Matthew 26

Well, all this is about as wise, as when they tell us that the rich man stands for the Aaronic High Priest, and the pious beggar for the Gentiles; or that Judas’s hanging himself, means only that he died by excess of grief; and his going to his own place, signifies only that he went to one of the twelve thrones on which the Apostles were to sit, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. But let the word of God speak, and such nonsense be still. What was there in the uestruction of Jerusalem that corresponded with the scenes described in the 25th chapter of Matthew? Did the Son of man then ‘come in his glory and all the holy angels with him?” Did he then ‘‘sit upon the throne of his glory,” and ‘‘ gather before him all.

nations ?” Did he “ separate them one from another;” did he go into a judicial examination of their characters; awarding to the righteous everlasting life, and sending the wicked into everlasting punishment? I repeat it; the man who can interpret all this as referring only to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army, is not to be reasoned with. He must be left to that “strong delusion” which loves darkness rather than light, and is more ready to ‘ believe a lie” than the truth. (Matthew 26), Ver. 1—16. The rulers conspire against the life of Jesus, and Judas betrays hin.—Preb. Townsend unites the two rst verses of this with the preceding chapter, and we think” with considerable propriety.”

But the connective particle “then,” which begins verse 3, probably implies that the chief priests, &c., assembled on the same evening to plot the death of our Saviour. So Doddridge and other harmonists. It *is_ not unlikely that the supper at Bethany, and the anointing of our Saviour, might also take place on the same evening; and the reproof that Judas met with, for his censure upon Mary, the woman named, might prepare him for Satan’s temptation to betray his Master on a principle of revenge, and induce him to go directly to the council at the high priest’s palace and make the offer. We consider the anointing here mentioned, from the great similarity of circumstances, to be the same more particularly related by the Apostle John, and shall therefore defer our observations thereon till we come to that evangelist’s 12th chapter, and confine our remarks on this section to the murderous designs of the Jews, and the treachery of Judas.

The object of the council of priests, we know was, how they might take Jesus by subtlety, or stratagem, on which there appears to have been some debate; not as tothe object itself, where the evangelists are in a great measure silent concerning them, from the circumstances of the history itself, and from the feelings of human nature. Judas, the leading trait of whose character was covetousness, was probably induced to follow Jesus at first, with a view to the riches, honours, and other temsie advantages, which he, in common with the rest, expected the essiah’s friends should enjoy. The astonishing miracles he saw him perform, left him no room to doubt of the reality of his Master’s pretensions, who had indeed himself, in private, actually accepted the title from his apostles; and Judas must have been much disappointed, when Jesus repeatedly refused the proffered royalty from the people in Galilee, after the miracle of feeding the 5000, and again after his public procession to Jerusalem.”

So far we agree with this learned writer in his New Analysis of Chronology; but when he goes on to suppose that Judas meant to deliver his Master up to the Sanhedrim, “in order to compel him to avow himself openly as the Messiah before them, and to work such miracles as would convince, and induce them to elect him in due form, and enable him to reward his followers,”—we must withhold our credence, since we see no ground for sucha surmise; nor, indeed, can we admit any of the poor apologies that some benevolent writers have attempted to form in his behalf. Judas was certainly covetous; and for a covetous man to be honest and faithful to his trust, seems impossible; yet the paltry sum for which he betrayed his Lord, being only thirty shekels, (or, as we reckon it, about $15,) could hardly operate as a temptation to take the life of an ordinary man.

It is possible the traitor may have expected more; but the wretches with whom he had to treat, seeing him eager to make the bargain, were not likely to treat him with generosity; neither of the parties, we may safely conclude, knew that they were acting under the control of the supreme Power, and actually contributing to fulfil prophecy, as was certainly the case. (See (Zechariah 11), 12, and note.) But another motive probably rankled in his heart: his Master had openly reproved him before his fellow apostles, and not only justified, but applauded the woman whom he severely censured. Satan, always ready to encourage the evil passions of mankind, might now suggest how happily an opportunity was before him to revenge the supposed insult he had so recently received.

Revenge is one of the master passions of a rebellious heart, and forms part of Milton’s admirable portrait of the fallen fiend himself:— de Th’ unconquerable will, And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield.” (Par. Lost, bk. i., p. 106.) Satan thus feeling himself, we can not doubt but that on taking possession of the traitor’s heart, it would be his first Ver. 15. Thirt y pieces of silver.—The common price for the meanest slave; about $15. Ver. 18. My time is at hand—That is, the time of his death. This message, by the terms of it, was doubtless addressed to disciple. As to the t’me and kind, they break their bread or cakes into little bits, and dip their hands and their morsels together therein.”’”

Shave’s ‘Travels. Ver. 24. It had been good, &c.—This passage demonstrates the eternal perdition of Judas. The sin which cathed lan to his own place was avarice. ject, and for a most masterly refutation of it, we beg leave to refer to the 4th of Mr. Fletcher’s ‘‘ Lectures on the Rom. Cath. Religion,” before cited. Ver. 28. Of the New Testament.—Doddridge and Campbell, “‘ Covenant.” Ver. 29. I will not henceforth drink, &c.—That is, I will celebrate with you ho more passovers, &c. till we meet in heaven. See (Revelation 19:9).——O this fruit (Doddridgeund Campbell, “ produce’’) of the vine.—It is not (karey ioe usual term for fruit, which is here used: grapes are the fruit—wine Ver. 20. They swung a hymn.—The Greek is literally, “ they hymned.”’ Campbell reads, ‘‘ And atter the psalm they went out,”

&c. The Jewish way of’ reciting their psalms and hymns, was in a kind of chant. The hymn here intended, was most probably what the Jews call the great Hallel. Ver. 31. All ye shall be ean Ee tg scandalized. Peter, for instance was both ashamed and afraid to be thought a-disciple of Jesus, though he had talked so boastingly. It-is not unlikely, that the homely proverb, that ‘great talkers do the Jeas*,’’ might originate from this instance of Peter’s cowardice. Ver. 34. Before the cock croiv (Ma. xiv. 30, crovo twice.)— Whitby has produced sufficient authorities to prove ghat there was a double crowing of the cock—at midnight, and at day-break; the latter answered, according to him, to the fourth watch of tho night, though others say the third.

On comparing the Evangelists, it appears to us that our Lord’s meaning was, that Peter should deny his Master thrice between the present hour and that of the cock crowing; i. e. about the break of day. A Ver. 36. Gethsemane.—A private and retired garden at the foot of mount )f | Olivet, whither Jesus often retired for prayer, and where (as the name imlies) an oil press then, or formerly, had been used.; Ver. 38. My soul is exceeding sorrowful, &c.—Doddridge, ‘* Surrounded with sorrow;. Campbell, (connecting this with the preceding verse,) ‘‘ Being oppressed with grief, he said to them, My soul is overwhelmed with a deadly anguish.” This. is explained to mean, a grief of mind sufficient to kill the body; ‘‘ a sorrow that worketh (or produceth) death.””

See (1 Corinthians 7:10). Ver. 39. Let this cup pass from me.—In passing through the Psalms and prophetic Scriptures, we have had repeated occasion to illustrate this poetical form of speech, Whatever portion, whether of joy or sorrow, peace or punishment, God assigns to man, is ‘“ the portion of his cup.” (Psalms 23:5); Xi. 9. Ver. 40. One howr.—The Greek term, besides its more limited meaning, is often used metaphorically, as with us, for any short time, or eriod. Ver. 43. Their eyes were heavy.—Doddridge, ‘‘ weighed down. a Ver. 44. The same words—Or, “ words (or matter) to the same eflec way support him, and save both himself and his disciples. But Peter was grossly mistaken; his Master wrought no miracles but those of mercy; and even those not on his own behalf, but for others, even for his enemies, as in the case before us.

Instantly he commands the rash disciple to put wu his sword, and heals the wound he had made, by cutting off the ear of ‘‘the high priest’s servant.’? At the same time he reproves his warlike disposition, and gives him to understand that those who use the sword must expect to perish by it; which applies particularly to the case of persons who, like Peter, have Kae. recourse to it in order to defend themselves from persecution; as, for instance, the Hussites in Bohemia, and the Huguenots in France. Why Peter struck at the high priest’s servant, does not apear; perhaps he was armed, and might threaten him;_peraps he had seized hold of his Master; or possibly the blow was not aimed at him, but fell promiscuously: for had he aimed at any one, he most likely would have attacked Judas.

But we should recollect this was before daylight.: Judas has immortalized his infamy, not only by Retraying his Master, but by betraying him with a kiss. Dr Guise an others have reasonably supposed, that Jesus permitted his apostles thus to salute him, on returning to him after absence; he might therefore think it would excite no suspicion of his design; but he has thereby become, in the Hebrew idiom, “ the father of all those who betray their Master with a kiss:? a fraternity most unhappily numerous in the Christian world, and embracing all those who profess attachment to the Saviour, merely to promote their secular interests; and especially those who partake of the sacred institution of his supper, merely; (as Cowper expresses it,) as “the pick-lock of a Our Lord Jesus is particularly careful to have it understood that_his surrender was voluntary, for he had only to address his Holy Father, and were it consistent with his decree, an ara of angels would be assigned for his protection, to which all human opposition would be utterly in vain; and yet what protection could be required for him whom the winds and seas obeyed?

for him who hath the keys of death and the grave suspended at his girdle? ((Revelation 1:18).) «, Ver. 45. Sleep on now—[That is, as it is well paraphrased by Euthymius having only a garment loosely thrown over him, left it in the hands of the officers and fled naked; and, one way or other, they all forsook him, and sought their own safety, It has been thought strange, however, that Peter was suffered to escape, after cutting off the ear of Malchus, the high priest’s servant. But how was the charge to be maintained ? The ear was cured, and to examine the charge, would only be to call evidence in proof of our Saviour’s miracles: and Malchus, we may well suppose, was too much affected with his cure to come forward as a witness against Peter.

As to Peter himself, though he deserted his Master for the present, he could not abandon him; but followed him afar off. It appears by John’s gospel, ((Matthew 18:13),) that Jesus was first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, to whom he immediately sent him; and thither Peter, and probably some other of the apostles, followed him at a distance, and by means of John, obtained admittance within the hall (or rather court) of the high priest. But we must leave Peter for the present, and attend to the circumstances of his divine Master, who is brought before the whole Saphedrim, the highest court among the Jews, which, on this occasion, was hastily assembled in the high priest’s palace.

Ver. 59—68. Jesus arraigned at the bar of the Jewish high priest.—Behold the Son of God now undergoing a mock tmial, to gratify the malice of his enemies! We call it a mock trial, because on the preceding day a council had been expressly called for the purpose of murdering him. We callit so also in reference to the false witnesses, who were evidently suborned expressly for the purpose; but probably, through the hurry of the proceedings, were not properly trained, and therefore gave so confused and contradictor y evidence that even such a court could not found any probe on it. At length two men came forward, who had heard Jesus say something respecting the temple of his body, which they applied to the temple at Jerusalem, contrary to his design.

(See (John 2:19-22).) Even this, however, had the evidence been perfectly correct, the high priest himself saw, could not amount to a capital offence, since they only quote him as saying, he was able to destroy and to rebuild it; the high priest, therefore, in virtue of his office, administers an oath, or adjuration, respecting other words, which

Notes on the verses

Chap. XXVI. Ver. 2. Is betrayed—That is, he is about to be hetrayed: the treason is already begun.; Ver. 3. Caiaphas.—{This was Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas, who suceeeded Simon, son of Camith, in the high priesthood, about A. D.25. He married the daughter of Annas, who hadalso been high priest. About two years after our Lord’s death, he was depused by Vitellius, governor of Syria; and, unable to bear his disgrace, and perhaps the stings of conscience for the murder of Christ, he killed himself A. D. 35.]—Bagster. Ver.5. Not onthe feast day.—As the word ‘“‘day”’’ is supplementary, Doddridge and Campbell render it, “uot at the feast.’””’ The plan proposed seems to have been assassination; some objected, however, not to the murder, but to transacting it at a public festival, lest the people should raise a tumult, and fall upon themselves.

Ver. 6. Simon the leper.—Probably one of those whom Jesus cured, and a friend of Lazarus.—They had indignation.—Chiefly Judas; but at first, probably, others joined with him. Ver. 10. When Jesus wnderstood it.—Doddridge and Campbell, “ But Jesus knowing (It,)’? See (John 2:25). Ver. 12. Shedid it for my burial.—That is, “to embalm me, as it were, before hand,”’ for my funeral. 1056 circumstances of this passover, see Prebend. Townsend’s elaborate and learned notes to this chapter, in his New Test, Arr. Ver. 20. He sat down—Or lay down, as the word signifies; for the posture of the Jews, at the passover table especially, was not properly sitting, but reclining, or lying along on couches, on their left side.

‘This posture was reckoned 80 necessary, that it is said “the poorest man in Israel might not eat till he lies along.” One of the Jewish writers says, ‘‘ We are bound to eat lying slong, as kings and great men eat, because it is a token of liberty.” Gill Ver. 23. He answered and said—i. e. privately. § iii —— that dippeth his hand with me in the aen To this duy. ihe Moonta ahs bary, the Arabs, and the Mahometans of India, in eating, make use neither of knives, forks, nor often of spoons; but only of their fingers and hands, even in eating pottage, or wreean call spoon-meat; when their food is of the latter Ver. 25. Thou hast said.—This was the most solemn way of expressing an affirmative. Townsend.

Ver. 26. As they were eating, Jesus took bread.—As none but unleavened loaves, or rather cakes, could now be eaten, it is most certain that no other could be used in this ordinance; yet few or no protestant churches consider this a circumstance of importance, though some are very particular in breaking instead of cutting it; a circumstance more natural and easy in cakes, or biscuits, (such as the Jews still use.) than in loaves like ours.——He blessed it, —The pronovn (iz) is here supplied thrice (as in many other places, (Matthew 14:19). Ma. vi. 41, &c. &c.,) but whether it be understood that Christ blessed the food, or blessed his Father for it, the sense will be the same. Our food can only be blessed to us by God’s blessing attending it.

The margin of our or lish Bibles says, “‘ Many Greek copies read, ‘ Gave thanks.’” So Campbell. —This is my body.—For the doctrine of the church of Rome on this sub- Since you have thus far failed to watch, sleep on the rest of the time, and take your rest, if you can.” |—Bagster. Ver. 45. Hatl.—A usual salutation. The Greek signifies ‘ Joy to thee.” The Saxon hail means *’ health.”"——Master—Gr. Rabbi.—And kissed him.— [Pretending the most affectionate attachment to our Lord.]—Bagster. Ver 50. Friend, wherefore art thou come?—{Rather, ‘ Companion, against whom art thou come?” ]—Bagster. Ver. 53 Tivelve legions of angels.—[A legion was a particular division, or battalion of the Roman army, which at different times contained different numbers.

In the time of our Saviour, it probably consisted of 6200 foot, and 800 horse, twelve of which would amount to 78,000 men. |—Bagster.: Ver. 54. That thus it must be?—See Ac. 1i. 22—24. ‘Our Lord adverts to te necessity of the Scriptures being fulfilled. See ver. Ver. 55. As against a thief—Doddridge, ‘‘ Robber;” alluding to the chiefs of banditti, common in the mountains of Judea. —Sztaves—Namely, of office, like those of constables with us. £ Ver. 56. That the scriptures…. might be fulfilled.—This object we find traced through all the Evangelists, not as a motive of human action, but as a leading design of Providence. For the prediction here alluded to, turn back to ver. 31. Ver. 58. And went in—Namely, into the court before the palace, which was always open to the sky, though sometimes with piazzas round it.

Itis not certain, however, that this palace was the private residence of Caiaphas, (which is understood to have been on Mount Sion,) but rather his official house, or apartments in the temple, where the Sanhedrim now sat, and into one of the continualy, | courts of which Peter and John obtained admission. So the late Ediver of | Cabnet, Fragments, Ne, exxxvii. Ver. 61. Iam able to destroy.—{The words of our Lord were widely different from this statement of them; so that the testimony of these witnesses was false, though it had the semblance « f truth. }—Bagster. Ver. 63. I adjure thee.—Thus the higi priest, in his magisterial capacity, lays the holy Jesus under a judicial oata, which in some cases, very different Fg present, he was allowed 1» luy upon the accused party.

See (Numbers 5:19), &c. Vor. 64. Thou hast said—i. e. I am the Christ, the Son of God.—The Son of man.—See (Daniel 7:13-14). ‘:;: Ver. 65. Rent his clothes.—It has been said, that the high priest might never rend his clothes; but that he might, and did on extraordinary occasions, Dr. Lardner has given several instances. “ Ver, 67. Then did they spit, &c.—This mark of contempt and malice is still continued in the East. In 1744, when a rebel prisoner was brought before Nadir Shuh’s general ‘the soldiers were ordered to spit in his face;_an indignity of great antiquity in the East.” Hanway’s Travels.—Buffeted him.-— ““ Smote him with their fists,” as Theophylact interprets ——Smote him wiih the palms of their hands.—‘ Smote him on the cheek with the open hand,”

as Suidas renders. They offered him every indignity in all its various and vexatious forms. }—Bagster.: f d Ver. 68. Who is he that smote thee ?—Dr. Gill thinks this alludes to a play. resembling blind man’s buff, called by the Greeks, Kollabismos. Thus was our Saviour made a jest of! But we rather think this was done in allusion to an ancient custom of covering the faces of condemned persons, as in the instance of Haman, (Esther 7:8). See also (Jeremiah 14:3). Likewise Harme’. Ver. 69. Peter sat without in the palace.—The term aule, rendered palace, more properly signifies an open court. Faber’s Heb. Archeology, and com pare note on ver. 58.: é Ver. an Thy speech bewrayeth—Or, betrayeth thee; meaning that his accent was Galilean.

See Ma. iv. 79.