institution: John 13:10-11. St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:25, repeats the τοῦτοποιεῖτεὁσάκιςἂνπίνητεεἰςτὴνἐμὴνἀνάμνησιν. On the words ὁσάκιςἂνπίνητε, see note there.

In concluding this note I will observe that it is not the office of a Commentator to enter the arena of controversy respecting transubstantiation, further than by his exegesis his opinions are made apparent. It will be seen how entirely opposed to such a dogma is the view above given of the Sacrament. Once introduce it, and it utterly destroys both the verity of Christ’s Body, and the sacramental nature of the ordinance. That it has done so, is proved (if further need be) by the mutilation of the Sacrament, and disobedience to the divine command, in the Church of Rome. See further notices of this in notes on 1 Corinthians 10:16, and on John 6:1-71.

Matthew 26:29

29. This declaration I believe to be distinct from that in Luke 22:18. That was spoken over the first cup—this over one of the following. In addition to what has been said on Luke, we may observe, (1) that our Lord still calls the sacramental cup τὸγέν. τῆςἀμπ., although by Himself pronounced to be his blood: (2) that these words carry on the meaning and continuance of this eucharistic ordinance, even into the new heavens and new earth. As Thiersch excellently says, in his Lectures on Catholicism and Protestantism, ii. 276 (cited by Stier, vi. 160), “The Lord’s Supper points not only to the past, but to the future also. It has not only a commemorative, but also a prophetic meaning.

In it we have not only to shew forth the Lord’s death, until He come, but we have also to think of the time when He shall come to celebrate his holy Supper with His own, new, in his Kingdom of Glory. Every celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a foretaste and prophetic anticipation of the great Marriage Supper which is prepared for the Church at the second appearing of Christ. This import of the Sacrament is declared in the words of the Lord, οὐμὴπίωἀπʼ ἄρτικ.τ.λ. These words ought never to be omitted in any liturgical form of administering the Communion.”

Matthew 26:30

30. The ὕμνος was in all probability the last part of the Hallel, or great Hallel, which consisted of Psa 115:1-18; Psalms 116:1-19; Psalms 117:1-2; Psalms 118:1-29; the former part (Ps. 113. 114.) having been sung during the meal. It is unlikely that this took place after the solemn prayer in John 17:1-26.

ἐξῆλθ.] Luke (Luke 22:39) adds κατὰτὸἔθος—namely, of every evening since his return to Jerusalem.

Matthew 26:31

31. πάντες (emphatic) ὑμεῖς seems to be used as distinguishing those present from the one, who had gone out.

σκανδ.] see note on ch. Matthew 11:6. The word is here used in a pregnant meaning, including what followed,—desertion, and, in one case, denial.

γέγραπταιγάρ] This is a very important citation, and has been much misunderstood; how much, may appear from Grotius’s remark: “Tantum abest ut Zachariæ verbis directe Christum putem respici, ut multo magis credam agi inibi de aliquo non bono pastore,” &c. But, on the contrary, if we examine Zechariah 11-13., we must I think come to the conclusion that the shepherd spoken of Mat 11:7-14, who is rejected and sold, who is said to have been pierced (Matthew 12:10), is also spoken of in ch. Matthew 13:7. Stier (Reden Jesu, vi. 176 ff.) has gone at length into the meaning of the whole prophecy, and especially that of the word עֲמִיתִי, ‘my fellow,’ and shewn that the reference can be to no other than the Messiah. The citation agrees verbatim with the LXX-A, except that πάταξον is changed into πατάξω—God who commands the striking, into God who Himself strikes.

Matthew 26:32

32. In this announcement our Lord seems to have in mind the remainder of the verse in Zechariah: “and I will turn (הֵשִׁיב, reducere manum, i.e. impiis sublatis curam agere, &c. Schrצder) mine hand upon the little ones.” As this could not be cited in any intelligible connexion with present circumstances, our Lord gives the announcement of its fulfilment, in a promise to precede them (προάγ., a pastoral office, see John 10:4) into Galilee, whither they should naturally return after the feast was over: see ch. Matthew 28:7; Matthew 28:10; Matthew 28:16. Schleiermacher thinks it “extremely improbable that Jesus, if He foresaw so exactly the days of His resurrection, and therefore could not but know that He should see his disciples again more than once in Jerusalem, should here have said that He would lead them into Galilee” (English Translation, p. 298). I confess that I see no improbability in the case; but the three references to this promise just quoted make it surely in the highest degree improbable that it should have been subsequently foisted in.

We do not find such elaborate attempts to preserve the appearance of consistency in our Gospels. The reader who sees in it the reference to prophecy, will form a very different opinion.

Matthew 26:33

33. Nothing can bear a greater impress of exactitude than this reply. Peter had been before warned (see note on Luke 22:31-34); and still remaining in the same spirit of self-confident attachment, now that he is included among the πάντες, not specially addressed,—breaks out into this asseveration, which carries completely with it the testimony that it was not the first. Men do not bring themselves out so strongly (εἰπάντες, οὐκἐγώ: and not only so, but, οὐδέποτε, as opposed to ἐντῇνυκτὶταύτῃ) unless their fidelity has been previously attainted.

Matthew 26:34

34. The very words in their order are, I doubt not, reported by St. Mark—ἀμὴνλ. σοιὅτισήμερονταύτῃτῇνυκτὶπρὶνἢδὶςἀλέκτοραφωνῆσαιτ. μεἀπ. The contrast to Peter’s boast, and the climax, is in these words the strongest; and the inference also comes out most clearly, that they likewise were not now said for the first time. The first cock-crowing is at midnight; but inasmuch as few hear it,—when the word is used generally, we mean the second crowing, early in the morning, before dawn. If this view be taken, the ἀλέκτ. φων. and δὶςἀλ. φ. amount to the same—only the latter is the more precise expression. It is most likely that Peter understood this expression as only a mark of time, and therefore received it, as when it was spoken before, as merely an expression of distrust on the Lord’s part; it was this solemn and circumstantial repetition of it which afterwards struck upon his mind when the sign itself was literally fulfilled.

A question has been raised whether cocks were usually kept or even allowed in Jerusalem. No such bird is mentioned in the O.T., and the Mischna states that the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests every where, kept no fowls, because they scratched up unclean worms. But the Talmud is here not consistent with itself: and Lightfoot brings forward a story which proves it. And there might be many kept by the resident Romans, over whom the Jews had no power.

We must not overlook the spiritual parabolic import of this warning. Peter stands here as a representative of all disciples who deny or forget Christ—and the watchful bird that cries in the night is that warning voice which ‘speaketh once, yea twice,’ to call them to repentance: see Romans 13:11-12.

Matthew 26:35

35. This ἂνδέῃ again appears to have the precision of a repeated asseveration. Mark has the stronger expression ἐκπερισσοῦἔλεγεν, which even more clearly indicates that the συναποθανεῖν was not now first said. The rest said it, but not so earnestly perhaps;—at all events, Peter’s confidence cast theirs into the shade.

Matthew 26:36

36. Mark alone, besides our account, mentions the name of the place—Luke merely calls it ὁτόπος, in allusion to κατὰτὸἔθος before. John informs us that it was a garden. The name is גִּת שִׂמָנֵא or שִׂמָני, ‘an oil press.’ It was at the foot of the Mount of Olives, in the valley of the Kedron, the other side of the brook from the city (John 18:1).

καθίσ.] not strictly and literally ‘sit,’ but = μείνατε Matthew 26:38, stay here.

προσεύξωμαι] Such is the name which our Lord gives to that which was coming upon Him, in speaking to the Eight who were not to witness it. All conflict of the holy soul is prayer: all its struggles are continued communion with God. In Genesis 22:5, when Abraham’s faith was to be put to so sore a trial, he says, ‘I and the lad will go yonder and worship.’ Our Lord (almost on the same spot) unites in Himself, as the priest and victim, as Stier strikingly remarks, Abraham’s Faith and Isaac’s Patience.

ἐκεῖ] probably some spot deeper in the garden’s shade. At this time the gorge of the Kedron would be partly in the moonlight, partly shaded by the rocks and buildings of the opposite side. It may have been from the moonlight into the shade that our Lord retired to pray.

Matthew 26:37

37. These three—Peter, the foremost in attachment, and profession of it—the two sons of Zebedee, who were to drink of the cup that He drank of—He takes with Him, not only nor principally as witnesses of his trial—this indeed, in the full sense, they were not—but as a consolation to Him in that dreadful hour—to ‘watch with Him.’ In this too they failed—yet from his returning to them between his times of prayer, it is manifest that, in the abasement of his humanity, He regarded them as some comfort to Him. ‘In magnis tentationibus juvat solitudo, sed tamen ut in propinquo sint amici.’ Bengel.

ἤρξατο—not merely idiomatic here—He began, as He had never done before.

λυπεῖσθαι = ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι Mark. ‘Dicit incursum objecti horribilis.’ Bengel (see below on Matthew 26:38).

ἀδημονεῖν = λίανλυπεῖσθαι, ἀπορεῖν, Suidas; τὸβαρυθυμεῖννοεῖται, Euthym[174]; ἀγωνιᾷν, Hesychius; ἀδήμων, ὁἐξἄδου, ὅἐστικόρουτινὸςἢλύπης, ἀναπεπτωκώς. ἀδημονεῖν, τὸἀλύεινκαὶἀμηχανεῖν, Eustathius.

[174] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

Matthew 26:38

38. Our Lord’s whole inmost life must have been one of continued trouble of spirit—He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief—but there was an extremity of anguish now, reaching even to the utmost limit of endurance, so that it seemed that more would be death itself. The expression is said to be proverbial (see ref. Jonah): but we must remember that though with us men, who see from below, proverbs are merely bold guesses at truth,—with Him, who sees from above, they are the truth itself, in its very purest form. So that although when used by a man, a proverbial expression is not to be pressed to literal exactitude,—when used by our Lord, it is, just because it is a proverb, to be searched into and dwelt on all the more. The expression ἡψυχήμου, in this sense, spoken by our Lord, is only found besides in John 12:27.

It is the human soul, the seat of the affections and passions, which is troubled with the anguish of the body; and it is distinguished from the πνεῦμα, the higher spiritual being. Our Lord’s soul was crushed down even to death by the weight of that anguish which lay upon Him—and that literally—so that He (as regards his humanity) would have died, had not strength (bodily strength, upholding his human frame) been ministered from on high by an angel (see note on Luke 22:43).

γρηγορεῖτεμετʼ ἐμοῦ] not προσεύχεσθεμετʼ ἐμοῦ, for in that work the Mediator must be alone; but (see above) watch with Me—just (if we may compare our weakness with His) as we derive comfort in the midst of a terrible storm, from knowing that some are awake and with us, even though their presence is no real safeguard.

Matthew 26:39

39. προελθὼνμικρόν (Matt., Mark) ═ ἀπεσπάσθηἀπʼ αὐτῶνὡσεὶλίθουβολήν Luke, who in this description is the more precise. ἀπεσπ., I cannot help thinking, implies something more than mere removal from them—something of the reluctance of parting.

The distance would be very small, not above forty or fifty yards. Hence the disciples might well catch the leading words of our Lord’s prayers, before drowsiness overpowered them. Luke has however only θεὶςτὰγόνατα, which is not so full as our account.

προσευχ.] Stier finely remarks: ‘This was in truth a different prayer from that which went before, which John has recorded.’ But still in the same spirit, uttered by the same Son of God and Redeemer of men. The glorifying (John 17:1) begins with suffering, as the previous words, ἐλήλυθενἡὥρα, might lead us to expect. The ‘power over all flesh’ shews itself first as power of the conflicting and victorious spirit over his own flesh, by virtue of which He is ‘one of us.’

Mark expresses the substance of the prayer, and interprets ποτήριον by ὥρα. Luke’s report differs only in verbal expression from Matthew’s. In the address, we have here and in Luke Πάτερ—in Mark ἀββᾶὁπατήρ. In all, and in the prayer itself, there is the deepest feeling and apprehension in the Redeemer’s soul of his Sonship and the unity of the Father—the most entire and holy submission to His Will. We must not for a moment think of the Father’s wrath abiding on Him as the cause of his suffering. Here is no fear of wrath,—but, in the depth of his human anguish, the very tenderness of filial love.

The variation in Mark and Luke in the substance of the prayer, though slight, is worthy of remark.

εἰδυνατόνἐστιν = πάνταδυνατάσοι, = εἰβούλει. All these three find their union in one and the same inward feeling. That in the text expresses, ‘If, within the limits of Thy holy Will, this may be;’—that in Mark, ‘All things are (absolutely) possible to Thee—Thou canst therefore—but not what I will, but what Thou wilt:’—that in Luke, ‘If it be Thy Will to remove, &c. (Thou canst): but not my will, but Thine be done.’ The very words used by our Lord, the Holy Spirit has not seen fit to give us—shewing us, even in this solemn instance, the comparative indifference of the letter, when we have the inner spirit. That our Lord should have uttered all three forms of the prayer, is not for a moment to be thought of; and such a view could only spring out of the most petty and unworthy appreciation of the purpose of Scripture narrative.

παρελθάτω] as we should say of a threatening cloud, ‘It has gone over.’

But what is the ποτήριον or ὥρα, of which our Lord here prays that it may pass by? Certainly, not the mere present feebleness and prostration of the bodily frame: not any mere section of his sufferings—but the whole—the betrayal, the trial, the mocking, the scourging, the cross, the grave, and all besides which our thoughts cannot reach. Of this all, his soul, in humble subjection to the higher Will, which was absolutely united and harmonious with the Will of the Father, prays that if possible it may pass over. And this prayer was heard—see Hebrews 5:7—ἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας—on account of His pious resignation to the Father’s will, or on the ground of it, so that it prevailed—He was strengthened from Heaven. He did indeed drink the cup to the dregs—but He was enabled to do it, and this ἐνίσχυσις was the answer to his prayer.

πλὴνοὐχ …] The Monothelite heresy, which held but one will in the Lord Jesus, is here plainly convicted of error. The distinction is clear, and marked by our Lord Himself. In His human soul, He willed to be freed from the dreadful things before Him—but this human will was overruled by the inner and divine purpose—the Will at unity with the Father’s Will.

Matthew 26:40

40. Mark agrees, except in relating the beginning of the address in the singular—no doubt accurately—for it was Peter (Simon, der hier kein Petrus mar. Stier), who had pledged himself to go with Him to prison and death.

οὕτως] see reff., ‘adeo:’—it implies their utter inability, as shewn by their present state of slumber. Are ye so entirely unable, &c.

μίανὥραν need not imply that our Lord had been absent a whole hour:—if it is to be taken in any close meaning, it would be that the whole trial would last about that time. But most likely it is in allusion to the time of our Lord’s trial, so often called by that name.

Matthew 26:41

41. Luke gives this command at the beginning and end of the whole; but his account is manifestly only a compendium, and not to be pressed chronologically. The command has respect to the immediate trial which was about to try them, and (for γρηγ. is a word of habit, not merely, as ἐγείρω Ephesians 5:15, or ἐκνήφω 1 Corinthians 15:34, one of immediate import) also to the general duty of all disciples in all time.

εἰσελθεῖνεἰςπ. is not to come into temptation merely, to be tempted: this lies not in our own power to avoid, and its happening is rather joy than sorrow to us—see James 1:2, where the word is περιπέσητε—but it implies an entering into temptation with the will, and entertaining of the temptation. Grotius compares ἐμπίπτεινεἰςπειρασμόν 1 Timothy 6:9. ‘Plenius Hebræi dicunt, intrare in manum tentationis, hoc est, in ejus potestatem atque dominium, ita ut ab ea subjugemur atque absorbeamur’ (Witsius, Exerc. in Orat. Dom. p. 196, cited by Stier, vi. 237).

τὸμὲνπν.] I cannot doubt that this is said by our Lord in its most general meaning, and that He Himself is included in it. At that moment He was giving as high and pre-eminent an example of its truth, as the disciples were affording a low and ignoble one. He, in the willingness of the spirit—yielding Himself to the Father’s Will to suffer and die, but weighed down by the weakness of the flesh: they, having professed, and really having, a willing spirit to suffer with Him, but, even in the one hour’s watching, overcome by the burden of drowsiness. Observe it is here πνεῦμα, not ψυχή; and compare Matthew 26:38 and note. To enter further into the depths of this assertion of our Lord would carry us beyond the limits of annotation: but see Stier’s remarks, vi. 237–242.

Matthew 26:42

42. Mark merely says of this second prayer, τὸναὐτὸνλόγονεἰπών. Luke gives it as ἐκτενέστερονπροσηύχετο—and relates in addition, that His sweat was like the fall of drops of blood on the ground: see notes on Luke 22:44. (At what precise time the angel appeared to Him is uncertain: I should be inclined to think, after the first prayer, before He came to his disciples.)

The words are not exactly the same: “the Lord knew that the Father always heard Him (John 11:42); and therefore He understands the continuance of His trial as the answer to His last words, as Thou wilt.” Stier. Here therefore the prayer is, If it be not possible.… thy will be done. It is spoken in the fulness of self-resignation. ‘Jam addita bibendi mentione, propius ad bibendum se confert.’ Bengel.

Matthew 26:43

43. Mark adds, and it is a note of accuracy, καὶοὐκᾔδεισαντίἀποκριθῶσιναὐτῷ.

Matthew 26:44

44. τὸναὐτόν, viz. as the last. This third prayer is merely indicated in Mark, by ἔρχεταιτὸτρίτον, on our Lord’s return.

Matthew 26:45-46

45, 46. The clause καθεύδετελ. κ. ἀναπ. has been variously understood. To take it interrogatively does not improve the sense, and makes an unnatural break in the sentence, which proceeds indicatively afterwards. It seems to me that there can be but two ways of interpreting it—and both with an imperative construction. (1) Either it was said bonafide,—‘since ye are not able to watch with Me, now ye may sleep on—for my hour is come, and I am about to be taken from you’—which sense however is precluded by the ἐγείρεσθεἄγωμεν below: or (2) it was said with an understanding of ‘if you can’ as Bengel; ‘si me excitantem non auditis, brevi aderunt alii qui vos excitent. Interea dormite, si vacat.’ (Only let us beware of the so-called “deeper sense,” suggested by Wordsw. here, “Now you may hope for sleep and rest (? cf. Mark 13:37; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-7), for I am about to die.”)

ἰδοὺἤγγ. = ἀπέχειἦλθεν Mark. The ἀπέχει implies, ‘It is enough’—enough of reproof to them for drowsiness—enough of exhortations to watch and pray—that was now coming which would cut all this short. This first ἰδού is hardly to be taken literally of the appearance of Judas and his band; it merely announces the approach of the hour, of which the Lord had so often spoken: but at the utterance of the second, it seems that they were in sight, and that may be taken literally.

This expression, παραδ. εἰςχεῖραςἁμαρτωλῶν, should be noticed, as an echo of the Redeemer’s anguish—it was the contact with sin,—and death, the wages of sin,—which all through His trial pressed heavily on His soul.

Matthew 26:47

47. Judas is specified as εἷςτῶνδώδεκα, probably because the appellation, as connected with this part of his history, had become the usual one—thus we have in Luke ὁλεγόμενοςἸούδ. εἷςτῶνδώδεκα—fuller still. To the reader, this specification is not without meaning, though that meaning may not have been intended.

ὄχλοςπολύς] consisting of (1) a detachment of the Roman cohort which was quartered in the tower of Antonia during the feast in case of an uproar, called ἡσπεῖρα, John 18:3; John 18:12. (2) The ὑπηρέται of the council, the same as the στρατηγοὶτοῦἱεροῦ, Luke 22:52. (3) Servants and others deputed from the high-priest to assist, see our Matthew 26:51. (4) Possibly, if the words are to be taken exactly (Luke 22:52), some of the chief priests and elders themselves, forward in zeal and enmity. There is nothing improbable in this (as Meyer, Schleiermacher, &c. maintain), seeing that we have these persons mixing among the multitude and stirring them up to demand the crucifixion of Jesus afterwards.

ξύλων] not clubs—but staves,—or any tumultuary weapons. The intention of the chief priests evidently was to produce an impression to the effect that a seditious plot was to be crushed, and resistance might be expected. John mentions also lanterns and torches—to search perhaps in the dark parts of the garden, most of which would by this time be in the shade.

Matthew 26:48

48. The common rendering of ἔδωκεν as a plusq. perf. is unnecessary and unwarranted: the aorist is simply historical,—gave them a sign;—when is not stated. On Mark’s addition, καὶἀπαγάγετεἀσφαλῶς, see notes there.

Matthew 26:49

49. εὐθέως] see above on Matthew 26:47. The purpose of the kiss, supposing it to have taken place after John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59, (and it is surely out of the question to suppose it to have taken place before, contrary to the plain meaning of Joh 18:4,) has been doubted. Yet I think on a review of what had happened, it is very intelligible—not perhaps as some have supposed, to shew that Jesus could be approached with safety—but at all events as the sign agreed on with the Roman soldiers, who probably did not personally know Him, and who besides would have had their orders from the city, to take Him whom Judas should kiss. Thus the kiss would be necessary in the course of their military duty, as their authorization,—notwithstanding the previous declaration by Jesus of Himself.

κατεφ. is hardly as in my earlier editions, another word for ἐφίλ. It may well have its common and proper meaning, ‘Kissed him eagerly,’ with ostentation, as a studied and prearranged sign. See Ellicott, Lectures on the Life of our Lord, p. 331 note: and comp. Xenophon, Mem. ii. 6. 33, cited by Meyer, ὡςτοὺςκαλοὺςφιλήσοντόςμου, τοὺςδʼ ἀγαθοὺςκαταφιλήσαντος.

Matthew 26:50

50. In Luke we have Ἰούδα, φιλήματιτὸνυἱὸντ. ἀνθ. παραδίδως,—which sense is involved in the text also: that variation shewing perhaps that one of the accounts is not from an eye-witness.

ἑταῖρε] see ch. Matthew 22:12 and note. ὁἑταιροςοὐπάντωςφίλος. καὶἑταῖροι, οἱἐνσυνηθείᾳκαὶἐνσυνεργίᾳπολὺνχρόνονγεγονότες. Ammonius.

ἐφʼ ὃπάρει can hardly be a question. No such use of the simple relative ὅς has ever been adduced: “pronomen ὅς pro interrogativo τίς usurpari, falsa est Hoogeveeni opinio, ad Viger. Matthew 26:14, alienissimo Demosthenis loco (p. 779) abutentis.” Lobeck on Phryn. p. 57 note. It therefore must be either an exclamation, as Fritzsche, “ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades!” which would be equally alien from the usage of ὅς, exclamations of this sort in Greek being expressed in an interrogative form:—or an aposiopesis; as Euthym[175], διʼ ὃπαραγέγονας, ἤγουντὸκατὰσκοπὸνπράττε, τοῦπροσχήματοςἀφιέμενος. And to this I should incline. “Friend, there needs not this shew of attachment: I know thine errand,—hoc age.” But the command itself is suppressed. See Meyer’s note, who also takes this view.

On any understanding of the words, it is an appeal to the conscience and heart of Judas, in which sense (see above) it agrees with the words spoken in Luke:—see note there. The fact that at this period our Lord was laid hold of and secured (by hand—not yet bound) by the band, is important, as interpreting Luke’s account further on.

[175] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

Matthew 26:51

51. The εἷς (or εἷςτις of Luke) was Peter;—John 18:10. Why he was not mentioned, is idle to enquire: one supposition only must be avoided—that there is any purpose in the omission. It is absurd to suppose that the mention of his name in a book current only among Christians, many years after the fact, could lead to his apprehension, which did not take place at the time, although he was recognized as the striker in the palace of the High-priest, John 18:26. The real reason of the non-apprehension was, that the servant was healed by the Lord.

This is the first opposition to ‘Thy will be done.’ Luke expresses it, that they saw what would happen—and asked, ‘Lord, shall we smite with the sword?’ Then, while the other (for there were but two swords in the company) was waiting for the reply, the rash Peter, in the very spirit of ch. Matthew 16:22, smote with the sword—the weapon of the flesh:—an outbreak of the natural man no less noticeable than that more-noticed one which followed before morning. All four Evangelists agree in this account. Luke and John are most exact—the latter giving the name of the slave,—Malchus.

The aim was a deadly one, and Peter narrowly escaped being one ὅστιςἐντῇστάσειφόνονπεποιήκει. From Luke 22:51, we learn that our Lord said ἐᾶτεἕωςτούτου (on the meaning of which see note there), touched the ear and healed it.

ὠτίον] “Plerisque corporis partibus vulgaris dialectus formam deminutivam tribuit, τὰῥινία, Aristot. Physiogn. iii. 57, τὸὀμμάτιον iii. 46, στηθίδιον, χελύνιον, σαρκίον (corpus).” Lobeck on Phryn. p. 211, note.

Matthew 26:52

52. τὴνμάχ. σου] ‘tuum gladium: alienissimum a mea causa.’ Bengel.

τὸντόποναὐτῆς = τὴνθήκην John. The sheath is the place for the Christian’s sword—‘gladius extra vaginam non est in loco suo, nisi ubi subservit iræ divinæ,’ Bengel: see note on Luke 22:36. Our Lord does not say ‘Cast away thy sword;’ only in His willing self-sacrifice, and in that kingdom which is to be evolved from his work of redemption, is the sword altogether out of place.

πάντεςγὰρκ.τ.λ.] Peculiar to Matthew. There is no allusion, as Grotius and some of the ancients thought, to the Jews perishing by the Roman sword (‘crudeles istos et sanguinarios, etiam to quiescente, gravissimas Deo daturos pœnas suo sanguine,’ Grot., Euthym[176]): for the very persons who were now taking Him were Romans. The saying is general—and the stress is on λαβόντες—it was this that Peter was doing—‘taking up the sword’—of his own will; taking that vengeance which belongs to God, into his own hand.

[176] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

ἐνμαχαίρῃἀπολ. is a command; not merely a future, but an imperative future; a repetition by the Lord in this solemn moment of Gen 9:6. This should be thought of by those well-meaning but shallow persons, who seek to abolish the punishment of death in Christian states.

John adds the words τὸποτήριονὃδέδωκένμοιὁπατήρ, οὐμὴπίωαὐτό; on which see notes there. 53, 54 are peculiar to Matthew.

Matthew 26:53

53. The Majesty of our Lord, and His Patience are both shewn here.

πλείωδώδ. is a strictly Attic idiom, the neuter πλεῖον or πλείω, and the unchanged construction omitting the ἤ. So Plato, Legg. vi. p. 759, ἔτημὴἔλαττονἑξήκονταγεγονώς: Paus. x. 57. 295, οἱἄνθρωποιπλέονἡμίσειςἁλιεῖςεἰσι. See the matter discussed, and more examples given, in Phryn. Lobeck, p. 410.

δώδεκα—not perhaps so much from the number of the Apostles, who were now οἱἕνδεκα, but from that of the then company, viz. the Lord and the eleven.

λεγεῶνας—because they were Roman soldiers who were taking Him. The complement of the legion was about 6000 men. The power, implied in δοκεῖςὅτιοὐδύναμαι, shews the entire and continued free self-resignation of the Lord throughout—and carries on the same truth as He expressed John 10:18.

Matthew 26:54

54. οὖν] not, ‘but;’—How then—considering that this is so, that I voluntarily abstain from invoking such heavenly aid,—shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be, if thou in thy rashness usest the help of fleshly weapons?

Matthew 26:55

55. Mark begins this with an ἀποκριθείς—it was an answer to their actions, not to their words. Luke, here minutely accurate, informs us that it was to the chief priests and στρατηγοὺςτοῦἱεροῦ and elders, that our Lord said this. It is strange that the exact agreement of this classification with μεθʼ ὑμῶνἐντῷἱερῷ did not prevent Schleiermacher from casting a doubt on the truth of the circumstance (English Translation, p. 302).

In his submission to be reckoned among the transgressors, our Lord yet protests against any suspicion that He could act as such. There seems to be no necessity for putting an interrogation after συλλαβεῖνμε.

καθʼ ἡμέραν—during the week past, and perhaps at other similar times.

ἐκαθεζόμην (Matt. only) to indicate complete quiet and freedom from attack.

ἐκαθεζόμηνδιδάσκων is the greatest possible contrast to λῃστής.

Matthew 26:56

56. It is doubted whether these words are a continuation of our Lord’s speech, or a remark inserted by Matthew. The use of τοῦτοδὲὅλονγέγονεν in this Gospel would lead us to the latter conclusion: but when we reflect that thus our Lord’s speech would lose all its completeness, and that Mark gives in different words the speech going on to this same purport, we must I think decide for the other view. Besides, if the remark were Matthew’s, we should expect some particular citation, as is elsewhere his practice: see ch. Matthew 1:22; Matthew 21:4. Mark gives it elliptically, ἀλλʼ ἵναπληρωθῶσιναἱγραφαί.

The Passion and Death of Christ were especially ἡτῶνγραφῶνπλήρωσις. In this they all found their central point. Compare his dying word on the Cross,—τετέλεσται,—with this his assertion. On the addition in Luke, see note there.

There is an admirable sermon of Schleiermacher (vol. ii. of the Berlin ed. of 1843, p. 104) on Matthew 26:55-56.

τότεοἱμαθ.] Some of them did not flee far. Peter and John went after Him to the palace of the High-priest: John 18:15. On the additional circumstance in Mark 14:51, see note there. Chrys.’s remark is worth noting: ὅτεμὲνγὰρκατεσχέθη, ἔμενονὅτεδὲἐφθέγξατοταῦταπρὸςτούςὄχλους, ἔφυγονεἶδονγὰρλοιπόν, ὅτιοὐκἔτιδιαφυγεῖνἔνι, ἑκόντοςἑαυτὸνπαραδόντοςαὐτοῖςκαὶλέγοντοςκατὰτὰςγραφὰςτοῦτογίνεσθαι.

Matthew 26:57

57. Καϊάφαντὸνἀρχ.] He was ἀρχιερεὺςτοῦἐνιαυτοῦἐκείνου, Annas having been deposed, and since then the High-priests having been frequently changed by the Roman governors.

ὅπουοἱγρ.] Probably they had assembled by a preconcerted design, expecting their prisoner. This was a meeting of the Sanhedrim, but not the regular assembly, which condemned him and handed Him over to Pilate. That took place in the morning, Luke 22:66-71 (where see note).

Matthew 26:58

58. “ἀπὸμακρόθεν is a well-known pleonasm. μακρόθεν itself is a late Greek word. See Lob. on Phryn. p. 93.” Meyer.

We have not here the more complete detail of Joh 18:15-19. The αὐλή is one and the same great building, in which both Annas and Caiaphas lived. This is evident from a comparison of the narratives of Peter’s denial: see below. The circumstance of a fire being lighted and the servants sitting round it, mentioned by the other three Evangelists, is here omitted.

Matthew 26:59

59. ψευδομ.] ὡςμὲνἐκείνοιςἐδόκει, μαρτυρίαν, ὡςδὲτῇἀληθείᾳ, ψευδομαρτυρίαν. Euthym[177] But is this quite implied? Is it not the intention of the Evangelist to represent that they sought false witness, not that they would not take true if they could get it, but that they knew it was not to be had?

[177] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

This hearing is altogether omitted in Luke, and only the indignities following related, Matthew 26:63-65.

Matthew 26:60

60. οὐχεὗρον, i.e. sufficient for the purpose, or perhaps, consistent with itself. See note on ἴσαι, Mark 14:56.

Matthew 26:61

61. See ch. Matthew 27:40: the false witness consisted in giving that sense to His words, which it appears by ch. Matthew 27:63 they knew they did not bear. There is perhaps a trace, in the different reports of Matt. and Mark, of the discrepancy between the witnesses. There is considerable difference between τὸνναὸντοῦθ.… οἰκοδομῆσαι and τὸνν. τοῦτοντὸνχειροποίητον.… ἄλλονἀχειροποίητον. The instance likewise of his zeal for the honour of the temple which had so lately occurred, might tend to perplex the evidence produced to the contrary.

Matthew 26:62

62. Dost thou not answer what it is which these testify against thee? i.e. wilt Thou give no explanation of the words alleged to have been used by Thee? Our Lord was silent; for in answering He must have opened to them the meaning of these his words, which was not the work of this His hour, nor fitting for that audience. It is not easy to say whether this sentence ought to be taken as one question or two. Meyer, in his former editions, maintained the latter, on the ground that ἀποκρίνῃ would require πρός after it. But he has now discovered in his fourth edition that ἀποκρίνεσθαι may be constructed with an accusative simply, and that τί may be equivalent to ὅτι. So that there is no serious objection remaining to the usual way of construction.

Matthew 26:63

63. See Leviticus 5:1.

ἐξορκίζωσε, ‘I put thee under an oath,’ the form of which follows. The junction of ὁυἱὸςτ. θ. with χριστός must not be pressed beyond the meaning which Caiaphas probably assigned to it—viz. the title given to the Messiah from the purport of the prophecies respecting Him. It is however a very different thing when our Lord by his answer affirms this, and invests the words with their fullest meaning and dignity.

Matthew 26:64

64. By σὺεἶπας, more may perhaps be implied than by Mark’s ἐγώεἰμι: that is a simple assertion: this may refer to the convictions and admissions of Caiaphas (see John 11:49). But this is somewhat doubtful. The expression is only used here and in Matthew 26:25: and there does not appear to be any reference in it as said to Judas, to any previous admission of his.

πλήν] but—i.e. ‘there shall be a sign of the truth of what I say, over and above this confession of Mine.’

ἀπʼ ἄρτι] The glorification of Christ is by Himself said to begin with his betrayal, see John 13:31; from this time—from the accomplishment of this trial now proceeding. In what follows, the whole process of the triumph of the Lord Jesus even till its end is contained. The ὄψεσθε is to the council, the representatives of the chosen people, so soon to be judged by Him to whom all judgment is committed—the τῆςδυνάμεως in contrast to his present weakness—καθήμενον—even as they now sat to judge Him; and the ἐρχ. ἐπὶτ. ν. τ. οὐρ. (see Daniel 7:13) looks onward to the awful time of the end, when every eye shall see Him.

Matthew 26:65

65. In Leviticus 21:10 (see also Leviticus 10:6) the High-priest is ordered not to rend his clothes; but that appears to apply only to mourning for the dead. In 1Ma 11:71, and in Josephus, B. J. ii. 15. 4, we have instances of High-priests rending their clothes. On rending the clothes at hearing blasphemy, see 2 Kings 18:37.

Matthew 26:66

66. This was not a formal condemnation, but only a previous vote or expression of opinion. That took place in the morning, see ch. Matthew 27:1, and especially Luke 22:66-71.

Matthew 26:67

67. Luke gives these indignities, and in the same place as here, adding, what indeed might have been suspected, that it was not the members of the Sanhedrim, but the men who held Jesus in custody, who inflicted them on Him.

κολαφίζω is to strike with the fist; ῥαπίζω, generally, to strike a flat blow with the back of the hand—but also, and probably here, since another set of persons are described as doing it, to strike with a staff.

Matthew 26:69

69. “An oriental house is usually built round a quadrangular interior court; into which there is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part of the house, closed next the street by a heavy folding gate, with a small wicket for single persons, kept by a porter. In the text, the interior court, often paved or flagged, and open to the sky, is the αὐλή where the attendants made a fire; and the passage beneath the front of the house from the street to this court, is the προαύλιον or πυλών. The place where Jesus stood before the High-priest may have been an open room or place of audience on the ground-floor, in the rear or on one side of the court; such rooms, open in front, being customary.” Robinson, Notes to Harmony, p. 225.

Matthew 26:70

70. οὐκοἶδατίλέγεις is an indirect form of denial, conveying in it absolute ignorance of the circumstances alluded to.

Matthew 26:73

73. ἡλαλιά] Wetstein (ad loc.) gives many examples of various provincial dialects of Hebrew. The Galilæans could not pronounce properly the gutturals, confounding [180], ò and ç; and they used ú for שׁ.

[180] The CODEX . Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf.

The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century. The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are:—A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us à-corr1; B (cited as à2), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; Ca (cited as à3a) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in à1, it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that Ca altered it to that which is found in our text; Cb (cited as à3b) lived about the same time as Ca, i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here6.

Matthew 26:74

74. καταθεματ. is a corrupted form, belonging probably to the class of vulgarisms. κατάθεμα occurs Revelation 22:3. ‘Nunc gubernaculum animæ plane amisit,’ says Bengel.

Matthew 26:75

75. ἔξω—viz. from the πυλών where the second and third denial had taken place: the motive being, ἵναμὴκατηγορηθῇδιὰτῶνδακρύων, as Chrys.