Matthew 26

OGC

‹ Chapter 25 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 27 ›

SPECIAL STUDIES THE KIND OF MESSIAH GOD HAS IN MIND ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

From the very first page of his Gospel Matthew flashes before his readers a series of radical claims for Jesus that must be taken seriously and examined carefully. Before the reader has completed two Chapter s, Matthew has already introduced Jesus of Nazareth as:

The descendant of the principal heirs of the promises God gave to the Hebrew people, Abraham and David (Matthew 1:1-17). Yet, He descends from at least three Gentile ancestresses.

He comes from God by the activity of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18-25).

Rather than liberate His people from their national enemies, He comes to save them from their sins (Matthew 1:21). He is named Jesus (Javeh saves) and Immanuel, God with us (Matthew 1:23).

Though He is the ruler who shall pastor God’s people (Matthew 2:6), He is the object of the indifference of the clergy and the persecution of the powerful (Matthew 2:1-23).

The very inauspicious circumstances surrounding His birth, combined with the disgusting nickname, the Nazarene (Matthew 1:23), point to a suffering Messiah from the very beginning.

John the Baptist presented Jesus as the Judge who would execute the justice of God and who alone was qualified to immerse men in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:1-12)! Yet, Matthew’s Messiah appeared for the first time in public as just another common man among the sinners who presented themselves to John for baptism (Matthew 3:13-15). Despite His humanness, He is God’s beloved Son and anointed with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17).

The Messiah relived the same trials of His own people, proving Himself faithful to God as His authentic Son, responding to the temptations, not as would an angel, but, rather, with the attitude of a true human being who is a worshiper of God (Matthew 4:1-11).

The Messiah is concerned with the enlightenment of the benighted among the Gentiles (Matthew 4:12-17; Isaiah 9:1 f.).

As the new Moses Jesus is not merely a great Lawgiver who repeats what God told him, but actually rises above the Mosaic Law to say what He personally requires (Matthew 5:21; Matthew 5:27; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 5:34; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 5:44). Further, He is a Messiah who will fulfil the Law, bringing it to its proper completion (Matthew 5:17).

Jesus is a Messiah who has time for, and is powerfully competent to help, the impure nature’s most violent forces (Matthew 8:23-27), demoniacs (Matthew 8:28 to Matthew 9:1), paralyzed sinners (Matthew 9:1-8), the outcasts of society (Matthew 9:9-13), the pious but ignorant (Matthew 9:14-17), and many others (Matthew 9:18-34). Despite the multiplicity of appeals for His help, He regards people with genuine compassion (Matthew 9:36-38), as an abandoned flock over which God assumes the care. (Cf. Ezekiel 34.)

Jesus presents Himself as Teacher and Master and Lord of the House. He expects His followers to suffer for His sake, and assumes upon Himself the role of Lawyer, or Advocate, at the Judgment of God. (Cf. Matthew 10:18; Matthew 10:22; Matthew 10:32-33; Matthew 10:37-39.)

Even the mighty miracles of Jesus do not force people to believe in Him (Matthew 11:2-24). They merely push His hearers into two positions: belief or unbelief. John the Baptist himself hesitated in the presence of contradictions in his own mind, the works notwithstanding (Matthew 11:2-19). The Galileans did not understand their need to submit to Jesus by repenting (Matthew 11:20-24). The wise and understanding could not grasp the wisdom and source of His work (Matthew 11:25-27). He is the kind of Messianic King that is comprehensible only to the man who is ready to do the will of the Father (Matthew 12:50).

In contrast to the austere John the Baptist, Jesus is a Messiah whose life is full of the fulness of the human life (Matthew 11:16-19). Notwithstanding the different life-style of the two messengers of God, the results demonstrated that God had acted with wisdom in sending them precisely as He did.

Jesus reveals everything willingly to those who submit to His instruction and commit themselves to learn from Him (Matthew 11:28-30). This intention involves growth of character, not automatic righteousness. Still, He is gentle and lowly in heart, and able to move mercifully among contrasting levels of society and help people.

Jesus is the kind of Messiah who does not overwhelm His opposition with a brilliant burst of supernatural power, forcing their belief and submission. Rather, He generously meets their questions, doubts, objections and cavils with answers sufficient to convince the common, honest listener (Matthew 12:1-50). In fact, when the opposition demands the supernatural fireworks, He who could call down 10,000 angels gave a common, perfectly acceptable sign. (Cf. Matthew 16:1-4.)

Jesus is the Servant of Javeh (Matthew 12:18-21 = Isaiah 42:1-4).

Jesus recognizes no claims of blood or kinship of the flesh, only moral ties cemented by obedience to the will of God (Matthew 12:46-50).

Jesus respects the human freedom of His own townspeople at Nazareth, however severely He must have been tempted to do many mighty works there just to show -’em! (Matthew 13:54-58).

Even in His own ministry, Jesus respected His own time schedules, not only bending every lesson to prepare for the cross in His life, but avoiding unnecessary conflicts that would tend to abbreviate the time available to teach His disciples (Matthew 14:13 a; cf. Matthew 4:12; Matthew 15:21; Matthew 16:4 b).

He is realistic about the overconfidence of His followers, since He knows that they can be influenced by popular leaders and parties-’ skepticism about Him (Matthew 16:5-12). However, He has no fear to entrust the mission of the Church-Kingdom to men dedicated to Him (Matthew 16:13-20).

He does not swerve from the predetermined plan of God, notwithstanding the most strenuous efforts of earthly friends to dissuade Him from being the type of Messiah God has in mind (Matthew 16:21-28).

He will be the glorious Judge of every man, repaying each according to what he has done, thus fulfilling in full all that John the Baptist predicted of Him (Matthew 16:27).

He is the glorious Messiah foreshadowed by the Law and the prophets, to whom all must listen and obey (Matthew 17:1-8). However, He would suffer the same fate as John (Matthew 17:10-13).

Despite His real exemption from paying tribute to God’s temple, because He is God’s Son, still He meekly pays it, in order not to scandalize those who would not understand His standpoint and miss His message because of it (Matthew 17:24-27).

He is the kind of Messiah who refuses to recognize artificial claims to honor and greatness. Rather, His rule of greatness is the degree to which anyone renders service to the weakest, smallest, least important in the Kingdom (Matthew 18:1-35).

He is the kind of Messiah that refuses earthly power-structures as a means of ruling over men, choosing rather the path of service as the ransom for man (Matthew 20:20-28).

Despite His dissimilarity to everything Messianic in the popular mind, Jesus really is God’s kind of Messianic King (Matthew 21:1-17).

He is the kind of Messiah that, despite His autonomous miracle-working power and God-given authority, does not undervalue nor forget the importance of His lesser servants-’ ministry (Matthew 21:23-27).

He is really the chief corner stone God planned to use (Matthew 21:42), really God’s Son (Matthew 21:33-43).

No mental image of the Messiah is adequate that sees His Messiahship as having only earthly regality, such as that of a Son of David reigning on a material throne in Jerusalem, In fact, the true Messiah, as David himself admits, must be thought of as the Lord of David (Matthew 22:41-46).

Jesus is objective, willing to recognize truth wherever it is found and correctly taught, even if it is a Pharisee that teaches it (Matthew 23:2-3).

Jesus is Israel’s truest Patriot (Matthew 23:37-39), but true Prophet (Matthew 24:1-28) and Son of man (Matthew 24:29-44; cf. Daniel 7:13-14).

He is the glorious Messianic King before whom all nations will be tried, whose judgment affects the eternal destiny of each one, and whose judgment is based upon how each one treated the least of these my brethren (Matthew 25:31-46).

He is not a helpless victim going innocently to an unexpected, tragic death, but the Son of man fully self-possessed moving majestically and consciously toward victory. He willingly pours out His blood to establish a new covenant and provide forgiveness (Matthew 26:1-2; Matthew 26:12-13; Matthew 26:26-29).

Jesus is not the kind of Messiah that would abandon His vacillating disciples, even though He proved to them that He knew what their reaction would be to His death, despite their good intentions (Matthew 26:30-35).

Jesus is a fully human Messiah who could really suffer, flinching at the thought of death (Matthew 26:36-46).

Though under arrest and abandoned by His Apostles and betrayed by His Apostle, He remains the real Master of the situation (Matthew 26:47-56).

He is definitely innocent of any guilt, according to His betrayer-Apostle (Matthew 27:4), the wife of Pilate (Matthew 27:19) and Pilate himself (Matthew 27:18; Matthew 27:24).

He is self-controlled despite temptations to return accusations and insults (Matthew 26:62-63; Matthew 26:67-68; Matthew 27:12-14; Matthew 27:27-31; Matthew 27:40; Matthew 27:43).

Jesus is proven to be the Messiah of God even in His death, as shown by His fulfilment of the ancient prophecies (Matthew 27:32-48). His death signaled the end of an era and the beginning of another (Matthew 27:51-54).

Jesus is the victorious Christ to whom universal authority has been granted and who orders His people to participate in His personal mission to teach the entire world (Matthew 28:18-20). His presence with His people until the end of time guarantees His concrete interest in their affairs and His care for them.

WHO IS JESUS ACCORDING TO MATTHEW?

Jesus is the fulfilment of all God’s promises to ancient Israel:

He is the descendant of Abraham and David (Matthew 1:1-17; Genesis 12:2 f.; 2 Samuel 7:11 ff.).

He is the Son of the virgin (Matthew 1:23; Isaiah 7:14) God with us (Isaiah 7:14).

He is the Ruler, the Shepherd of Israel born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:6; Micah 5:2).

He was God’s reason for calling Israel out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15; Hosea 11:1).

He is what it means to be called a Nazarene (Matthew 2:23; cf. Psalms 22; Isaiah 53; Isaiah 49:6 f.).

He is the Lord for whom John the Baptist must prepare (Matthew 3:3; Malachi 3:1 ff.).

He is the greater than John, who must immerse with the Holy Spirit and with fire unquenchable (Matthew 3:11-12; Malachi 3:2; Malachi 4:1; Joe 2:28 ff.).

He is God’s Son possessed of the Spirit of God (Matthew 3:17; Isaiah 61:1-2; Isaiah 42:1).

He is willing to do anything God requires (Matthew 3:15; Matthew 4:1-11).

He is the great light to the Gentiles (Matthew 4:12-17; Isaiah 9:1-2).

k. He is the fulfilment of the Law and Prophets (Matthew 5:17-48).

He is the great Servant of Jahweh who bears our infirmities (Matthew 8:17; Isaiah 53:4).

He is the great Servant of Jahweh in whom Gentiles may hope (Matthew 12:15-21; Isaiah 41:1-2).

He is Zion’s true King (Matthew 21:5; Zechariah 9:9).

He is Jahweh incarnate whose praise on the lips of children silences His enemies (Matthew 21:16; Psalms 8:2).

He is the stone the builders rejected (Matthew 21:42; Matthew 21:44; Psalms 118:22-23).

He is David’s Son and David’s Lord (Matthew 22:44 f.; Psalms 110:1).

He is the Pierced One over whom Israel would bitterly wail (Matthew 24:30; Zechariah 12:10-14).

He is the great Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:30 b; Daniel 7:9-14; Matthew 26:64).

He is the stricken Shepherd (Matthew 26:31; Zechariah 13:7).

He is the Servant of God sold for the price of a slave (Matthew 27:9 f.; Zechariah 11:12 f.; Jeremiah 32:6-9).

He is the despised and afflicted Servant of God (Matthew 27:46; Psalms 22:1 ff.).

To the discerning reader, well-schooled in Old Testament literature, Jesus would appear to be everything God had taught Israel to expect, even if Matthew did not explicitly cite every possible reference.

Beyond what had specifically been prophesied, Jesus is One greater than Moses, the Law and the Temple, the Sabbath.

While demanding a standard that is higher than Mosaic legislation (Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:28; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 5:34; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 5:44), He expected men to be perfect as God (Matthew 5:48). He blessed people who suffered for His sake (Matthew 5:11; Matthew 16:24-27; Matthew 10:18-39; Matthew 24:9; Matthew 24:13)

He not only expected that men accept His teachings as the rock-foundation of their lives (Matthew 7:24-27), but proclaimed Himself the divine Judge with whom all must have to do at the final Day (Matthew 7:21-23).

He possessed the right of earth to forgive sins which only God could do (Matthew 9:1-7).

He demands absolute loyalty to Himself, a loyalty evidenced by public confession and rewarded by presentation personally to the Heavenly Father (Matthew 10:32-33; Matthew 10:37-39). To receive the least disciple in Jesus-’ name is to receive God (Matthew 10:40-42)!

Moses could point men to the Law and Prophets (Deuteronomy 18:15-18), but Jesus invited men to Himself (Matthew 11:28-30), because the Father had intrusted everything to Him (Matthew 11:27).

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath and must do what is good in it (Matthew 12:1-14). He introduced principles greater than the Temple (Matthew 12:6).

Jesus claimed a unique Sonship to God, unshared with any other (Matthew 7:21; Matthew 10:32 f.; Matthew 11:25-27; Matthew 12:50; Matthew 15:13; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 18:10; Matthew 18:19; Matthew 18:35; Matthew 20:23; Matthew 21:37 ff.; Matthew 22:2; Matthew 26:53; Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42).

Jesus is the Owner of the world (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:37-43).

He did not correct men who confessed Him to be God’s Son (cf. Matthew 8:29), but rather praised them (Matthew 14:33; Matthew 16:16 f.). See also Matthew 27:54.

Jesus is to be heard, while Moses and Elijah must forever fade into the background (Matthew 17:3; Matthew 17:5; Matthew 17:7).

Jesus and His Apostles will judge all Israel (Matthew 19:28) not Moses and the Prophets.

Jesus is the One whose life must be given as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).

Jesus is the Sender of the New Testament prophets, wise men and teachers (Matthew 23:34).

Jesus, as Son of Man in the Danielean sense, is final judge of the entire human race (Matthew 25:31-46).

Jesus-’ blood ratifies the covenant, because poured out for the forgiveness of sins of many people (Matthew 26:28).

Jesus is Someone greater than the great ones of the Old Testament.

He is greater than Jonah who brought Ninevah to its knees before God (Matthew 12:39-41).

He is greater than Solomon whose God-given wisdom brought the Queen of the South to hear him (Matthew 12:42).

Matthew’s conclusion (Matthew 28:1-20).

Jesus is risen from the dead (Matthew 28:1-10).

(1)

Vindicated by angels (Matthew 28:1-7).

(2)

Seen by women (Matthew 28:8-10).

Jesus-’ greatness denied by Jewish gold and Roman lies (Matthew 28:11-15) c. Jesus-’ Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20).

(1)

Jesus-’ authority is universal and the basis of His final orders.

(2)

Jesus-’ final commission is to disciple every nation and edify the baptized believers by committing to them everything Jesus taught the original witnesses.

(3)

Jesus-’ promise to be with His people till the very end.

THE TITLES OF JESUS IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL

Jesus-’ personal name Jeshua or Jehoshua means Javeh is salvation or Javeh saves, a fact made specific by Matthew’s citation of the angel’s words: He will save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).

Jesus is the son of David by virtue of His genealogy (Matthew 1:1-17), a fact underlined by the angel’s address to Joseph: Joseph, son of David. (Matthew 1:20), and stated by others elsewhere. (Cf. Matthew 9:27; Matthew 15:22; Matthew 20:30; Matthew 21:9; Matthew 21:15; Matthew 22:41-46.)

Matthew considered it essential for even Hebrew readers to see the significance of Jesus-’ fulfilment of the prophecy about the Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14), whereby the child born is evidence of God with us, Emmanuel in Hebrew (Matthew 1:23).

From the Gospel’s title forward, Matthew speaks of Jesus as Christ, God’s Anointed (Matthew 1:1; Matthew 1:16-18; Matthew 2:4; Matthew 11:2; Matthew 16:16; Matthew 16:20; Matthew 22:42; Matthew 23:10; Matthew 24:5; Matthew 24:23; Matthew 26:63; Matthew 26:68; Matthew 27:17; Matthew 27:22).

Jesus is Lord (Matthew 3:3; Matthew 7:21 f.; Matthew 21:3; Matthew 24:42; Matthew 24:48; Matthew 25:11; Matthew 25:19). There are many texts in Matthew where people address Jesus as Lord, however with the common meaning of Sir or Mister. Yet, there is also a growing importance evident in some of the uses of this title, especially when used in conjunction with other titles. (Cf. Matthew 8:25; Matthew 14:28; Matthew 14:30; Matthew 15:22; Matthew 20:31).

Jesus is the Ruler of God’s people (Matthew 2:6).

Jesus is God’s Son (Matthew 2:15; Matthew 3:17; Matthew 8:29; Matthew 14:33; Matthew 16:16; Matthew 17:5; Matthew 26:63; Matthew 27:40; Matthew 27:43; Matthew 27:54). Jesus proves Himself a genuine Son of God by His obedience to the Father’s will (Matthew 4:3; Matthew 4:6).

Although not a specific title, Jesus is, however, pictured as the Forgiver of sins on earth (Matthew 9:6).

He is the Servant of Javeh (Matthew 12:18).

He is, upon reflection, the Owner of the world. (Cf. Matthew 13:24; Matthew 13:27; Matthew 13:37-38.)

Jesus is the prophet (Matthew 21:11).

Jesus is addressed as, or described as Teacher (Matthew 8:19; Matthew 9:11; Matthew 10:24 f.; Matthew 12:38; Matthew 17:24; Matthew 19:16; Matthew 22:16; Matthew 22:24; Matthew 22:36; Matthew 23:8; Matthew 26:18). He thinks of Himself as the disciples-’ one Leader (Matthew 23:10).

Jesus pictures Himself as the King of the Kingdom of God judging the servants of God (Matthew 25:31-34; Matthew 25:40). In His meek Messianic entry into the Holy City He fulfilled the style of Kingship pictured in Zechariah 9:9 which sees Him as Israel’s King (Matthew 21:5).

Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man (Matthew 8:20; Matthew 9:6; Matthew 10:23; Matthew 11:19; Matthew 12:8; Matthew 12:32; Matthew 12:40; Matthew 13:37; Matthew 13:41; Matthew 16:13; Matthew 16:27-28; Matthew 17:9; Matthew 17:12; Matthew 17:22; Matthew 19:28; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 20:28; Matthew 24:27; Matthew 24:30; Matthew 24:37; Matthew 24:39; Matthew 24:44; Matthew 25:31; Matthew 26:2; Matthew 26:24; Matthew 26:45; Matthew 26:64). Because of the evident allusion to the Danielic vision of the Son of man (Daniel 7:13-14) and the greatness of that personage who comes on the clouds of heaven, and because Matthew’s Gospel was written after Jesus-’ vindication in His resurrection, ascension and glorification, should not all of the Son of man passages be read in this light? Granted that the original hearers of this expression would not have understood this much, what would this prove? They did not understand many things about the other titles either.

REACTIONS TO JESUS ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

DISCIPLES: TRUST AND OBEDIENCE, ALTHOUGH NOT WITHOUT SOME FAILURES.

The first disciples (Matthew 4:18-22) called to participate in Jesus-’ ministry.

Amazement of the Apostles at the calming of the tempest on the sea (Matthew 8:23-27).

Willingness of Matthew to leave all and follow Him (Matthew 9:9-13).

Instances where Jesus-’ disciples are under attack for following His thinking rather than Pharisean or other popular interpretations. (Cf. Matthew 9:14; Matthew 12:2; Matthew 15:2.)

Willingness of disciples to be babes to accept Jesus-’ revelations (Matthew 11:25 ff.).

The disciples prove the reality of their discipleship by going to Jesus for explanations and answers (Matthew 13:10-17; Matthew 13:36).

The disciples are baffled about how to feed the 5000, but offer themselves ready helpers when Jesus indicates the course to follow (Matthew 14:15-18).

Peter trusted Jesus to enable him to walk on the sea, but when his faith failed, Jesus-’ rescue and general mastery of the sea and the situation caused the disciples to confess Him thus: Truly you are God’s Son (Matthew 14:28-33)!

Troubled by Jesus-’ intransigence in the face of the theological opposition to His ministry, the disciples fear offending the Pharisees (Matthew 15:12). However, Jesus-’ puzzling answer draws out the disciples-’ real discipleship to Him, when Peter asks for explanations (Matthew 15:15).

Unable to grasp Jesus-’ enigmatic warning against the influence of popular leaders and parties, they prove themselves unable to trust Jesus to create bread out of nothing, apparently not remembering the two recent miracles of multiplication of food (Matthew 16:8 ff.).

Despite many popular opinions to the contrary, the Twelve in the person of Peter confess Jesus-’ true identity. However, they (Peter) react vigorously to any mention of His future suffering (Matthew 16:13-23).

Peter’s exuberant suggestion to place Jesus, Moses and Elijah on equal terms, had to be corrected by God’S: This is my beloved Son, listen to Him (Matthew 17:1-13)! His desire to remain on the mountain only points up his lack of comprehension

concerning the way in which the Messianic mission should be realized.

The nine disciples-’ failure to heal the epileptic boy is attributed to a lack of sufficient fundamental faith (Matthew 17:14-20).

The second announcement of Jesus-’ suffering is received with great sorrow (Matthew 17:22-23).

Peter supposed Jesus to be subject to the Temple-tax, from which, as Son of the Temple’s Owner, He was really exempt (Matthew 17:24-27).

The disciples supposed that Jesus-’ Kingdom was one in which human greatness was to be measured by the power wielded over others (Matthew 18:1-35).

The disciples were astonished that marriage can be dissolved for only one reason, i.e. fornication, and conclude that celibacy is the only solution (Matthew 19:9-12).

The disciples rebuked people who desired that Jesus bless their children (Matthew 19:13-15).

The disciples were astonished that wealth should be considered a grave danger to one’s eternal salvation (Matthew 19:26). Despite Jesus-’ warning, Peter asked what (wealth, position, authority or other) they would receive as rewards for their self-denial (Matthew 19:27)!

James and John, still refusing to admit the spiritual nature of God’s Kingdom, seek power and position for themselves (Matthew 20:20-28). The others were indignant at the two brothers, jealous that James and John had asked for the coveted positions first.

It is conceivable that some of the crowds present during the triumphal entry actually welcomed Jesus as God’s Messianic King without ulterior motives, despite their own mistaken notions about God’s intentions for Him (Matthew 21:1-11).

Despite Jesus-’ sternness and vigor shown while cleansing the temple, the needy and the little children came to Him with their problems and their praise (Matthew 21:12-17).

The disciples were astonished at the withering of the fig tree (Matthew 21:18-22).

The disciples asked for explanations about the prophecy of Jerusalem’s fall (Matthew 24:3).

Mary of Bethany lovingly anointed Jesus for His burial (Matthew 26:6-13).

The Twelve were shaken that one of their number should betray Jesus and they humbly asked in self-doubt whether it were they (Matthew 26:20 ff,).

Peter rejected the idea that he should deny Christ (Matthew 26:31-35). All agreed that they would die with Christ.

In the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus refused to be defended by the sword, all forsook Jesus and fled (Matthew 26:51-56).

Peter denied the Lord (Matthew 26:69-75).

Disciples remained at the cross and saw to Jesus-’ burial (Matthew 27:55-61).

Women behold first the empty tomb and then Jesus risen, then go to inform His disciples (Matthew 28:1-10).

The Eleven behold Him in Galilee and are commissioned to evangelize the world (Matthew 28:16-20). Although most worshiped Him, some doubted!

JOHN THE BAPTIST: PERPLEXITY

At Jesus-’ baptism: I should be baptized by you, and you come to me? (Matthew 3:14).

Indirectly through his disciples: We fast, as do the Pharisees, but your disciples do not (Matthew 9:14 ff.).

In prison: Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another? (Matthew 11:2 ff.),

The apparent officiousness of Jesus-’ mother and brothers shares something of this same perplexity about Him. (Cf. Matthew 12:46-50.)

THE MULTITUDES: READINESS TO RECEIVE MATERIAL BLESSINGS, SLOWNESS TO SURRENDER ALL TO JESUS.

First summary of ministry (Matthew 4:23-25).

Astonishment at His teaching as one having authority, not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28-29).

Desire for a qualified, convenient discipleship (Matthew 9:18-22).

Glorifying God for having given authority to forgive sins to men like Jesus (Matthew 9:1-8).

Blind men, healed, disobedient to Jesus-’ requests for privacy (Matthew 9:30-31).

Marveling at Jesus-’ healing of dumb demoniac (Matthew 9:32-33).

Fickleness in not committing themselves to the wisdom represented in the respective ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus (Matthew 11:7-19).

Refusal to repent, despite the quantity of proof of Jesus-’ authority to require it (Matthew 11:20-24).

Half-surprised belief asked: Can this be the Son of David? after the liberation of a blind and dumb demoniac (Matthew 12:22-23).

Great crowds listened to the enigmatic Sermon in Parables, but apparently few bothered themselves to ask Jesus its real meaning (Matthew 13:2; Matthew 13:34; Matthew 13:36; cf. Matthew 13:10-17).

Crowds flocked together for the Messianic excitement, but not necessarily to believe anything Jesus might say, on the basis of His divine credentials (Matthew 14:13 bff.).

The rich young ruler offered to follow but the price was too high (Matthew 19:16-22).

Great crowds joined in the Triumphal Entry of the Messiah for various motives (Matthew 21:2-11).

THE ENEMIES: DEDICATED OPPOSITION

Pharisees attacked Jesus-’ acceptance of the outcasts of Hebrew society (Matthew 9:9-13). Their reaction is that of men who live in a situation of security and certainty about their own rightness and their judgment of those who disagree with them.

Pharisees raise objections to Jesus-’ flagrant disregard for their private interpretations of the Sabbath Law, views that push them to blind, inhuman mercilessness to God’s creatures for whose benefit God gave His law (Matthew 12:1-14). They begin to plot His destruction.

Finding no suitable alternative explanation for His obviously supernatural power, the Pharisees must resort to the accusation that His good deeds were done in harmony with Satan and through his power (Matthew 12:22-45). But this rejection of God’s Spirit as the source of Jesus-’ power, is forever not to comprehend God’s Kingdom as revealed by Jesus (Matthew 12:28).

The Nazarenes, while not opposing Jesus with the vehemence shown on His former major visit to Nazareth (cf. Luke 4:16-30), nevertheless totally under evaluated Him, found themselves without adequate explanation of their local Son, and so confirmed their own unbelief (Matthew 13:54-58).

Jesus definitely withdrew from Herod’s country when news arrived of the latter’s murder of John the Baptist, Jesus-’ forerunner (Matthew 14:1-13 a; cf. Luke 9:9).

Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem attack Jesus over His disrespect for the traditions of the elders (Matthew 15:1-20).

Pharisees and Sadducees challenge Him to prove His authority by providing them some sign from heaven (Matthew 16:1-4).

Pharisees tested Jesus on the divorce question (Matthew 19:3-9).

Chief priests and scribes object to the children’s praise of Jesus in highly Messianic terms (Matthew 21:15-17).

All the religious authorities, at various times and ways, attempt to trap Jesus by argument and are bested (Matthew 21:23 to Matthew 22:46).

The Sanhedrin decided the death of Jesus and finally succeeded in carrying it out (Matthew 26:1-5, Matthew 26:47 to Matthew 27:44). They accepted full responsibility for His death, freeing the political authority from this responsibility (Matthew 27:24-25).

To guarantee against fraudulent resurrection, the religious authorities sealed the tomb (Matthew 27:62-66).

To counteract resurrection testimonies, the Sanhedrin bribed false witnesses (Matthew 28:11-15).

THE KIND OF KINGDOM GOD HAS IN MIND ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

By presenting Jesus as the humble babe of Bethlehem, adored by foreigners and rejected by His own people, then rescued by fleeing into a foreign country, Matthew pictures the hard reality of a Kingdom of God whose true value can be appreciated only through the eyes of faith and by the spiritual long view of things. Those who dreamed of a triumphalistic Messianic Kingdom must see the lowliness and suffering of Him of whom Matthew must speak (Matthew 2).

Matthew alone quotes Jesus-’ justification for His own immersion by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:15). Jesus-’ Messiahship is founded on the principle that We must do everything God says to, whether we understand it perfectly or not, whether we agree that it applies to us or not, whether it is popular or not, whether our best friends think we should or not,just because God said to do it! This is a Kingdom that collides with all notions of a Messianic utopia where we all get to do what WE want to.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is the first concrete answer Matthew includes to the question: What does it mean to fulfil all righteousness? What does it mean to submit ourselves to the Kingdom of God, i.e. to His plans and will? If this Sermon is a manifesto of the Kingdom, and if Jesus Himself is the realization of all that God intended in the Old Testament Law (Matthew 5:17-20), and if His Word is that which God now substitutes for that Law (Matthew 5:21-48), then THE KINGDOM IS JESUS HIMSELF present among men. He is the new Law. Consequently, the Church is none other than the totality of those who follow HIM toward that fulfilment of God’s plan that Jesus has reached. The promise of obtaining the Kingdom is directed to those aware of their spiritual poverty (Matthew 5:3), the persecuted for doing God’s will (Matthew 5:10), and those whose obedience to God’s will exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20).

The continued presence of threatened judgment upon the believer stands out in stark contrast with pre-Christian Jewish views of the Messianic Kingdom, according to which, in the days of the Messiah, the people of God would be miraculously and instantly purified. (Cf. Matthew 5:19 a, Matthew 5:20; Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:26; Matthew 5:29-30; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:14-15; Matthew 7:2; Matthew 7:13-14; Matthew 7:19; Matthew 7:21-23; Matthew 7:26-27).

If the Kingdom of God and His righteousness is to be sought first, above and beyond all human necessities (Matthew 6:33), then it is not a Kingdom that eliminates the struggles involved in our human existence, but rather becomes the goal of our efforts despite the continued existence of these normal necessities (Matthew 6:24-34). The Kingdom must be understood as a present reality, present IN the humdrum of our existential world, not merely an eschatological release from that reality. The purpose of this insertion of the Kingdom INTO the sinful world is to be light to illuminate its darkness, salt to save it from its corruption (Matthew 5:13-16).

The non-nationalistic, non-racial character of the Kingdom is underlined in the account of the healing of the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8:5-13). The specifically racial and nationalistic claims of the Jews received a serious blow dealt by Jesus-’ comments on the exceptional faith of the Roman.

The Kingdom’s standard of judgment is not based upon precise performance of rituals, but upon the real sincerity of one’s motives for all that he does (Matthew 5:8; Matthew 5:11; Matthew 5:19-20; Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:28; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 5:37; Matthew 5:44-47; Matthew 6:1 ff., Matthew 6:24; Matthew 7:12; Matthew 7:18-20; Matthew 7:23).

God’s Kingdom is His mastery over human uncleanness and disease (Matthew 8:1-4; Matthew 8:14-17). It means His personal entrance into our human misery and bearing it Himself (Matthew 8:17 = Isaiah 53:4).

God’s rule must be considered as absolute, more demanding than the highest human need or responsibilities (Matthew 8:18-22).

God’s Kingdom includes His control over the elements of the natural world (Matthew 8:23-27).

God’s Kingdom is manifest in His total mastery over Satan’s kingdom (Matthew 8:28 to Matthew 9:1).

God’s Kingdom is evident in His right to forgive man’s sin (Matthew 9:2-8).

The Kingdom of God is not a sect of purists (the pure, the true Church), but a movement that is genuinely open to all without distinction. If Matthew the publican can belong to it, ANYONE can (Matthew 9:9-13)!

The Kingdom is not triumphalistic, does not force men to believe or be righteous, but it proceeds because of its missionary spirit. Its missionaries, because they labor where frictions among men are the bitterest, where selfishness explodes in all its forms, must expect persecutions and death (Matthew 10:16 ff.). Even though God is present and judging His people, He may not intervene to halt those who kill them (Matthew 10:28). Jesus-’ disciples are to be identified with Him in suffering and service (Matthew 10:16-40).

The unification of all men in the Kingdom of God can only come about by the elimination of all false unities, even those founded upon blood relationships (Matthew 10:34-39).

The Kingdom of God, in its earthly manifestation, can suffer opposition and violent attempts to force it to be something other than what it was designed to be (Matthew 11:12). This is in perfect harmony with the absolute freedom of the human will to accept its teachings or not (Matthew 11:14).

God’s government of heaven and earth includes His gracious will to hide significant truth from those who pride themselves as being the wise and understanding, while revealing the truth to humble, sincere disciples, the babes (Matthew 11:25-30).

The rule of God over His people lifts them over the highest institutions of the Mosaic Law, the Sabbath and the Temple (Matthew 12:1-14). The Son of man is lord of the sabbath.

The operational power of the Spirit of God working in Jesus of Nazareth is positive proof that the Kingdom of God has come and that Satan is really defeated and plundered (Matthew 12:22-29)!

Something greater than the wisdom of Solomon and the testimony of Jonah is involved in Jesus-’ representation of God’s Kingdom (Matthew 12:38-43).

The Kingdom of God is not founded upon fleshly ties, not even to the Messiah Himself, much less to Abraham, but upon doing what the Father in heaven wills (Matthew 12:46-50).

Jesus presented the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven to everyone listening, but in parabolic form so as to distinguish between listeners. Those who trusted Jesus enough to come to Him for explanations, received more information about the nature, progress and destiny of the Kingdom of God, because they gained the explanations of the unforgettable parables they already possessed. Those who did not care enough for truth, or did not trust Jesus to know what He was about, not only did not gain this vital information, but also lost the value of the parables they had heard (Matthew 13:10-17; Matthew 13:34-35). Thus, the Church is made up of those who desire to trust and learn from Jesus even those truths of the Kingdom that are unclear, unpalatable, or seem wrong.

The kind of Kingdom God has in mind has the following characteristics:

The effectiveness of God’s rule in individual lives depends directly upon each one’s personal openness to truth and his willingness to let God rule (Matthew 13:1-9; Matthew 13:18-23). If so, the Kingdom is not a materialistic regime that conquers by force of arms, but by the painfully slow process of planting truth in men’s hearts, which are of widely varied character.

The temporary presence of evil in the Kingdom of God is not His fault, because He is not the source of evil. Rather, He has inaugurated a process whereby final judgment will reveal the truly righteous and segregate the wicked. The righteous, the congregation of the Messiah, really are the citizens of His Kingdom (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:36-43). The continued presence of evil in the world is clear proof of man’s moral freedom to decide his own fate (Matthew 13:47-50). The Kingdom is the work of a God who knows the time of its maturing and of the final day.

Despite its microscopic beginnings, the Kingdom of God will grow and become a mighty empire, because of its internal life and extensive expansion (Matthew 13:31-32).

The Kingdom will grow quietly in the world, without great noise and commotion, but its progress will not be hindered until its intensive, transforming power influences all it touches (Matthew 13:33).

Whether discovered accidentally or sought deliberately, the Kingdom of God, when discovered and appreciated at its true value, is worth all it costs (Matthew 13:44-46).

The theologian who is a disciple of the Kingdom is a wealthy man who can bless his guests with treasured truth, the best of the old and the finest of the new (Matthew 13:52).

It is not a kingdom in which external purity and ceremony has any real importance, but where the real purity of one’s heart, as this is manifested in his spirit of obedience to whatever God requires, is everything (Matthew 15:1-20).

It is a Kingdom whose King, the Son of David, has time to bless even CANAANITES, despite the limitations of His personal mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:21-28)!

It is a Kingdom where half-Jewish, half-Gentile populations can sit down to the Messianic banquet together, not because of personal worthiness, but because of the Messiah’s bounty and graciousness (Matthew 15:29-39).

It is a Kingdom, rather, that one enters by death to self, and by acknowledgment of the true identity and consequent rights of the King (Matthew 16:13-28). The community of the Messiah (The Church of Christ), then, is but the subjective manifestation of the Messiah’s objective rule. The Church is, in short, the people of the Kingdom, the necessary result of the proclamation of God’s sovereignty, a proclamation which calls into being a real assembly or communitary reality: the Church. It was to begin in the lifetime of Jesus-’ earthly disciples (Matthew 16:28).

The Kingdom’s power, while at the disposition of the disciples, is not automatic nor divisible from faith (Matthew 17:14-21).

The sons of the Kingdom are free citizens, above even the obligatory Temple-tax (Matthew 17:24-27).

Death to self, absolutely essential to entrance in the Kingdom, manifests itself in a refusal to recognize any standard of greatness other than the amount of service one renders to the weakest, smallest, least important in the Kingdom (Matthew 18:1-35). No pride in achievement can justify unmercifulness or harsh treatment of any member of the Kingdom, however seemingly insignificant.

The Kingdom God has in mind is a community of the Messiah, yet it admits its internal problem and deals with them in an orderly manner (Matthew 18:15-35). The problem of continued sinning and consequent need for forgiveness is to remain a live one, even after the beginning of the Kingdom. It is a Kingdom whose common life is characterized by its concern for the little ones, its reconciliation of brethren, its forgiveness of offenses, its purity of intentions, its harmony of life and its common prayer.

The Kingdom God has in mind is concerned with a right understanding of male-female relationships (Matthew 19:3-12). Celibacy, even for sake of the Kingdom, is not possible for everyone.

The Kingdom of God belongs to the children and such as they, not those whose adulthood makes them too proud to come to Jesus (Matthew 19:13-15).

The Kingdom God has in mind does not belong exclusively to the wealthy, whom most people would automatically judge most qualified for it, being the most blessed by God who furnishes the power to become wealthy (Matthew 19:13-30).

In God’s Kingdom earth’s value-systems and power structures have no importance, except in a negative way in the sense that they are condemned among believers (Matthew 19:23-26).

Loyalty to Jesus Christ, as this is manifest in the sacrifices made for His sake, will be richly rewarded in that expression of God’s Kingdom in the world to come (Matthew 19:27-30).

In fact, God’s Kingdom attributes no priority to anyone on the basis of supposed merits or personal achievements, because the basis of blessing is the free choice and mercy of the King (Matthew 20:1-16).

The usual, earthly power-structures have no relation to anything Jesus has in mind for His Kingdom. Rather, the measure of greatness and power is service and usefulness to others, not self-seeking and self-aggrandisement (Matthew 20:20-28).

God intends that His Kingdom shall belong to people who will produce the results God desires. Therefore, it cannot long remain the private possession of those who do not (Matthew 21:23-43).

The Kingdom of Heaven is a question of free choice that may be accepted or rejected, but not, however, without serious consequences. Many are invited into it, but few prove finally acceptable (Matthew 22:1-14).

Surprisingly, God’s Kingdom does not conflict with normal, constituted human authority nor vice versa, and may be considered consistent with it when properly exercised (Matthew 22:15-21).

While the present phase of the Kingdom of God is played out on earth’s stage, the resurrection of the dead ushers men into a different state of life with the God of the living (Matthew 22:23-33).

The religion and ethics of God’s Kingdom may be summed up as love for God and unselfish service to one’s neighbor (Matthew 22:34-40).

The son of David, long-awaited Messianic King, must also be the Lord of David (Matthew 22:41-46).

In God’s Kingdom, there are not to be many chiefs, just one Father, one Teacher, one Leader. Everyone else is one of the brothers (Matthew 23:7-10).

Nor is God’s Kingdom to be exclusive and sectarian on the basis of human traditions and proselytization. Rather, its concerns will be with the things that count: justice, mercy and faith, inward purity, consciousness of God, moral understanding, hatred of sin (Matthew 23:13-36).

The Kingdom God has in mind and of which Jesus is the Messianic King, will not be without its prophets, wise men and theologians, sent as Christian missionaries to save Israel (Matthew 23:34). Not only is their preparation emphasized here, but also their mission of mercy to an unworthy people.

The way in which God’s Kingdom would be carried on will create a situation in which constant vigilance and constant preparation are absolutely essential to please the King (Matthew 24:36 to Matthew 25:13). There remains the live possibility of losing everything, despite one’s privileged position as servant of the King. The King’s arrival will be delayed (Matthew 24:45; Matthew 25:5). But the daily life of the citizen must be one marked by faith, sobriety, alertness and dedicated service.

The Kingdom involves a trust of the King’s goods left in custody of His servants, to be utilized for His benefit (Matthew 25:14-30). The King’s return will be delayed (Matthew 25:19). This only emphasizes the greatness of the opportunity to make good use of His goods for His glory.

The Kingdom involves a proper, personal care for the world’s needy to whom service is to be rendered as if to the King Himself (Matthew 25:31-46).

The Kingdom God has in mind is based on covenant sealed in Jesus-’ blood, furnishing the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28). The fruit of the vine which symbolized the blood of the covenant would be shared with Jesus-’ disciples in the Father’s Kingdom (Matthew 26:29).

Since Jesus was tried and crucified by the Romans and Jews as the King of the Jews, and since God vindicated Jesus-’ right to this title by raising Him from the dead, it should be clear to Matthew’s readers that God’s Kingdom, the Kingdom of Israel as God envisioned it, was not to be of the type usually dreamed of in current Jewish speculation, but precisely the Kingdom Jesus continuously and consistently represented to them. It is almost as if Matthew were saying: The exclusively Jewish -King of the Jews-’ is dead, never to rise again, not crucified by His own people, but by the King Himself. In His place there arose the true King of the new Israel, the King of the universe with authority in heaven and on earth. (Cf. Matthew 28:18.)

While our King is one in the daily expectation of whose return from a long trip we are to live (cf. Matthew 24:45-48; Matthew 25:5; Matthew 25:19), He is always near us, by our side, and His faithfulness will not fail (Matthew 28:20).

Whereas in Mark we read of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God, the object of the announcement being the person of Jesus Himself, in Matthew the characteristic expression is the gospel of the Kingdom, almost as if it is meant that the object of the Gospel, the purpose of the Christian message is the actual proclamation of the Kingdom. (Cf. Matthew 4:23; Matthew 9:35; Matthew 24:14 in contrast to Mark 1:1; Mark 1:14).

Because the Kingdom of God expresses the will of God, His Kingdom is evident in His choice to reveal His plans, not to the intelligentsia, but to little children (Matthew 11:25-26).

God does not will that any of these little ones should be lost through neglect or stumbling blocks of other disciples (Matthew 18:14).

WHATEVER God wills is the essence of the Kingdom of God in one’s life, regardless of how deeply that cuts across our choices or preferences (Matthew 26:39).

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

Despite the variety of events in the history of the Jewish people, as these are noted in the record of Jesus-’ genealogy, God was silently working to bring His Messiah into the world (Matthew 1:1-17).

Despite the real perplexities of Joseph about his beloved Mary, God was taking care of Jesus by providing Him a legal father and protection for His mother, Despite human experience of a virgin birth, God chose this method to come into the world, so that in the human Jesus, we learn what it means to have God with us (Matthew 1:18-25).

Despite the clever planning of a murderous king, God rescued Jesus from harm and furnished sufficient funds for an extended sojourn in Egypt by gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matthew 2:1-21).

God will severely judge an unrepentant Israel, notwithstanding her claims to physical descent from Abraham, unless she embraces the Lord for whom John prepared the way (Matthew 3:1-12).

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus underscored again and again the Fatherhood of God and His Fatherly care. (Cf. Matthew 5:16; Matthew 5:45; Matthew 5:48; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:8; Matthew 6:14-15; Matthew 6:18; Matthew 6:26; Matthew 6:32; Matthew 7:11.) Despite the terror of the persecutions which would tempt Christians to close themselves up in monastic seclusion, their purpose must be to glorify their Father who watches over their most secret thought and cares for their most fundamental needs.

The Mission of the Twelve is born in prayer to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest (Matthew 9:38). It is His field for which He is responsible and into whose service we pray He will raise up laborers. Despite the temptations to deny everything because of the terrors of the persecutions, God watches over His creation and will bless with victory all who proclaim His Word, although He may not intervene to halt those who would kill the body (Matthew 10:26-31). He will not forget even the smallest help given His people (Matthew 10:40-42).

Notwithstanding the incomprehension encountered by Jesus among His own people, God’s sovereign decision to reveal Himself and His will in precisely the way Jesus had followed was gratefully accepted by Jesus (Matthew 11:25-27). God’s design actually worked and was being realized by Jesus-’ works. The sovereign Lord of heaven and earth is not forced to bow before those who believe themselves lords of the world (the wise and understanding) (Matthew 11:25).

It is God who can guarantee that all the sacrifices of Christ and His people will only result in life lived at its best (Matthew 16:24-28). Life belongs to God, and only He can transform it. All that Jesus demands becomes comprehensible, if seen as obedience to God who by resurrection defeats our death, even as He did it for Jesus (Matthew 16:21).

It is God who speaks from heaven, confirming Jesus-’ ministry, notwithstanding what all human judgment must pronounce a failure in His mission and procedure and results (Matthew 17:5). Success, in God’s view, must be obtained at the cross, both by Jesus and by each single disciple.

With God all things are possible, even the damnation of men despite their wealth and the saving of those who sacrifice all they possess for Jesus-’ sake, and who would be considered poor in human judgment (Matthew 19:23-30).

The absolute Lordship of God is manifest in His free gift of grace to those whom He wishes to bless, regardless of the apparent unworthiness of these latter (Matthew 20:1-16). Rather than measure the recompense on the basis of one’s achievements, Jesus reaffirms that everything depends upon the free choice and mercy of God.

The sovereignty of God is underlined in the Parables of the Vineyard and the Marriage Feast, in that the owner of the vineyard can (and should) put the former share-farmers to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants, and in that the king can rightfully send his troops to destroy the murderers of his messengers, burn their city, and replace them with just anyone who would come. But, even so, all must conform to his terms for remaining in his grace (Matthew 21:33 to Matthew 22:14).

Jesus-’ quotation of Zec 13:7 points to God as the Ruler of history and who does everything according to His plan for man’s salvation, even if this is not the kind of Messianism that man would design (Matthew 26:31-32).

Even in the attitude of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-46) we see the theme of human weakness in the presence of the will of God that must be carried out to the utmost. Temptation to give in is something that continually hangs over man, and only God can furnish him the strength to endure it.

The Garden arrest must take place according to the Scriptures, because God, who ordered these events and is back of the Scriptures, is the final, real Actor in every event (Matthew 26:56).

After Jesus-’ victory and receiving universal authority, He promises His people that, while they carry out His mission on earth, He will be with them until the end of the age. This means that His people are those disciples who are determined to follow the same path He did, confiding only in the blessing of God (Christ), sure that they will never be alone, since He, the sovereign God in Christ, is always guarding them (Matthew 28:16-20).

The sovereignty of God is seen in the picture of Jesus as the Man over whom God had been watching even before His birth and had foreseen and prepared for every part of His life. This is especially emphasized in His fulfilment of prophecies. Among Matthew’s at least forty formal quotations of the Old Testament, the following are expressly cited as being particularly indicative of God’s preparation for and care of Jesus even before His appearance on earth:

**MATTHEW

OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGE**

Hosea 11:1 (cf. Exodus 4:22)

Matthew 2:23

prophets Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12; Psalms 22; Isaiah 11:1?

Psalms 8:2 (LXX Matthew 8:3)

Psalms 118:26; Jeremiah 22:5

Matthew 24:29-31

Isaiah 13:10; Ezekiel 32:7; Joe 2:10; Joe 2:31; Joe 3:15;

Isaiah 34:4 b; Haggai 2:6; Haggai 2:21; Zechariah 12:10; Zechariah 12:12;

Daniel 7:13-14; Isaiah 27:13; Deuteronomy 30:4; Zech.

Psalms 110:1; Daniel 7:13-14

Matthew 27:9-10

Zechariah 11:12-13; Jeremiah 32:6-15

Matthew 27:46

Psalms 22:1

THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

What kind of information did Jesus reveal about God’s Fatherhood? While clearly picturing Him as the Lord your God (Matthew 4:10; Matthew 22:37), as the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28), as the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth (Matthew 11:25) and as king of the kingdom of God (Matthew 18:23; Matthew 18:35), etc., our Lord laid heavy emphasis on God’s fatherly character. Does Jesus picture Him as a celestial Santa Claus or as an unquestioning, all-accepting divine Grandfather or otherwise? Consider these revelations:

All our good deeds must be done so that others-’ praise will go to our Father (Matthew 5:16).

Loving kindness to enemies makes us true sons of our Father in heaven (Matthew 5:44). His perfection is our standard (Matthew 5:48).

Our acts of righteousness must be done with a view to being rewarded by our heavenly Father alone (Matthew 6:1-18).

In contrast to dead, pagan deities whose devotees must hopelessly, endlessly cry to them, our heavenly Father knows that we need daily necessities (Matthew 6:32), and He gives only good gifts to those who ask Him (Matthew 7:11).

Entrance into heaven’s Kingdom depends on doing the will of Jesus-’ Father (Matthew 7:21).

Early disciples, on trial for their Christian testimony, may depend with full confidence on the Spirit of our Father speaking through them (Matthew 10:20).

Nothing sinister can happen to a faithful disciple, apart from what our Father permits (Matthew 10:29),

However, it is before Jesus-’ Father in heaven that the disciple will be acknowledged or disowned, according to his attitude and faithfulness on earth (Matthew 10:32 f.).

Jesus sustained a unique, unshared relationship to this Father, whom He could call my Father in a way distinct from the relationship to this Father known by every disciple, because the Father had committed all things to Him (Matthew 11:25-27).

The kinship to Jesus that really counts is not physical, based on a coincidental or miraculous fleshly relationship, but rather spirit, based on doing the will of His heavenly Father (Matthew 12:50).

Although temporarily obscured in this life, after the judgment the righteous will be perfectly obvious in the kingdom of their Father (Matthew 13:43).

Any doctrine not finding its origin in the will of Jesus-’ heavenly Father will be eradicated, and those who follow blind leaders who hold such doctrines will suffer the consequences along with them (Matthew 15:13).

Jesus-’ Father in heaven revealed to Peter the true identity of Jesus (Matthew 16:17).

Our Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost, so their angels are granted instant access to His presence (Matthew 18:14; Matthew 18:10).

Jesus-’ return to earth will be surrounded with His Father’s glory (Matthew 16:27).

All of the might of Jesus-’ Father in heaven is at the disposition of two humble disciples who agree to ask Him for something in prayer (Matthew 18:19).

However, Jesus-’ Heavenly Father will not tolerate any unwillingness to forgive in His subjects (Matthew 18:35).

It is Jesus-’ heavenly Father whose will determines places of honor in His Kingdom (Matthew 20:23).

God is the only one who rightly deserves to be called Father in the high, ethical sense of Provider of spiritual life and guidance (Matthew 23:9).

The Father alone knows the day of Christ’s return (Matthew 24:36).

The righteous will finally be blessed by the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 25:34), and not unlikely, He is the author of the curse upon the wicked (Matthew 25:41).

Jesus viewed the glorious Messianic Kingdom as belonging to His Father (Matthew 26:29).

Jesus pleaded with His Father to remove the cup of suffering (Matthew 26:29; Matthew 26:42), and remained stedfastly confident that His Father could at once put more than twelve legions of angels at His disposal (Matthew 26:53).

THE KIND OF JUDGMENT GOD WILL EXERCISE ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

John preached repentance and deeds as all-important for spiritual preparation for the Messiah’s coming, not pretended fleshly ties to Abraham. The judgment, while involving all of Israel, will examine each one individually (Matthew 3:1-12). The Messiah Himself would be personally responsible to execute summary judgment.

Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, underlined the inner purity of heart, the kind of motivated person that seeks God’s will and man’s good above personal interest. Only this kind of person will have God’s approval. (Cf. Matthew 5:3-10, Matthew 5:21 ff., Matthew 5:27 ff., Matthew 5:44-48.) The rigor by which men deal with others will be the measure of severity or clemency by which they themselves are to be judged (Matthew 5:7; Matthew 6:12; Matthew 6:14 f.; Matthew 7:1-5). Men will be judged on the basis of what they do with JESUS-’ words (Matthew 7:21-27). All are judged by their deeds and attitudes (Matthew 7:15-23). Jesus Himself will decide the fate of all (Matthew 7:22). God will not judge men merely by the standards of the most pious theologians of the day, the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:21), but against the standard of perfection itself (Matthew 5:48)!

In the dialogue with the Gadarene demons, they demand to know if Jesus is come to punish them before the time of the final judgment (Matthew 8:29). This suggests without stating it that Jesus Himself is the final Judge by whom these dark spirits must be judged and sentenced. How much more would mankind be judged by Him? Before the time, however, means that the demons, and evil in general, are yet free to do their worst, even if drastically curbed for awhile and in limited ways. (The demons are cast out of the poor sufferers.)

God desires to exercise a judgment tempered with mercy, not merely the rigid, heartless censorship practiced by the Pharisees (Matthew 9:9-13, especially Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7).

God will save the man who endures to the end (Matthew 10:22).

God will not destroy in hell those who, however frightened by persecutors and death, give their testimony boldly and confess Jesus before men (Matthew 10:26-33).

God will judge sinners on the basis of their attitude toward His Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31 f.), on the basis of the character of their heart as this is seen in their words, (Matthew 12:33-37), and on their opportunities to know the truth (Matthew 12:38-42), and on the basis of the practical emptiness of their sterile lives (Matthew 12:43-45).

For the emphases on judgment in the Sermon in Parables (Matthew 13), see Note at the end.

God judges men’s ideas on the basis of their origin, not upon their acceptability to current scholarship (Matthew 15:13). If their ideas did not originate in the truth of God, they will be eradicated in judgment.

God cannot tolerate any rivals to Jesus His Son, not even the greatest Law-givers and Prophets of Old Testament religion (Matthew 17:5; Matthew 17:5). Men must see Jesus only (Matthew 17:8).

Greatness in the Kingdom of God is measured by God’s concern for the least, the last and the lost (Matthew 18:10-14). Anything that causes these to be lost must be eliminated on the penalty of eternal destruction (Matthew 18:8-9). God will use the same rigor of judgment with which men treat one another (Matthew 18:23-35).

The lesson of the barren fig tree cursed (Matthew 21:18-22) is that God eliminates useless, unfruitful creatures, with a suddenness and severity that may surprise the observer, but with undoubted justice, because of the richness of opportunities to produce what, by their nature, they should be expected to produce.

The severe condemnations of Pharisaism and Jerusalem (Matthew 23:1-39) teach that God’s judgment condemns making religion a burden (Matthew 23:1-4), proud humility (Matthew 23:5-12), partisan zeal (Matthew 23:13-15), the art of evasion (Matthew 23:16-22), loss of the sense of moral proportions (Matthew 23:23-24), external purity in contrast to inner pollution (Matthew 23:25-28), abuse of God’s messengers (Matthew 23:29-36), rejection of Love’s appeals (Matthew 23:37-39). They are without excuse, because they know God’s will and do not do it (Cf. v. 3).

The great Eschatological Discourse deals with judgment upon Israel, then upon the world (Chapter s 24, 25). The bases of judgment mentioned are readiness, faithfulness, usefulness, faithfulness to Jesus.

NOTE that all the major discourses recorded by Matthew proceed to a climax in judgment:

The Sermon on the Mount ends on the parable of judgment against the house built on the sand foundation (Matthew 7:24-27).

The Sermon on the Apostolic Mission rises to a climax from fear of human persecutors to concern for not being acknowledged by Jesus in the presence of God the Father (Matthew 10:26-33). The result of God’s judgment will be determined by the positions taken during this life (Matthew 10:34-39).

The Sermon on John the Baptist, Shall We Look For Another Christ? emphasizes the theme of judgment upon the most favored cities where Jesus had bestowed His richest favors of blessing, healing and teaching. Judgment, says Jesus, will be in proportion to the light against which we have sinned (Matthew 11:20-24). The very choice to hide certain truth from the wise and understanding while revealing them to babes, is itself a judgment in which Jesus fully concurs (Matthew 11:25 ff.).

The Sermon on the Kingdom of Heaven, told in truth-hiding parables, is itself a masterpiece of judgment executed upon those who had no desire for truth (Matthew 13:10-17). The parable of the Sower emphasizes the grounds of the difference in reactions to truth and consequent judgment upon individuals (Matthew 13:1-9; Matthew 13:18-23). The parable of the Weeds underscores the certainty of judgment, despite what appears to be unnecessary delay in its coming. It explains also the impossibility to pronounce premature judgments on our part (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:36-43). The parables of the Yeast and the Mustard Seed pronounce God’s judgment upon the progress of the Kingdom, despite man’s opinions to the contrary (Matthew 13:31-33). The parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Precious Pearl express God’s judgment of the value of the Kingdom: it is worth all it costs the individual who acquires it (Matthew 13:44-46). The story of the Dragnet repeats the message of the final, inexorable division of the world’s people (Matthew 13:47-50).

The Sermon on Personal Relations in the Kingdom thunders judgment without mercy against the unmerciful, by means of the parable of the Two Debtors (Matthew 18:23-35).

The Sermon on the Sins of the Religious (Matthew 23), while itself almost entirely a thundering denunciation of a multitude of sins, rises to its dramatic climax in the words: You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth.. Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation (Matthew 23:33-36).

The Sermon on the End of the World (24, 25) underlines again and again not only the fall of everything not in God’s plans, but also the necessity for immediate, personal preparation.

BY THEIR FRUITS YOU WILL KNOW THEM THE IMPORTANCE OF BEARING FRUIT AND DOING WHAT JESUS DEMANDS ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

John the Baptist defined repentance by demanding that those who pretend to repent should prove their sincerity by producing fruits worthy of repentance, i.e. the characteristic deeds of a changed life. Unless these deeds were forthcoming, punitive judgment would overtake the unfruitful, despite all pretenses and claims to the contrary (Matthew 3:1-12).

The Messiah Himself insists upon being baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness, i.e. to do what God defines as right for any man (Matthew 3:14-15). The plan of God can be brought to fulfilment only in this way, not by fleeing one’s responsibility, but by accepting it completely.

The Sermon on the Mount is packed with blessings, admonitions and teaching to underscore the importance of deeds:

The active peacemakers are the sons of God (Matthew 5:9). Only those who ardently desire to do the will of God will truly be satisfied in the Kingdom (Matthew 5:6).

The true salt and light are useful to God (Matthew 5:13-16).

Doing and teaching is God’s standard of greatness in the Kingdom (Matthew 5:19).

Worshiping (Matthew 5:24), almsgiving (Matthew 6:2-4), praying (Matthew 6:7 ff.) and fasting (Matthew 6:16 ff.) are assumed to be part of the normal activity of the godly disciple, but are not more important a part of personal piety than active reconciliation (Matthew 5:21-26), personal self-denial (Matthew 5:27-32), absolute honesty (Matthew 5:33-37), merciful generosity (Matthew 5:38-42), and actively blessing one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-48).

The same judgment threatened against imposters is the standard for unfruitful disciples (Matthew 7:19).

Real union with Christ is to be enjoyed, not by family relationship to Him by blood or by accidents of birth in the right family or people, but by obedience to the will of the Father (Matthew 12:46-50).

The Sermon in Parables (chapter 13) links the disciples-’ fruit-bearing to his understanding the word of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:19; Matthew 13:23) as well as to his moral character (Matthew 13:21-22). Interest is shown, further, in the differing quantities of fruit borne even among the fruitful disciples. The Kingdom demands total commitment (Matthew 13:44-46).

Only total commitment to the will of God, even in the prospect of suffering and death, will be rewarded with life in its highest and best sense (Matthew 16:24-28). Every man will be repaid for what he has done.

Instead of commanding the rich young ruler to trust Him, Jesus told him something to do (Matthew 19:21). Although this implicitly involved total trust in Jesus to know what must be done to inherit eternal life, the deed is in the foreground. (Contrast John 6:29.) Life is to be had in doing what God wills (Matthew 19:17).

Men will be rewarded on the basis of what they have given up for Jesus-’ sake (Matthew 19:29).

The cursing of the fig tree because it had no fruit, just leaves, becomes an enacted lesson on the destiny of the fruitless, pretentious Israel that refused to believe Jesus (Matthew 21:18-22), It is also a warning to every believer concerning the damnation of useless-ness and the punishment of proud promises without performance. It applies to Jesus as well, because He too has made tremendous promises which could only be kept by going to the cross.

The Parable of the Two Sons emphasizes actually doing the will of the Father, as opposed to merely professing obedience without really doing it (Matthew 21:28-32).

The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matthew 21:33-46) explains that the Kingdom of God will not remain the private possession of those who do not produce the results God intends. Rather, it will rightly pass over to those who will (Matthew 21:41; Matthew 21:43).

In all the lessons on vigilance during the eschatological wait for the Lord’s return, the emphasis is laid upon usefulness in the Lord’s service, doing the job He assigns, making the preparation that is needed for His return, utilizing the goods He entrusts to our custody, and caring for the people made in His image (Matthew 24:45 to Matthew 25:46).

The Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) includes the order to teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. The teaching has as its goal the production of the results Jesus desired.

THE KIND OF RIGHTEOUSNESS GOD HAS IN MIND ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15) is not merely Jesus-’ reason for being baptized by John the Baptist, but His reason for living as He did and His model for us.

In the Sermon on the Mount, the Law of Moses is not despised, but fulfilled; not denied, but surpassed. Since Christ has come to fulfil God’s promises and standards, He Himself takes over the function of the Law, and becomes the Law. The Law is already the realization of the Kingdom of God among men in the person of Jesus Himself, a law that cannot be codified, but must be totally accepted. It is no longer sufficient to perform certain actions. What counts is the spiritual attitude with which they are performed and the intentions that motivated them. In fact, much of Jesus-’ teaching can be found in the Old Testament in one form or another. What is radically new about His view of righteousness is its new motivation: for my sake (cf. Matthew 7:21-27), i.e. because the demands made are authoritative and final because of Jesus-’ authority. Everything depends upon accepting Jesus as the Christ, and having His power to live the kind of life described herein. Otherwise, everything falls back into a legalistic, hence, impossible, concept of righteousness. The standard is no longer a codified one, but God’s own character, the goal for which He furnishes the Spirit to help us surpass the evil that dominates us (Matthew 5:48). Only this kind of righteousness will surpass that of the sterile religionists and bring glory to God (Matthew 5:10; Matthew 5:20). But it is a way to travel, an attitude to pursue, rather than a virtue intrinsic to discipleship. It is a search (Matthew 6:33). Man is blessed in the measure he desires it (Matthew 5:6).

The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-10) asks that God manifest His holiness, rule and will on earth, all in perfect harmony with the expectations created by the Old Testament doctrine of the Messianic age. The kind of righteousness Jesus has in mind, then, is that attitude which sanctifies God, seeks first His Kingdom and His righteousness and does His will (Matthew 6:33).

There is no necessary separation between the concerns of the Kingdom of God and those of life lived on this earth, no false dichotomy between spirit and matter. While much Jewish apocalyptic had pictured a materialistic Kingdom, Jesus pictures it as something to be spiritually understood and appreciated. While other Jews prepared for a purely spiritual Kingdom with no earthly reality, Jesus recognized the human situation that is to continue until the end of the world, a situation in which God’s people will need food, clothing and shelter, just like all men anywhere (Matthew 6:24-34). The difference, however, is in what each chooses as his personal preoccupation: desire to please the Heavenly Father, or worry about personal needs.

The patterns of piety under the Old Testament system are definitely old, out-moded, worn, however useful in their time, but definitely to be substituted with new forms, new content (Matthew 9:14-17). The wedding-joy of the Messianic Kingdom must not be marred by the severe piety that rightly characterized pre-messianic times. Jesus is not merely reforming Judaism with its legal system, but making a qualitative leap into a new relationship with God.

Righteousness, i.e. right thinking and doing, then, according to Jesus, means coming to Him, believing in Him, studying in His school, receiving peace of soul from Him alone (Matthew 11:28-30). The life-style pictured for the disciple cannot be divorced from the Christology of Matthew, because the invitations to enter into the Kingdom of God are intimately associated with invitations to embrace the person of Jesus Christ the King.

This submission to God’s will as it is revealed in Jesus means denying oneself for His sake and willingly accepting any suffering encountered in the line of duty for which all must answer to Jesus (Matthew 16:24-28).

Righteousness, in Jesus-’ eyes, does not seek control over others nor promotes self-importance (Matthew 18:1-35). Rather, real righteousness is humble, concerned about others-’ weaknesses and welfare and problems, dedicated to restoring harmony among men, and aware of its own need of God’s mercy. (Cf. also Matthew 19:13-15.)

Righteousness, as Jesus defines it, does not seek easy escape from marital responsibility (Matthew 19:3-9).

Righteousness not only does not hinder those weaker than oneself, but seeks to become like them in humility (Matthew 19:13-15).

Perfection is a question of removing everything that would hinder perfect service to God and others (Matthew 19:16-30). Strikingly, this answer is given to answer the request: What good deed must I do to have eternal life?

Righteousness does not depend upon one’s own merits or efforts, but upon the free choice and generosity of God (Matthew 20:1-16).

Righteousness does not express itself in self-seeking preeminence and priority over others, but in self-giving service for others (Matthew 20:20-28).

Real righteousness does not consist in professing allegiance to God yet without producing the results that this allegiance should produce (Matthew 21:18-22, Matthew 21:28 to Matthew 22:14).

All of religion and ethics may be expressed in the two great commandments (Matthew 22:34-40).

True religion consists in doing and teaching what God has ordered, regardless of the hypocrisy obvious in the life of those who occupy the teaching position (Matthew 23:2-3).

Righteousness consists in humble recognition of our equality under Christ our only superior (Matthew 23:8-12). True greatness is measured by service.

The weightier matters of the law (are) justice, mercy and faith, although the positive ordinances are not to be neglected either (Matthew 23:23).

The kind of righteousness Jesus has in mind is not a settled question, in the sense that any disciple can think himself to possess it perfectly. Rather, it is a life to be lived every day in the shadow of the real possibility of losing it (Matthew 24:12-13). It is a life lived under the daily tension of constant preparedness for whatever events signal the end for each one (Matthew 24:42 to Matthew 25:13). It involved a proper utilization of the Lord’s goods left in our custody (Matthew 25:14-30). Every earthly decision involves our taking a position in the presence of God and Christ the Judge (Matthew 25:31-46). The Christian ethic is not simply contemplative, but is highly practical, and by which all will be judged: did your trust of the Messiah make you generously helpful with your fellowman?

THE PARTICIPATION OF THE GENTILES IN THE MESSIANIC KINGDOM ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

The Gentiles are a special class to themselves, whose reaction to Jesus deserves special note. In fact, although Matthew mentions none among Jesus-’ regular disciples or enemies, because His mission was principally to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he does purposely include numerous mentions of them all in a favorable sense. The only significant negative Gentile personages are Pontius Pilate and his wife who figure in Jesus-’ trials, and while not pictured as particularly believers, both underline Jesus-’ innocence in different ways (Matthew 27:18-19; Matthew 27:24). Pilate’s final decision to protect himself rather than an innocent man, needs no comment. The soldiers of the battalion that mocked Jesus (Matthew 27:27-31) are negative, minor figures as are also the soldiers at the tomb who became involuntary witnesses to the reality of Jesus-’ resurrection (Matthew 27:62-66; Matthew 28:11-15).

Consider, however, the following positive, deliberately apologetic instances Matthew included to show that the Messianic Kingdom, rightly understood, is open to everyone, regardless of birth, race, language or national background:

At least three of the four women mentioned in Jesus-’ genealogy are Gentiles: Rahab the Canaanite (Joshua 2:11; Hebrews 11:31); Ruth the Moabitess (Rth 1:16 f; Rth 2:12); Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11; 1 Kings 15:5). The Messiah cannot be a pureblood Hebrew: He is part pagan by unquestionable genealogy,

The adoration by the Magi, standing in stark contrast to the indifference of Jerusalem and the clergy and the suspicions of a murderous king, points to a Messiah whose mission concerns not only Israel, but all peoples (Matthew 2:1-12).

John the Baptist preached: God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham and insisted that repentance and righteousness are the essential qualities for participation in the Messianic Kingdom (Matthew 3:1-10). If fleshly descent from Abraham is clearly subordinate to spiritual kinship to Abraham through faith and obedience to God, then, the logical conclusion may well be that even non-Hebrews will be permitted to share in the Messianic Kingdom on this same basis.

The universality of the Messiah’s ministry is underlined by Matthew’s quotation of Isa 9:1-2 linking Jesus-’ ministry in Galilee of the Gentiles with the already well-attested prophecy that had already sung of God’s concern for the benighted pagans (Matthew 4:12-17).

Remarkable for its absence in all of Jesus-’ teaching is any blessing of Israel above all other nations, any special honor given to uniquely Jewish practices, rites or customs, circumcision.

Unhesitatingly, Jesus blessed and praised the Gentile centurion of Capernaum and unblushingly stated Gentile participation in the Kingdom banquet to the exclusion of privileged Jews (Matthew 8:5-13).

The account of the Syro-phoenician womanherself a CANAANITEunderlines most vigorously the high quality of the faith of Gentiles when once brought into living contact with Christ and His message.

The participation of a half-Jewish, half-pagan population of Decapolis at the second miraculous multiplication of food, subtly underlines their common participation at the Messianic banquet (Matthew 15:29-39; cf. Mark 7:31; Mark 8:1-10).

In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, Jesus affirms: The Kingdom of God will be taken away from you (Jewish leaders especially) and given to a nation producing the fruits of it (Matthew 21:43). The new nation would not be merely Gentile, but a new people of Gentile-Jewish extraction who love and serve Jesus.

In the parable of the marriage feast, the King, angered by those who were invited and had rejected His invitation, destroyed those murderers and burned their city, because they were unworthy, and ordered His servants to bring in just anyone they could find (Matthew 22:1-14). The evident allusion is to the destruction of Jerusalem and the privileged Jews who should have been most ready to accept God’s invitation. Nevertheless, the non-Jews are offered the. same privileges, but must not presume upon God’s grace. (Cf. Romans 11:22.)

This gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations (Matthew 24:14)!

The Judgment of Christ, at which all nations will be gathered, separated and judged, will be settled, not on the basis of one’s Jewishness, but on the basis of each one’s usefulness in helping the least of Christ’s brethren (Matthew 25:31-46).

The kindness of Mary of Bethany in anointing Jesus for His burial will be told in memory of her, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world (Matthew 26:13).

Pilate’s wife was the only voice urgently raised to protest Jesus-’ innocence at His trial before the Gentile court.

A Gentile centurion at the crucifixion is the only non-disciple quoted by Matthew as having made a statement favorable to Jesus: Truly this was God’s son (Matthew 27:54)!

In virtue of Jesus-’ universal authority, all nations are to be evangelized and discipled (Matthew 28:18-20).

Matthew 26:1-2

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX SECTION 61 JESUS PREDICTS HIS OWN DEATH A FIFTH TIME

TEXT: 26:1, 2

1 and it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these words, he said unto his disciples, 2 Ye know that after two days the passover cometh, and the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why do you suppose Jesus thought it essential for the disciples-’ growth and even their sanity to repeat His death prediction one more time?

Why do you think Jesus thought it essential that they hear it at this particular time in His ministry?

Do you see any particular connection between Jesus-’ usual way of expressing His death prediction and the noteworthy addition made on this occasion: You know that after two days the passover is coming?

If you see the connection suggested in the previous question, how does this connection reveal the greater plan of God behind the two events?

Who do you suppose is going to deliver up (the Son of man) to be crucified? (1) Judas? (2) the Jewish authorities? (3) Pilate and the Romans? (4) God? On what basis do you choose or reject any of the above?

Since this death announcement comes on the heels of all these words which Matthew records contextually in Chapter s 23-25 as almost one continuous discourse, how does this death announcement fit into all that Jesus has been saying?

If Judas heard this announcement, what effect do you think this sinister warning had on him?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

When Jesus had finished His prophetic discourse, He commented to His disciples, As you know, the Passover is the day after tomorrow, and I the Son of man, will be handed over to be executed on a cross.

SUMMARY

Once again Jesus hammered home the unwelcome truth that He would be crucified, this time, however, specifying that this would occur during the Passover festival.

**NOTES

AFTER THE DISCOURSE**

Matthew 26:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these words he said unto his disciples. Matthew deliberately indicates that the foregoing speech of Jesus is to be considered one continuous discourse, not a collage of bits and pieces taken from heterogeneous sources and now compiled into one fabricated homily. While it is remarkable that Matthew repeatedly used the same formula (kaì egéneto hòte etélesen ho Iesoûs toùs lògous toùtous), on what reasonable basis can any critic deny this excellent writer the right to make use of whatever connectives HE considers appropriate?

Because all these words refers contextually to the great Eschatological Discourse (chaps. 24, 25) and possibly also to the anti-Pharisean sermon (chap. 23), two important ends are achieved:

Because, in Matthew’s outline, no more landmark sermons follow this remark, some deduce that our author speaks of the conclusion of Jesus-’ great public or semi-public discourses. However, the great valedictory speeches at the last Passover supper occur after this. (Cf. John 14-17.) So, Matthew does not add all to imply that Jesus-’ teaching is absolutely completed with no more to say to anyone, but simply that the foregoing lessons on Chapter s 23-25 are the background in which to understand what follows next.

Fully aware of the emotional impact His presentation of His own future glory must make on His yet immature disciples, Jesus must bring them back down to earth. With future glories ringing in their ears, resurrecting old wrong-headed Messianic concepts, they needed to be especially warned once again of His impending suffering, in order to be emotionally ready for what was coming.

2. APPROACH TO DEATH

Matthew 26:2 Ye know that after two days the passover cometh, and the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified. The disciples are reminded of two great facts:

After two days the passover cometh. As Jesus often spoke of time this means in a couple of days or even day after tomorrow, which counts the day on which the predicted event is to occur. (See on Matthew 12:40; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:23; Matthew 20:19 where Mark and Luke’s parallel consistently say on the third day for Matthew’s after three days. Despite what seems to us an imprecision on Jesus-’ part, He is not inaccurate. In fact, Matthew gives circumstantial evidence agreeing with the other Evangelists. John dated the arrival of Jesus at Jerusalem as six days before the passover (John 12:1) i.e. the day before the Messianic Entry (John 12:12). Beginning with the day after their arrival at Bethany, Mark incidentally lists the following five days as they occur:

Day 1, the triumphal entry (John 12:12; Mark 11:11)

Day 2, the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12)

Day 3, the fig tree was noticed as withered (Mark 11:20)

Day 4, at the conclusion of the great day of debates, discussions and discourses, it was not two days before the Passover (Mark 14:1; cf. Matthew 26:2)

Adding these two days, the count tallies with that of John at five, or six including the arrival at Bethany.

Thus, Matthew’s citation harmonizes with that of Mark and John too.

The passover comes on the 14th day of the month Abib or Nisan corresponding to our March-April. (Cf. Exodus 12; Leviticus 23:4 ff.; Deuteronomy 16:1 ff.; see notes on Matthew 26:17 ff.) Since Jesus ate the Passover on Thursday night and was crucified on Friday (Matthew 27:62; cf. John 19:31; Mark 15:42), this prophecy was pronounced late on Tuesday evening, 12 Nisan (Wednesday already begun). So, the two days are from Tuesday evening to Thursday evening.

The Son of man is delivered up to be crucified. His purpose was not simply to glance at the calendar, but to draw some internal connection between the Passover and His own death.

The connection is not that the crucifixion and the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb must strictly coincide at the same hour, since Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples. (See on Matthew 26:17 ff.; cf. Luke 22:15.) That He died on the day following the lamb’s sacrifice changes nothing, since His death occurred on the same day the Passover was eaten, i.e. on 15 Nisan which began at sunset on the 14th with the Passover meal. Rather, this solemn declaration draws a parallel between the two sacrifices as to their meaning and purpose.

The present tense, the Son of man is delivered up (paradidotai), need not refer to Judas-’ plot as already boiling in his heart. Rather, Jesus speaks with such confidence regarding the future fact, that He uses this vivid, realistic present in the place of the future tense. (Cf. Blass-Debrunner, § 323.) His prophetic confidence is not unexpected, because it arises out of God’s set purpose and foreknowledge which handed Jesus over (paradidotai) to wicked men for crucifixion (Acts 2:23). Even here, sinful men must unwittingly cooperate with the eternal purpose of God! Even so, unless God hand Him over to be sacrificed, sinners could not touch Him (Matthew 26:53).

The you know which governs the first clause, introduces also the second: You know not only that the Passover is coming, but also that I have warned you for months that I must die. Now you must connect the two. He had gradually led them to this knowledge by hints (John 2:19 ff; John 3:14; John 6:51; John 10:11; John 10:15; Matthew 9:15; Matthew 10:38; Matthew 12:40; Matthew 21:38), but also openly and unmistakably (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:12; Matthew 17:22 f.; Matthew 20:17 ff.). In this fifth, final prediction recorded in Matthew, there is the repeated certainty that the Romans would be the executioners, since crucifixion was not the usual Jewish method of capital punishment. The new element is the determination that He would die at this Passover.

Whereas His death will be decided by the Sanhedrin and executed by the Romans, Jesus is perfectly aware of what His foes are plotting. Dignified and majestic, He approaches His death with intelligent purpose and mastery, even defining the final hour Himself. The leaders would decide it must occur not during the feast. But it is Jesus who definitely fixed the precise day as during the feast. This point is made clearer in the following section (Matthew 26:3 ff.). What took place on Golgotha that Passover was no freak accident in the vicissitudes of irrelevant history. But the realization of the eternal, predetermined plan of God! (Cf. Psalms 33:10 f; cf. Psalms 2:4; Proverbs 19:21; Ephesians 1:3-14; 1 Peter 1:19 ff.)

Bruce (Training, 289) grasped the high appropriateness of Matthew’s introduction to the Passion history, composed of four elements:

Jesus-’ prediction of His imminent crucifixion (Matthew 26:1 f.).

His enemies-’ consultation on how His elimination must be achieved Matthew 26:3 ff.).

Mary’s anointing His body for burial and further motivation of Judas-’ betrayal (Matthew 26:6-13).

Judas-’ offer to betray Jesus to the authorities (Matthew 26:14 ff.).

In these four segments, Matthew puts together divine certainty, human audacity, deep love and unutterable duplicity. The program of God is pitted against human plotting. Baseness and hatred are contrasted with honest, deeply-felt love. Discipleship, for all its weakness and failure, is supremely treasured by God above all unbelieving scholarship and disenchanted cunning.

FACT QUESTIONS

In what context did Jesus predict His death this time?

What specific teaching had Jesus just completed before making this announcement of His impending death?

On what day of the Hebrew calendar does the Passover occur? Therefore, on what day did Jesus pronounce this prophecy of His suffering?

How often had Jesus predicted His death to His followers before this? On what occasions?

Does the expression, after two days, mean on the third, on the second day or what? Give Bible evidence to support your answer.

What facts indicate that Judas had not already agreed with the authorities to betray Jesus?

Matthew 26:3-5

SECTION 62 JESUS IS PLOTTED AGAINST BY THE RULERS

TEXT: 26:3-5

3 Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people, unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas; 4 and they took counsel together that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him. 5 But they said, Not during the feast, lest a tumult arise among the people.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

The Gospels recount numerous clashes between Jesus and the authorities before this Last Week. What are the immediate causes of this present plotting, those elements which had not been so much factor prior to this Last Week?

Why do you think they assembled in the high priest’s court, rather than in the regular meeting place of the Sanhedrin?

Why do you think they concluded that they must take Jesus by subtlety? Was guile or deceit the stated purpose of this august body of religious leaders?

Why did these, the highest authorities in the nation, fear the people so? Were their fears justified?

Their final conclusion to postpone Jesus-’ assassination until after the feast clashes with Jesus-’ private pronouncement concerning that event. What does this fact reveal about them? about Jesus?

Why do you think Matthew put these two conflicting decisions together here in one context?

If you were the highest religious authority among your people and thought you must deal with a blaspheming, rebellious teacher and false prophet worthy of death, what would you do? Would you brave the wrath of the nation in the name of righteousness in your pursuit of God’s honor, or would you cower and plot, as do these? Are you sure? What does this problem tell you about the leaders? and about yourself?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

The Passover celebration was not only two days away, the feast when the Jews eat bread without any yeast in it. The clergy, the theologians and the judicial rulers of the nation assembled at the residence of the high priest, Caiaphas. There they plotted together, looking for some cunning plan whereby they could ensnare Jesus and dispose of Him. Because they were afraid of the people, they kept saying, Not during the Passover Feast, or the people may riot!

SUMMARY

The same day that Jesus predicted His own death at the Passover, the nation’s rulers assembled to discuss the plan which would make His words reality. Contrary to His prediction, they determined it must not happen during the feast or even publicly.

**NOTES

THE ALLIANCE OF THE DESPERATE**

Matthew 26:3 **Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people, unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas. **Then, i.e. two days before the Passover (Mark 14:1). That Matthew does not mean next in order, after the foregoing prediction, but at the time just alluded to, is easily inferred also from Jesus-’ notice of the time (Matthew 26:2). If so, at about the same time He prophesied that the supreme authorities of Israel would crucify Him during the Passover, they themselves were debating to put off their attempts until after the festivities. This timing is the more psychologically probable, if their fruitless sallies against Jesus and His exposures of their ignorance and hypocrisy occurred this same day, driving this resentful, embittered leadership to regroup to plot strategy.

How many previous consultations had been held to plot the demolition of the Nazarene’s popularity? The opposition that now exploded as an obsession to kill Jesus had begun very early (John 5:16 ff.; Matthew 12:14; John 7:1; John 7:19; John 7:25; John 7:30 ff.; John 8:37; John 8:40; John 8:59; John 10:31 f., John 10:39). But these sporadic, flailing attempts had aborted. The spectacular resurrection of Lazarus right under the nose of the leaders had gained new followers for Jesus (John 11:45). This daring miracle spurred the shaken authorities to instant action to combine forces in a concentrated, cooperative drive to stop the Galilean Prophet (John 11:47-54). Out of that plenary session of the Sanhedrin (sunégagon. sunédrion) came the determination to make Jesus a political scapegoat by death. From then on Jesus became a hunted man (John 11:57). But even so, no one came forward with interesting intelligence data, because Jesus was adroitly avoiding population centers by moving in out-of-the-way places like Ephraim (John 11:54) or travelling in the company of His admirers. This rendered secret capture impossible (Matthew 19:1 f; Matthew 20:29; John 12:19). So, because the prior conciliar decision had not procured the Galilean’s elimination, and because He continued to wound the collective pride of the nation’s leaders (see on Matthew 26:4), a fresh consultation must be held to establish which strategy would lead infallibly to decisive success.

This private conclave is composed of the chief priests, of official clergy, the scribes (Mark 14:1; Luke 22:2) or theologians, and the elders of the people, or national senate of Israel. The chief priests are not only the high priest actually in office as well as those who had been dismissed from office by the political rulers, but also those priests in charge of the Temple administration in its various services. Together, these formed a priestly aristocracy quite distinct from their brethren, the common priests. Despite their political dismissal, these former high priests continued to exercise considerable influence, even if informally. (Consider the implications of Act 4:6; Acts 23:5 in the light of Joh 11:49; John 11:51.) Modern attempts to free the orthodox Pharisees and elders of the people from guilt fail to prove these plotters were only Sadducean priests and their lackeys. (Cf. Flusser, Jesus, 85, 159ff.) The silence of the Gospel Passion narratives in itself proves nothing about Pharisean participation in the Passover plot, because they omit all mention of the Sadducees too. Each group is presented not under its party label, but in the person of those men whose official function as priests or scribes gave them this platform from which to attack Jesus officially. From this consultation on, then, party loyalties no longer count; just the final goal. Hence, the Gospel writers accurately picture Jesus-’ opposition as one united front composed of every section of their national religious and political leadership. (Cf. the apostolic preaching, Acts 3:17; Acts 4:5; Acts 4:8; Acts 4:23; Acts 5:21; Acts 13:27.)

The theory that the godly Pharisees in the Jewish Senate disapproved of the Sadducean priesthood’s political betrayal of Jesus to the Romans cannot be sustained by appeal to the silence of the Synoptics. It is said that the Evangelists could not credibly report the Pharisean protest against the Sadducees without appearing self-contradictory, since they desired to give an anti-Pharisean flavor to their pre-Passion stories (Flusser, Jesus, 85). The better hypothesis is that no concerted protest of the Pharisees ever rose to defend Jesus. What were the Pharisees doing in the arresting party in Gethsemane: protecting Jesus by reading Him His rights to a fair trial and warning him against self-incrimination (John 18:3)?! And, if they were alerted for the arrest, did they abandon their duty during the trials, if in fact they were pro-Jesus? And how explain the strange reappearance of the Pharisees to insure the tomb against imposture, if they had supposedly abandoned the Sanhedrin which brought about a victory for them (Matthew 27:62)?

Granted, not all scribes are Pharisees nor are all Pharisees scribes. (Cf. Mark 2:16.) However, since the Pharisees had been ousted from political power by John Hyrcanus (Ant. XIII, 10, 5-7) and Alexander Jannaeus (ibid., 13, 5), they utilized the scribe’s role as interpreters of the Law to qualify themselves for positions of influence because of their accurate knowledge of tradition and its importance in legal interpretation. As opposed to the priesthood which was virtually, but not totally, closed to Pharisees (cf. Josephus, Life, §39), the Sanhedrin offered opportunities to implement their viewpoints at the highest level, whereinsofar their influence could command a majority of the elders that composed it. (See Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees, Introduction. Cf. note at Matthew 8:19.) Thus, the combination, chief priests and the elders of the people along with the scribes (Mark 14:1; Luke 22:2) combines the units that comprised the Sanhedrin.

Their gathering together into the court of the high priest, rather than in the Sanhedrin’s usually assembly hall (of hewn stone) may have several explanations:

Was this a night meeting at the close of their long day of disastrous debate with Jesus? Perhaps no night meeting of this sort could be held in the Temple.

This closed session emphasizes the selective nature of this assembly, as if the question of the Galilean Prophet could not be suitably handled in an open forum. Would such councilors as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea have been welcome or even informed of this scheming, if suspected of bias toward Jesus? (Cf. John 3:1; John 7:50 ff.; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50 f.)

Perhaps even non-members of the Sanhedrin, whose astuteness could be pressed into service to promote the success of the conspiracy, could more easily be brought into the plot, if held outside the Sanhedrin’s hall.

The court of the high priest (tèn aulèn toû archieréos) is the identical place where Peter denied Jesus, being the courtyard within which the men awaiting the outcome of Jesus trials had built a fire (John 18:15). The courtyard itself is surrounded by the buildings of the palace proper. It would appear from the denial accounts that both Annas, the old patriarch among the chief priests, and Caiaphas, his son-in-law and high priest then in office, lived in different apartments in this same palace complex. (Cf. John 18:13; John 18:24 and notes on Matthew 26:57.)

Because aulè, by extension, seems to refer to the entire palace in some contexts (cf. Mark 15:16 - pretorium; perhaps also Luke 11:21; 1Ma. 11:46), some argue that this insidious plot occurred, not where servants could overhear in an open courtyard, but in some large room of the high priest’s apartment, as if he were a king in his court. (Cf. Arndt-Gingrich, 120f.; Rocci, 302.) Besides the lack of evidence that aulè refers to the house itself (cf. Moulton-Milligan, 92), may it not be assumed that the chief priests, Annas and Caiaphas, would have servants like their masters, of if not, could order them to leave during the deliberations, thus actually insuring their privacy?

So it was to Joseph Caiaphas they came. (Cf. Josephus, Ant. XVIII, 2, 2; Matthew 4:3.) This past master of Roman-Jewish diplomacy succeeded in retaining his office from 18-36 A.D. in an epoch when the high-priesthood was almost a yearly turnover, having become the unfortunate victim of Herodian politics continued by Rome. (Josephus [Ant. XX, 10, 1] counts 28 high-priests in 107 years, an average of 3.8 years for a function that should have been for life!)

2. THE ATROCITY DETERMINED

Matthew 26:4 and they took counsel together that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him. All their sectarian differences and private animosities are sublimated by their shared, intense bitterness that goads them to recognize and destroy their common enemy. What recent events demanded this urgent plotting? Had not Jesus encountered opposition from these same leaders before? Why so brutal and why now?

They were genuinely alarmed at their losses sustained after Jesus raised Lazarus (John 12:10 f., John 12:19).

They were envious of His wide popular acceptance witnessed in His Messianic Entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-11; esp. Luke 19:39 f.; John 12:19).

The priesthood was especially stung by His furious denunciations of their Temple monopoly (Matthew 21:12-17).

They launched futile attacks against Him only to find themselves publicly humiliated, exposed as incompetents and unable to defend themselves against His incisive brilliance and devastating accusations (Matthew 21:23 to Matthew 22:46).

They stood defenseless before His scathing expose of their hypocrisy (Matthew 23:1-39).

Perhaps their greatest, most fundamental motivation is their unwillingness to repent. Rather than turn to Him, they turn on Him. Resentment, not repentance, is their reaction.

This assembly is not gathered to decide what should be done about Jesus, because this is already a foregone conclusion. Rather, their unscrupulous pondering is to determine how (tò pôs, Luke 22:2) He could be eliminated most certainly and quietly. Jesus-’ judicial murder is premeditated.

They determine to act by subtlety (en dòlo). This contrasts with the public police arrest they had attempted earlier without success (John 7:32; John 7:45 ff.). Because subtlety has the flavor of deceit, cunning and treachery, it suggests that the leaders of the nation deliberately abandoned all conscience to seek out unashamedly deceitful means to trap Jesus. But this expression may not at all represent what those rulers thought they were doing. Rather, they were seeking some stratagem, some cunning plan, to arrest Jesus which would not compromise their public image or cripple their authority. From their point of view, they were working on strategy. They probably argued, This must be done discretely. Jesus later exposed their underhandedness to their face (Luke 22:52 f.; John 18:20 ff.).

3. THE ATTACK DELAYED

Matthew 26:5 But they said, Not during the feast, lest a tumult arise among the people. But they said (èlegon dè, better: they kept saying) graphically pictures a nervousness that firmly insisted on postponement. This verb stands out in elegant contrast to Jesus-’ prophecy (Matthew 26:2). All urgency implied in their dedication and determination to destroy the Nazarene, must be subordinated to this prime consideration.

Not during the feast means not during the seven-day festival of Unleavened Bread that began with the Passover proper but continued another week. Originally two separate feasts, these naturally came to be treated as one, since anyone who came for the one must remain for the other. The celebration of national liberation from bondage naturally lent itself to stirring the patriotic spirit and potentially set the stage for nationalistic uprisings. That Jesus was Galilean, believed to be the long-awaited Messiah by those who came from Galilee, the hot-bed of liberationist terrorism, was reason enough for the authorities to conclude to wait another ten days before acting. That the feast involved three days of solemn rest would not have stopped them, only calculating prudence.

Lest a tumult arise among the people. Their determination to postpone all action is based on several considerations:

Their chief danger does not lie with Jesus Himself. Apparently, something in His demeanor convinces them that He would not utilize His miraculous power in self-defense. Otherwise, would they have dared strike out at the unpredictable, awesome supernatural might He could bring to bear?

His unjustified popularity with the crowds constituted their principle preoccupation, because, during a feast attended by thousands of Jews from all over the world (cf. Acts 2:5-11), He would be surrounded by sympathetic Galilean supporters who hailed Him as their Messiah (Luke 21:37 f.). Should the rulers make their move publicly, they risked open insurrection, if not civil war.

Consequently, the Jewish rulers had no doubt that an untimely insurrection would try the patience of the Roman authorities whose decisive reaction would reduce still further the already painfully minimal authority of the Sanhedrin (cf. John 11:48). In this tension we hear the cunning voice of Caiaphas repeatedly cautioning, lest his own careful diplomacy, that walked a long political tight-rope between Jewish loyalties and cooperation with Rome which gave him his high-priesthood, be wrecked by avoidable civil disorder and rioting.

The only factor that was not a consideration for their postponement was the high holiness of the feast. Had they thought that they could murder an innocent Man during the feast, nothing would have hindered them from so desecrating it, if they could but achieve their unholy purpose. They only fear that an insurgent, enraged populace would impede the plot. These rulers knew their people and had good reason for caution, because of all the tumults and seditious precedents they could have cited. (Cf. Josephus, Ant. XX, 5, 3 = Wars II, 12, 1.4; the Passover tragedy under Archelaus, Ant. XVIII, 9, 3; 10, 2.9.)

But this careful deliberation was to come to nothing because of the unsuspected presence of a traitor in Jesus-’ own following. Rather than follow their own carefully chosen counsel of caution, their burning desire for vengeance overpowered their reason. The stupidity of Satan defeated him: too quickly he moved his pawn, Judas, into conjunction with the religious and political hierarchy, forcing him to sacrifice caution for temporary advantage and risk long-term failure. Notwithstanding Caiaphas-’ worries and the council’s precautions, they were all forced to deal with Jesus publicly at the feast. These high councilors are an integral part of a higher plan of which they have no knowledge. Earlier, when they wanted to capture Jesus, He could not be touched. Now when they are unwilling to do it, because of personal considerations, He decided it against their willand won. Further, despite the fact that they were forced to kill Jesus during the Passover, no one rioted. Literally everyone miscalculated Jesus-’ voluntary submission to death. This gauged just how seriously so many misunderstood the will of God, and how truly Jesus comprehended and obeyed it.

FACT QUESTIONS

On what day did the authorities assemble to plot Jesus-’ judicial murder?

Explain the various names used for the Jewish national feast: why do Mark and Luke call it the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread?

Is this plotting by the authorities the first of its kind, or had they done this before? If so, when?

List the Jewish national leaders that formed this consultation against Jesus. Explain the historic political or religious position of each group, showing their party’s interest in silencing Jesus.

Where did this meeting occur? Who presided over the meeting?

Explain the authorities-’ fear of an uproar if Jesus were to be arrested during the feast.

Matthew 26:6-13

SECTION 63 JESUS IS ANOINTED BY MARY OF BETHANY

(Parallels: Mark 14:3-9; John 11:55 to John 12:8)

TEXT: 26:6-13

6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7 there came unto him a woman having an alabaster cruse of exceeding precious ointment, and she poured it upon his head, as he sat at meat. 8 But when the disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? 9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. 10 But Jesus perceiving it said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. 11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. 12 For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

If Simon is really a leper, a ceremonially unclean outcast from Jewish society, how could it also be true that he possessed this house in Bethany, in which these guests are free to visit? If he were no longer a leper, why call him that?

If the anointing of Jesus by Mary of Bethany occurred several days earlier, before the Messianic Entry (John 12:1; John 12:12) why then does Matthew delay recounting the event until now? Did he not know when it took place? Or does he have some other reason for registering these facts now out of their normal chronological order?

If you assume that Matthew correctly placed this section here for good and appropriate reasons, what is the relationship between it and this new context in which he inserts it?

How did Mary manage to anoint Jesus-’ head and feet, if He was eating at a table?

How would you feel, if a good friend of yours came up to you at a dinner party and poured an Matthew 11:5 ounce bottle of strong perfume on your head and feet? What would others say? How should you treat this person? What of your dignity? How do you think Jesus answered these questions?

Why do you think Mary chose such expensive ointment for this use?

Why do you think the disciples were so indignant as to considering the anointing of Jesus a waste? What does this reveal about them? Even though John pictures Judas as instigating these complaints because he was greedy (John 12:6), how do you account for the other disciples-’ joining in to reproach Mary? Do you think their principle could ever be justified?

Jesus said, You always have the poor with you. Is He saying, There shall always be the haves and the have-nots? Does He resign Himself to this reality? Then, should we do nothing about the poor?

Do you think Judas would really have used the money from the sale of the perfume in the way he indicated it should? What makes you think so?

If, as Jesus affirmed, Mary anointed His body beforehand for burying, would not the perfume get a bit old, before the crucifixion actually took place? If six days were to pass before the burial, then how could her anointing Him for burial have anything to do with it?

What is there about Mary’s act that makes it so significant that one can hardly preach the Gospel without mentioning her memorial/ memorable deed? Why did Jesus approve of her act so heartily.

Do you think Mary anointed Jesus for the motive He attributed to her, i.e. specifically to prepare [Him] for burial? How could she have known about His approaching death and decide to anoint His body? And how could He know her real reason, without her announcing it publicly? m.

How is the example of Mary supposed to teach us practically? Are we to go around anointing others? Is her noble deed merely a source of joy to us or are we to be strangely warmed by her love for Jesus, and love Him because she did, or what?

How has Jesus-’ prophecy about Mary’s memorial been fulfilled? Are you personally helping to fulfill His prediction? If so, how? If not, why not?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Earlier, six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, the town where Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead, lived. While there, they gave a dinner in His honor in the house of a man known as Simon the leper. Martha waited at the table and Lazarus was one of those at the table with Jesus. As He was reclining at the table, Mary approached Him with a third-liter (about 12 oz.) alabaster flask of very expensive fragrant oil made of genuine nard. She broke open the jar and began pouring it over Jesus-’ head and anointing His feet. Then she wiped His feet with her hair. The fragrance of the perfume filled the house. But there were some disciples, among whom Judas Iscariot (the one who was to betray Him), who, when they saw it, were indignant and grumbled to one another, Why was this perfume wasted this way? Why, this ointment could have been sold for a fortunemore than a year’s wages,and donated to the poor! and they sternly rebuked her, (Judas said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. Since he had charge of the common purse, he had the habit of pilfering the money put into it.) But Jesus, noticing this, said to them, You all let her alone! Why are you embarrassing the lady? For she has done a -good work-’ to me. Judas, you let her observe it, anticipating the day of my burial. In fact, you will always have the poor people among you, and you can help them any time you want to. But I will not always be around for you to help. She has done what was in her power to do. By pouring this ointment on my body, she has anointed my body ahead of time for its burial. I can assure that what she has done will also be recounted in memory of her wherever in the whole world this Good News is preached!

SUMMARY

In a historical flashback the Gospel traces elements that not unlikely helped to crystallize Judas-’ decision to betray Jesus: Jesus did not permit anyone to criticize Mary’s anointing as something less than perfectly appropriate under the circumstances. Further, Jesus continued what Judas must have considered to be negative talk about His own death in the not-too-distant future. Not only did Jesus praise Mary and her manifest faith in His testimony to His death and rebuke Judas in the process, but He promised her deed eternal fame as widespread as the Gospel proclamation.

NOTES THE SETTING

Matthew 26:6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper. Neither Matthew nor Mark affirm exactly when the Lord was in Bethany. Rather, each introduces this episode with a circumstantial principle that derives its temporal value from its connection with the main verb of the sentence, a woman came up. Only John furnishes the precise chronological data: Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany (John 12:1). Therefore, whereas Matthew and Mark had been discussing events two days before the Passover (Matthew 26:3; Mark 14:1), we conclude that they inserted the anointing in Bethany out of its normal chronological order so as to achieve an extraordinary, logicalor should we say, psychological?connection between the anointing and its consequences. This procedure cannot be charged with contradiction, because neither writer asserts that this event occurred in any time sequence other than that indicated by John. (In fact, even John utilized this same technique in reverse with reference to the same events. [See John 11:2; John 12:1 ff.]) If the Passover came on Thursday night that year (see on Matthew 26:17; cf. John 19:14; John 19:31; Mark 15:42), then six days before the Passover, dates the anointing in Bethany one evening before the Triumphal Entry. (See Hendriksen, John, II, 171ff. for fuller discussion of the date.)

So, what could have motivated Matthew and Mark to edit their material by inserting this event out of strict chronological order? In the loving anointing by Mary what is the connection they saw which qualifies this section’s place appropriately between Jesus-’ prediction of His death (Matthew 26:2) and the Sanhedrin’s plotting (Matthew 26:3 ff.) on the one hand, and Judas-’ pact with the rulers (Matthew 26:14 ff.) on the other?

Their reason cannot be solely the venom rankling in the breast of Judas that drove him to betray Jesus, if the rebuke he received during the anointing be thought to be the only cause. In fact, neither Matthew nor Mark make this connection. They do not even mention the traitor by name. Only by reading John do we learn that it was Judas who led the complaining and something about his motives. But not even John draws the conclusion that Judas left the supper more decided than ever to betray the Lord. This is simply a conclusion based on a comparison of the three Gospels, none of which verifies our suspicion, even if they do not contradict it.

What took place at Bethany that night may have triggered the betrayal scheme already maturing in Judas-’ mind. Perhaps Jesus-’ rebuke is less a factor than His frank talk of His burial. This defeatism finally convinced the greedy Judas that his dreams of political power and personal wealth were finished, unless some urgent solution were found. In harmony with their own understanding of Jesus-’ betrayal and its causes, Matthew and Mark rightly connect Judas-’ determination with what occurred at this supper, for, say they, Iscariot walked away from this event determined to go to the priests (Matthew 26:14).

Matthew sketches a magnificent contrast between what two of Jesus-’ disciples did about the predictions of His coming death (Matthew 26:2; Mark omits this detail.).

Mary believed Him and anointed Him while she could (Matthew 26:6-13).

Judas believed Him serious about His dark future, and so decided to make his own position as disciple bring him money one way or another by betrayal (Matthew 26:14-16).

(1)

If Jesus defended Himself by miraculous power against the crisis that forced Him to declare His Kingdom, honor His loyal supporters, in the end He would enrich Judas.

(2)

Or, if Jesus chose to die, in which case the hoped-for declaration of the Kingdom must forever die with Him, Judas would have at least the betrayal payment for his trouble.

This contrast is between real belief among quite opposite types of disciple, and how their distinctive moral differences caused each to react. Matthew’s reader is gently led to reflect on the question: what do I personally think about Jesus of Nazareth?

Matthew and Mark create, thus, a stark contrast between Mary’s open-hearted love and the burning hatred and base plotting of the priests and Judas.

Simon the leper: nothing more is known of him beyond this supper given Jesus in his house. Because of so many Simons in Israelthere were even two more Simons at this table: Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot!he was distinguished by his former disease, rather than by occupation (Simon the tanner Acts 10:6), by his skin complexion (Acts 13:1, Symeon Niger is Simon Black), by his father’s name (Simon Bar-jonah Matthew 16:17) or by his politics (Simon the Zealot Acts 1:13). To call him Simon the leper reveals an insider’s view of small-town life in first-century Palestine that a more formal identification of the man could not have achieved. Had Simon the leper been healed by Jesus? If so, his name is the unembarrassing living memorial to God’s grace to him. Of course, he may have been deceased, his spacious house being now borrowed for this meal.

It is striking that John omits all mention of Simon the leper, directing all attention to Mary, Martha and Lazarus, whereas Matthew and Mark do not consider their names essential to the story. One tentative hypothesis is that, because of the more commodious size of Simon’s house, the banquet was set there, rather than in that of Lazarus. Naming Lazarus was important for John, since he intended to indicate Jesus-’ greater interest for the festal crowds as well as document how Lazarus-’ resurrection fired Jesus-’ enemies-’ animosity (John 12:9-11).

This incident must not be confused with the anointing of Jesus by a sinful woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50). While both episodes are comprised of three identical elements, (1) the anointing by a woman at a meal in the house of a Simon, (2) the criticism of the woman by someone present, and (3) Jesus-’ defense of the woman, based on reading someone’s thoughts, these incidents are not identical. (Cf. Foster, The Final Week, 25ff.) These motives conclusively distinguish them:

Luke’s anointing occurred much earlier in Galilee during Jesus-’ ministry there; this anointing took place in Judea a few days before His death.

The Galilean Pharisee is a rude, ill-bred host, lacking the refinement to offer the usual amenities for his Guest’s comfort, whereas everything at this supper sings of love for Jesus.

In Galilee the host launched no verbal attack, but merely judged the woman mentally, whereas Judas led other disciples in a verbalized criticism.

The bases of criticism varied: there, the propriety of Jesus-’ permitting a woman to touch Him; here, the propriety of a questionable use of needed funds.

In Galilee Jesus admonished the host; here, His disciples.

While the basic motive of both anointings is love, the Galilean woman did it in gratitude for forgiveness, but here Jesus underlines Mary’s faith in His revelations: for my burial.

In the Galilean anointing, the sins of the woman are made prominent and forgiven, but here Mary’s character is only praised for its loving thoughtfulness and her grasp of Jesus-’ teaching, and made a universal example.

1. THE GENEROUS GIVING TO THE GODLY GUEST SPLENDID SELF-FORGETFULNESS

Matthew 26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster cruse of exceeding precious ointment, and she poured it upon his head, as he sat at meat. Jesus revealed the Father to us as much by His table conversation as by His monumental mountain-top sermons. Many of the most profound things He ever taught were said while He was eating with others. (Cf. John 2:1-11; Matthew 9:9-13; Luke 7:36-50; Luke 14:1-24; Matthew 26:20-29; John 13-17; John 21:12-23; Acts 1:4-8: while He was eating with them.)

There came unto him a woman. But that this woman remained unidentified throughout the narrative of Matthew and Mark may indicate that the main point of this episode is not her friendship to Jesus which would express itself in a lavish love appropriate to this person, but the high importance of her purpose and the faith that prompted it. (See on Matthew 26:12.) That our author suppresses her name may also point to the early date of his writing:

To publish her name while she was still alive would expose this inhabitant of Bethany of Judah to the vindictiveness of those Jerusalem Jews who sought to repress the wildly spreading defections from Judaism to the movement of the Crucified One. John, writing after 70 A.D. could reveal her identity, because her enemies were defeated or dead.

Perhaps Matthew omits her name so as not to embarrass her, protecting her own modesty. Perhaps she was dead when John wrote, so naming her would cause no trouble to her.

The elegantly shaped alabaster cruse Mary brought was carved out of a translucent, usually whitish, fine-grained variety of gypsum stone. The use of such a vessel also points to its value, being the usual type of container for expensive aromatic oils (Pliny, Natural History, 13.3; 36.12; Herodotus 3.20.1). John (John 12:3) noted that this precious vase held one lìtra or 327.5 grams (about Matthew 11:5 oz.) of the costly essence. That Matthew called it exceeding precious ointment points to princely oriental luxury, a view externalized by the disciples-’ complaint.

Having an alabaser cruse does not mean she originally purchased this as one of several flasks of ointment to prepare her brother, Lazarus, for burial (John 11:17; John 11:39). This supposition arises out of the disciples-’ complaint that, while the bottle retained its commercial value, she should have sold her possession. But its being merely a left-over contrasts with the spirit of initiative and creative preparation evident in her deed, and raises the question why it was not used on Lazarus originally. Did the sisters buy too much? It is simpler to admit that she simply spent the money for Jesus. Godet (John, II, 206f.) argues that Jesus-’ observations to the Pharisee in Galilee (Luke 7:44 ff.) imply that the anointing of one’s guest’s head and washing his feet were common services before a meal, and the omission of these amenities constituted a rude oversight. (Cf. Genesis 18:4; Judges 19:21; 1 Samuel 25:41; Psalms 23:5; Psalms 92:10; Psalms 45:7? Psalms 141:5; John 13:5; 1 Timothy 5:10.) Hence, no one present would look askance as she began her task.

She poured it upon his head as he sat at meat. How harmonize this with John’s affirmation that she anointed His feet (John 12:3)? Her doing both would not be difficult, if the guests were lying Roman-style on couches that radiate out from the central table. She simply approached Him, walking between the couches. Next she broke off the top (seal?) of the new long-necked vase to pour out its contents rapidly (Mark 14:3). Her original purpose was undoubtedly to anoint Jesus-’ head in the ordinary way. But observing that His feet were rough and travel-worn, she gladly poured the same perfume on them too as if her priceless essence were common water. To remove the excess, she used the only towel she had brought, her own hair. Since she came only to anoint His head, presumably she would have needed no towel. That it was against good breeding for a woman to present herself among men with her hair dishevelled does not testify against Mary’s morals or argue for identification with the sinful woman of Luk 7:36 ff.

Mary’s hair may have been neatly bound up when she came in. Then, her need to dry Jesus-’ feet may have caused her to waive a minor scruple and undo her hair to meet the unforeseen need. It is perfectly in character with her carefully planned love offering to be only too glad to do this.

Her humility and irrepressible self-giving know no limit as she renders homage even to the least favored part of His body, drying His feet with her hair, her crown and glory. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:15.) The generosity with which she poured so much perfume on His feet testified that no sacrifice was too costly. That she wiped them with her hair proved that no service was too demeaning for her. Any disciple worthy of the name must see that true adoration demands that we lay our honor at Jesus-’ feet in precisely the same way. Lenski (John, 840) preached: The proper place for a disciple’s head is at the Savior’s feet. If John the Baptist considered himself unworthy to unloosen the sandals from Jesus-’ feet, why should not Mary react in a similar way?

2. THE GRACELESS GRUMBLING AT THE GOODNESS OF HER GIFT

Matthew 26:8 But when the disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? They not only saw it; they also smelled the concentrated perfume, for the house was filled with fragrance (John 12:3)! Among Mary’s critics, the voice of Judas is raised against the useless waste (apòleia, destruction, loss). But were it Matthew’s exclusive purpose to insert this episode in this place to indicate one of Judas-’ motives for betraying Jesus, then why did not Matthew at least name Judas in his account? Why does he inculpate his fellow disciples, when, according to John, Judas was the main agitator?

Here is important evidence of independent eye-witness. John, from his own vantage point at the table, noticed that Judas instigated these remarks, whereas Matthew and Peter (Mark) remembered that others added their assent. While both versions are correct, complementing each other, their own independent testimony is confirmed even by this problem.

Two important considerations justify Matthew’s procedure:

The disciples meekly followed Judas-’ lead. Perhaps because he had shown the courage to speak frankly despite the festive occasion, he did it directly in Jesus-’ presence, apparently arguing from right-minded principles. Our author does not name Judas, because his point may be that even other disciples are blindly led into this mistaken criticism. So their shamefully unthinking reaction is at least as noteworthy as naming the perpetrator.

The disciples did not follow Jesus-’ lead! This rash, uncharitable criticism was expressed in the presence of Jesus who could have pronounced far more competent judgment in the case and corrected any misdeed in Mary’s conduct with the infallible certainty of divine judgment. His acquiescence in itself should have been justification enough for them not to join Judas-’ attack.

Judas-’ grumbling had enough truth and logic in it to convince and enflame deep emotion in the other disciples, moving them to indignation at this apparently inexcusable waste. Their attitude was a groan (embrimàomai), arising out of their displeasure (Mark 14:5). Is it not worthy of note when the godly are shaken from their stedfastness by a rogue disciple masquerading as a defender of the weak?

But the disciples who lamented the extravagance must be distinguished as two groups whose motives differed as to sincerity, even if both could make use of the same argument:

Judas-’ anger, says John (John 12:6), was driven by his greed. His rage is not faked, because he was really mad about losing money. Only his public reason is hypocritical. He felt personally cheated by her senseless throwing away good money that could have passed into his own grasp.

The indignation of the others, however, was motivated by their sense of stewardship, perhaps also by their own forced frugality over the last years of traveling with Jesus. (Cf. Matthew 8:19; John 6:12.) Those who have learned to control their own spending, often cannot tolerate to see others practice what the former consider extravagance, even for the most justifiable reasons.

To what purpose is this waste? In Mary’s deed they could discern only a lavish expenditure typical of conscienceless prodigality, quite uncharacteristic of godly people responsible for every penny God entrusts to them. But is whatever anyone spends for JESUS really squandered or lost? Great faith, judged by the external manifestations it motivates, may seem a waste, something extra or calculable only in terms of loss. But in terms of true stewardship, the objecting of Judas, and others like him, is exposed for the diabolical hypocrisy it was: he considered 300 denarii too much to spend for Jesus-’ luxury, but was willing to accept just under half that amount for Jesus-’ life (30 pieces of silver equals 120 denarii!)

Charity: the plausible argument of a short-sighted utilitarianism

Matthew 26:9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. The disciples could quickly estimate the commercial value of the perfume on the following bases: The size of the container was a Roman pound (Matthew 26:7). The container was alabaster, not ceramic. The aroma was identified to be that of an exquisite, oil-base perfume, nard perhaps? Its aroma filled the house, indicating its strength (John 12:3). The rapid mental calculation of the group’s business-minded treasurer, Judas, settled the price at 300 denarii (Mark 14:5; John 12:5). Figured at a denarius a day, a common day-laborer would have to work almost a year to earn wages enough just to pay for this perfume! So, is not her expensive perfume unquestionably an unjustifiable luxury in contrast to the crying needs of the poor who have no daily bread?!

The value of this perfume may not indicate anything about the affluence or prominence of Lazarus-’ family, because it could be Mary’s personal sacrifice of her personal funds or life-time savings. By whatever method she earned it, she would have had to save 20 denarii a year for 15 working years to amass this sum by herself, Even if she were independently wealthy, this was still a large sum for her to pour out in one gift.

This ointment. sold. given to the poor. Judas marshalled the other disciples to criticize what they could not stop. By implication these disciples treat Mary as if she never felt any compassion for the poor. Were not the entire apostolic group and Jesus dependent on others-’ generosity sufficiently to qualify as poor (Matthew 8:20; Matthew 27:55 f.; Luke 8:2 f.)? Had her family never hosted these very men, meeting their needs? While they were accustomed to practical hospitality, they were shocked by her impractical extravagance. Nevertheless, as they took up Judas-’ insincere position, the disciples-’ understanding of the problem involves alternatives that are not mutually exclusive: either love the poor or anoint Jesus. As Jesus will imply in His answer, one can legitimately dedicate himself to His worship as well as labor sacrificially for the liberation of the needy.

John, however, redimensioned Judas-’ slashing remark: He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief (John 12:6). As treasurer of the Lord’s group, he received all contributions and was responsible for disbursing cash for purchases and gifts to the poor. (Cf. John 13:28 ff.) But he pilfered funds held in trust. Is Farrar (Life, 496) correct to conclude that Judas formed this argument to blind himself to the baseness of his ruling passion? While certainly a hypocritical pretext, did he present himself as a champion of the poor to conceal even from himself the glaring wrongness of his greed? Lenski (Matthew, 1008) eloquently sketched the treacherousness of Judas-’ insinuations:

He condemns not only Mary but Jesus himself. Judas implies that Jesus is robbing the poor; that he is lavishing upon himself what rightfully belongs to charity; that for his own glorification he allows a waste that is utterly wrong; that his example is harmful to others; and that Judas is the man who knows what is right, proper, charitable, and is not afraid to mention it!

This was the sort of leadership the unthinking disciples were following! Even if they were moved by sincere concern for the poor and intended to pass judgment only on Mary, they unwittingly swung behind an attack on the Lord Himself!

3. HIS GALLANT GRATITUDE FOR HER GLADDENING GRAGIOUSNESS

Matthew 26:10 But Jesus perceiving it said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. Because Judas-’ sweeping innuendo implicates Jesus too, the Lord cannot defend Himself without appearing to condone wastefulness by accepting it. But to the surprise of everybody, He brilliantly defended Mary, while fairly weighing the truth of the disciples-’ position and in full awareness of the poor people all about Him.

Why trouble ye the woman, as if what she has done could somehow be defined sinful? Embarrassed and stunned, Mary alone could not convincingly turn back the accusation of wastefulness. Jesus proceeds to show that she has wrought a good work upon me. Several reasons may have prompted this approach:

IT WAS USEFUL SERVICE TO THE POOR. The Lord gently reveals the disciples-’ gross misconception by explaining that she was using what was in her power to do a good work upon me. Jesus, the poor ex-carpenter from Nazareth, was now without permanent housing and living on the very contributions of which Judas was the common treasurer. (Cf. Luke 8:12.) Edersheim (Life, II, 360) remarked compellingly:

That He, Who was ever of the poor and with them, Who for our sakes became poor, that through His poverty we might be made rich, should have to plead for a last service of love to Himself, and for Mary, and as against a Judas, seems, indeed, the depth of self-abasement.

Hence He himself was one of the very poor to whom those of greater means should do good. This, says Jesus, she has done, fulfilling the very principle defended by the disciples. Because her purpose was to prepare His body for burial (Matthew 26:12), then her goal and purpose must be judged useful, because specifically related to the exigencies of burial and its relative costs. For the actual burial Nicodemus brought 100 times the weight of Mary’s perfume (John 19:39). The women procured and brought even more spices (Luke 23:55 f.; Mark 16:1). Thus, her supposed extravagance did not literally transcend the boundaries of strict economy or thrift, because burial costs were really that great. Could the disciples consistently criticize as bad stewardship what someone paid for a loved one’s embalming, when they themselves would have expressed their love and loyalty to Him in a similar way? So, why should they condemn as useless waste her anticipation of Jesus-’ approaching burial? Because they simply did not believe it would ever happen. This single critical element of unbelief distinguishes the depth of her discipleship from theirs.

IT WAS UNSELFISH. In order to honor this poor Man, she had chosen to do without many luxuries which the money for this perfume would have purchased. Her deed was not merely a good work (érgon agathòn) in the classical Pharisean ethic, but a higher, noble deed (érgon kaiòn).

Lavishness is the proper expression of devotion and gratitude. No loving expenditure, however seemingly costly, is censured by our Lord, when it is motivated by unadulterated love for Him. True love does not calculate how little it can get by with, but wants to pour out its resources to the limit. How can we consider ourselves lovers of God and Christ, so long as we consider it perfectly respectable to donate to His cause the minimum amount possible before appearing miserly?

The true worth of a gift must be evaluated by its motivation hidden in the soul of the giver. As in Mary’s case, only Jesus can discern this with unfailing precision. Ironically, Judas-’ avarice passed for prudent concern for the needy, while Mary’s generous devotion was judged wasteful. We cannot now anoint His physical body, but we can pour out generous love on His Body, the Church, and care for His poor brethren (Matthew 25:35 ff.; Galatians 6:10).

IT WAS DEVOTION TO CHRIST. She knew that Jesus was no mere poor, itinerate rabbi, but the Christ of God! Can what is done for such a Person out of devotion to God ever be anything but good work?

IT WAS THE INTELLIGENT EXPRESSION OF A FAITH THAT PLANNED. (See on Matthew 26:12.) Prudence and common sense are also God’s gifts to us, lest we neglect other duties to Him and His people by an extravagance at one point that impoverishes others whom we are called to serve. While Mary’s tender lavishness strikes a responsive chord in our hearts, it must not justify thoughtless excesses on our part that do not show the same intelligent foresight and planning she did. In fact, Jesus praised her intelligent faith in His predictions of His death and her determination to do what was in her power to act on them. It is a serious misreading of His words to see her gift as prompted by an unseeing emotion that reacted unthinkingly on this impulse alone.

THE DECISION WAS RIGHTLY HERS ALONE. Mary’s was the privilege to dispose of her own property as she deemed right and proper under God, without answering to men. The disciples-’ criticism implied their right of judgment, as if the property were theirs to use in ways they deemed more practical and prudent. But Jesus does not back down, require Mary to undo her deed, or apologize. Rather, He defended her freedom to dispose of her own property in a manner consonant with her discipleship. By pointing to an appropriateness they had not seen heretofore, He informed their ignorance and defended her liberty.

Jesus-’ treatment of the disciples-’ scruple becomes a masterful demonstration of how to deal with opinions today. (Cf. Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:7; 1 Corinthians 6-10.) Although they cited an unexceptionable Scriptural principle, neighborly love for the poor, they applied it in such a way as to contravene another principle, the right of private property (Acts 5:4; implied in Deuteronomy 23:23). Further, the disciples had argued against her apparent violation of the rule of utility or expedience. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 10:23 f.)

Therefore, the dichotomy between the useful and the beautiful can be a false dilemma, because a deed of loving adoration like Mary’s can be both. How should we apply His dictum? Is extravagance ever right? The lavishness of Christian love is sanctioned not only by Jesus-’ express approval of Mary’s generosity, but also by His own marvelous example, the fact to which her act pointed, for my burial. Consider His own deliberate waste of love which He was about to pour out on Calvary:

He considered His death absolutely useful, directed to a practical end, but, at the same time, it was the expression of a love that must act lest its heart burst.

Similarly, there is extravagance in lavishing His love on us through His death, because not everyone for whom He died would even appreciate it. He gave a sacrifice sufficient to save the race, fully knowing that few would accept it. His gift is extravagant because none of us could ever deserve it. What others might term wasteful, in our gratitude we call magnificence.

We may confidently transcend the considerations of our usual produce:

By spending lavishly, even emotionally, on Jesus, completely overwhelmed by the lordly generosity of His love.

This means unstinting, unselfish liberality to others. By freely squandering our love on the unthankful, the undeserving and the unlovable, we imitate Jesus Himself.

The kind of self-sacrificing liberality here promoted is that unsparing big-heartedness that gives, even sometimes going beyond what could be considered strictly necessary, and a prodigality that almost demands that it be restrained by those responsible to organize it. (Cf. Exodus 35:4 f; Exodus 36:3-7; Acts 4:32-37; 2 Corinthians 8:1-4; Philippians 4:10.)

TO EVERY DUTY ITS TIME AND PLACE

Matthew 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. Granted, this is addressed to the objecting disciples, but is there an allusion to the specific duty of the thieving Judas, who, as treasurer of the common fund, must disburse funds to the poor, but robbed them himself? Jesus-’ statement implies, You can help them any time you want (Mark 14:7). That Mary has given so generously to me now does not mean she cannot be kind also to the poor on other occasions. Particularly lavish generosity to special friends once in awhile and a consistent, thoughtful meeting of the needs of the poor are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

You have the poor always with you. How carefully and deliberately He avoids rejecting the disciples-’ principle. Rather, He supports them in believing it! His own deeply felt concern for both the spiritual and physical needs of the poor was above question. He had expressed it in formal lessons and in His own practice (Matthew 5:7; Matthew 5:42; Matthew 6:2 ff.; Matthew 19:21; Luke 6:20 f., Luke 6:30; Luke 6:38; Luke 21:1-4; John 13:29). It was a fundamental theme of His whole ministry (Luke 4:18; Matthew 11:5). His doctrine embodied all that God had said about His own love for the poor (Deuteronomy 15:11 in context! Psalms 41:1; Proverbs 14:20 f., Proverbs 14:31; Proverbs 19:17; Proverbs 29:7; Isaiah 58:1-7; Jeremiah 22:16; Daniel 4:27; Amos 2:6 f; Amos 4:1; Amos 5:11; Amos 8:4; Amos 8:6). Jesus-’ attitude encouraged people to believe that God is keenly interested in those who watch over the poor (Matthew 25:34-40). His later New Testament doctrine is no less explicit (Acts 2:44 f; Acts 4:32 f; Acts 11:27-30; Romans 12:8; Romans 12:13; Romans 12:16; Romans 12:20; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 2:10; Galatians 6:2; Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 4:28; 1 Timothy 6:18; Hebrews 6:10; Hebrews 13:1 ff.; James 1:27; James 2:5; James 2:15 f.; James 5:1 ff.; 1 John 3:17 f.; 3 John 1:5-8). His identification with the poor and concern for them should forever dispel any suspicion of neglect on His part.

Nonetheless, Jesus is an intensely practical realist, fully aware of all human differences that contribute to one’s ability to obtain and retain wealth. He is no visionary that dreams of the day when every trace of poverty should be wiped from the earth. He is not guilty of that oversimplification that preaches a communistic economic equality. He knows that all men are not equal. He is perfectly aware of the inequalities of position and opportunity, the fluctuations of health, the many variables in intelligence, ability and personal aggressiveness. So, because He comprehended that these inequalities are often immutable ingredients of the human condition, with these words He committed the care of the poor to His own people. He knew by experience the happiness poor people feel from receiving needed help (Luke 8:1-3), and the even more special joy of Christians who share it in His name (Acts 20:35).

It has always been the spiritual descendants, not of Judas, but of Mary, who have truly cared for the poor. Where Jesus Christ is lovingly adored, truly believed and obeyed, the poor are best cared for. Really, nothing poured out in honor of Jesus can ever be called a waste. In fact, in a general sense, everything that truly promotes the progress of His Kingdom according to His criteria brings with it a deeper concern for the poor, a more practical interest in the Third-World peoples, a broader grasp of our common, interrelated human brotherhood. It is against this background that one can understand Jesus-’ tenderly sad observation. But me ye have not always (cf. Matthew 9:15). While normally appropriate to avoid luxury for self so as to be able to assist the poor, Jesus pleads the extraordinariness of the present circumstances as justification for Mary’s seeming wastefulness. Death makes extraordinary demands that set aside common everyday rules. The moment of His own death was fast approaching. If anyone were to prepare His body for burial while He was still able to appreciate the beauty and nobleness of such love, the time was now or never. Me you have not always: how completely understated! These disciples had only a few days left to show their devotion to Jesus before this privilege would be gone forever. But they were blinded, precisely because they sincerely, however, wrongly believed they would have Him always. Unique opportunities to do good pass away, and must be taken when the situation presents itself, when the impulse, the time, the people and the circumstances are ours. The moment must be seized, lest that chance of a lifetime be mistaken for something that could be done anytime, and be forever and tragically lost. In fact, Mary’s was the only anointing Jesus received. The other women brought their anointing spices to an empty tomb. The time to do this while Jesus could appreciate it came and went.

4. THE GLORY OF A GENUINE GRASP OF THE GIST OF THE GOSPEL

Matthew 26:12 For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Normally, for burial a great quantity of spices and ointments would be needed (2 Chronicles 16:14; John 19:39; Luke 23:56; Mark 16:1). Nicodemus alone brought 100 Roman pounds worth (= 32.74 kg or 71.9 lb.). Although Mary had literally anointed only Jesus-’ head and feet, He accepted her intention as if she had anointed His entire body.

The fact that Mary did not announce the motive behind her act has been interpreted by some as if she could not have intended such a solemn purpose. Consequently, skeptics assert either than Jesus gratuitously attributed this (false) motive to her, or else the Evangelists simply invented this pious, but false, attribution. How strangely inconsistent or wilfully blind are those critics who are so ready to confuse the anointing in Luke 7:36-50 with Mary’s act as two contradictory accounts of the same event, but do not see that Jesus could discern Mary’s true purpose just as clearly as He read the heart of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:39 f.)!

Others, to avoid this irreverence, suggest alternate explanations:

Jesus spoke only of the effect of the woman’s act, not her conscious purpose.. She meant nothing but to show her love (Bruce, Expositor’s Greek Testament, 309). This explanation is plausible, since the Semitic idiom often ignores Greek nuances and substitutes purpose for result. (Cf. Blass-Debrunner, §391, 402(5); also Arndt-Gingrich, 378.)

Is it possible that Jesus magnanimously attributed to her a motive she did not dream, but would have embraced, had she thought of it? Is it not true that a goodly amount of our service given out of pure devotion to Christ possesses a value that goes beyond our comprehension?

Only clear testimony of Scripture can prove that Mary did not understand nor consciously intend her deed as Jesus declares it. Argument alone is incapable of establishing the contrary. Only her embarrassed demurring could do this. But the Gospel is silent, leaving only Jesus-’ unequivocal testimony standing. Apparently, Jesus simply read her thoughts, stated them and that settles it.

MARY BELIEVES ME!

In Mary the Lord has found at least one disciple who really understood Him. She had willingly let Him be the Teacher to say whatever He wanted to, even if it contradicted popular philosophy and traditions and even defied her own logic, desires and emotions. In short, her discipleship is real and profound. She believes unquestioningly that Jesus really means what He has been saying all along about His impending death. She could grasp the unmistakable conclusion that Jesus-’ predictions must mean that He would not defend Himself by supernatural means. So she perceived that He is going straight to the cross and that, when His bitter archenemies had Him under their power, she might never be able to approach to prepare His body properly for entombment. Therefore, she planned ahead (she took beforehand, Mark 14:8 proélabon murisai means that she used foresight. Prematureness has nothing to do with it.) She bought the perfume and kept it for the day of my burial (John 12:7). Now, therefore, seeing the opportunity she ardently desired would come, she made her move decisively. No wonder Jesus thinks her noble act worthy of a Gospel memorial!

Mary, the model of faith that comes by hearing the word of Christ

Matthew 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. This is the only occasion Jesus ever raised a monument to any specific human being. But it is not an eternal memorial to a bottle of perfume, but to a genuine faith that acts intelligently while the opportunity to serve God is ours. It would never occur to a Judas that, were Jesus to remain a dead Messiah nicely embalmed with Mary’s ointments, this gospel never would be preached in the whole world! Jesus-’ prediction must be dismissed as the illogical vagaries of a dreamer, unless, despite His death and burial, He could rise again and infuse into His followers that courage to preach which only His triumph over death can give. It simply escaped Judas that, in the midst of all this morbid talk about suffering and death, Jesus uttered this stupendous prediction: This gospel shall be preached in the whole world! (Cf. Matthew 24:14; Mark 13:10.) Even if the betrayer actually heard it, in his unbelief, he discounted Jesus-’ certainty of victory. And yet, Jesus-’ declaration is not simply the prophet’s foresight. It rings more like the proclamation of a Monarch. Unlike any earthly potentate, this King decrees her glory, while He Himself is under the death sentence. There is a bold irony that gives character to His words:

Christ’s promise of immortal renown to Mary boldly reveals His own self-awareness, as He consciously stood in the shadow of His own cross. His bold prediction could never be automatically self-fulfilling without resurrection. But this Man was not just another human. McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 224) taught:

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.

He who presents Himself to Israel for consideration as Messiah is no local Christ, interested exclusively in the narrow concerns of one people. Despite His own self-limited mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24; Matthew 10:6; Matthew 10:23), He always looked beyond these horizons to the regions beyond. (See Special Study, Gentiles, at the conclusion of this volume.)

What is to be preached in the whole world shall include her anointing Him for burial, and He dares call this good news (this gospel)? But burial includes the atoning death of matchless life, hence summarizes His sacrificial suffering for humanity.

If Mary realistically faced the fact of the cross, even more so does Jesus! He has freely walked to Jerusalem to face those who hate Him bitterly. His exhortation to the Apostles on their early mission, Do not fear those who can kill the body, but cannot destroy the soul (Matthew 10:28), is not to be tested in the crucible of Jesus-’ own personal experience.

Whereas, Judas and the others, so far from heralding this deed, would have strangled it aborning, Jesus considers this absurdly wasteful act so characteristic of the spirit of the true Christian that to proclaim His message demands its exemplification by reference to what Mary of Bethany did!

But in what sense(s) must Mary’s noble act serve as a memorial of her, inciting to its imitation everyone who reflects on it? Perhaps the fact that Jesus did not specify how this is to work was intended to push us to ponder, lest we brush aside its less obvious, but essential significance. In every part of this story what is as obvious as the aroma of her perfume, is her love. But this is not expressly indicated as a model for us. We do not love Jesus just because Mary did. We love Him, alone because of what He means to us personally. Some of the same reasons that drew her to Him draw us too. So, what should her example mean to us?

HER FAITH UNDERSTOOD. By faith she was enabled to share in the fellowship of His sufferings (Philippians 3:10). By believing what He predicted, she actually grasped understandingly and shared sympathetically what He was going through. Hence, she points to -that sympathy of mind whereby we follow in His steps (1 Peter 2:20-25).

HER FAITH IS A MODEL OF GREAT INITIATIVE DESPITE WEAKNESS. Weak, feeble, really unavailing to avert the imminent tragedy of Jesus-’ death, this disciple did what she could. She showed great initiative by taking creative steps that were unthinkable even to Jesus-’ closest disciples who had deliberately blindfolded themselves to the reality of His impending death. Faith freed her from this prejudice, empowered her to take decisive steps to express her love while there was time, even if what she believed about Jesus-’ future was emotionally crushing. She simply dared to believe Him and took the initiative in harmony with what He said. Faith is envisioning what the Lord says He intends to do in a given situation and doing, in harmony with His Word, what lies in our feeble power, even if our weak efforts seem unavailing. (Remember Luke 21:1-4!)

HER FAITH WAS BOLD. Her courage braved the potential criticism of others and risked rejection, even by Jesus Himself. After all, she probably did not discuss this move with Him to get His approval beforehand. Sometimes, as in her case, it is utterly impossible for us to defend the rightness of our actions to the satisfaction of everyone’s doubts. Sometimes our good actions do not speak for themselves, because our true motive remains impossible to prove. Our only consolation lies in our confidence in His love and in believing that our Lord approved our endeavor to do His will. This bold discipleship is what it means to express our real commitments before men (Matthew 10:32).

HER FAITH WAS UNCALCULATING. When she first began, her act was rejected as senseless waste and esteemed by no one present but Jesus. Who could have imagined the undying glory that would surround her uncomplicated, adoring act? Yet, without planning it, she did something simple that was destined to guarantee her immortal fame. This is but a live case that concretely illustrates the high estimate our Lord places on loving service, however humble. (See note on Matthew 25:35-40.)

HER FAITH WAS CREATIVE. Her detractors-’ rebuke revealed their own slavery to traditionally recognized forms and mechanisms of social redemption. Her grasp of Jesus-’ message and spirit permitted her to appreciate her own broad freedom of action. No express command or approved precedent guided her decision. She simply believed His death-predictions and invented an unheard-of, scandalizing way to externalize her loving devotion for Him and her faith in His revelations. And He approved it. Dare we act this way in relation to our worship offered the same Lord who promotes her example? Do we have this same freedom in our faith? (Cf. How to Avoid Becoming a Pharisee, my Vol. III, 375ff.)

These considerations invite us to believe Him implicitly, love Him devotedly and do whatever we can while the opportunity is ours. May our faith drive us to passionate, generous self-giving, not caring how many know what we think about Jesus! In our feeble, fumbling efforts, we too shall not be able to do much for Jesus, but let it be said of our discipleship, They did what they could!

FACT QUESTIONS

Who was Simon the leper? Where was his house? According to John, who else was present at his house?

When, exactly, was Jesus in Bethany for the event described here? Which Gospel writer positively dates this event chronologically? Where? On the basis of what facts can this date be known?

Name the woman who anointed Jesus-’ head and feet.

List the differences between this anointing and the one that is recorded by Luke 7:36-50.

Of what was the perfume container made? How does this detail add to the cost of the ointment? How much ointment did it hold, according to John?

What kind of ointment was used? On what basis could its value be estimated? According to John, how much was it worth? How much would it be worth today?

Describe the disciples-’ reaction to the anointing: what was their judgment and on what principle was it based?

According to John, who led in the criticism? Reconcile this with the other Gospel statements about who complained.

Show how Jesus used the disciples-’ own argument against them and, at the same time, defended the woman.

In what two ways was this anointing a good work?

What did Jesus mean by You will not always have me?

What motive did Jesus say was in the woman’s mind when she anointed Him? In what sense was this anointing for that specific purpose?

Where else had Jesus spoken before of the world-wide proclamation of the Gospel? (book and chapter)

Matthew 26:14-16

SECTION 64 JUDAS AGREES WITH JESUS-’ ENEMIES TO BETRAY HIM

(Parallels: Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-6)

TEXT: 26:14-16

14 Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, 15 and said, What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver. 16 And from that time he sought opportunity to deliver him unto them.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

What do you think of Judas? Whose son is he? are two important questions in this section. Collect all of the facts revealed in the New Testament about this man. Trace the development of sin in his life as it leads up to the sins of betrayal and suicide.

If Matthew already mentioned him before (Matthew 10:4), why does he now present him here as one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot? Is he copying from a document that has this fixed, traditional expression, or does he have some better reason for expressing himself this way? If so, what is it?

Why do you think Matthew inserted Judas-’ secret agreement with Jesus-’ enemies right in this place after the anointing in Bethany? Why not include it before it, even omitting the anointing? What connection is there between the two facts, if any?

Do you think the authorities welcomed Judas-’ offer or treated him with diffidence? Would they be two-faced with him, their own confederate?

Judas was greedy (John 12:6). Do you think that he dickered with the authorities over the price for betraying Jesus? Or did he even question the price? On what basis could he accept it as is?

Do you see any significance in the final price settled upon of thirty pieces of silver? If so, what is the significance? If not, why not?

Why should the priests be so glad to pay Judas in advance? What is the psychological advantage for them to do it this way?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve Apostles, conceived a diabolic plan. He went away and, with the Jewish clergy and officers of the Temple police, discussed a scheme for handing Jesus over to them. His offer was: What are you willing to give me, if I hand him over to you? Upon hearing his proposal, they were delighted and promised to give him money. So he agreed. At this they counted out to him thirty silver coins. So, from that moment on he began watching for a good chance to betray Jesus when no crowd was present.

SUMMARY

His decision fixed by Jesus-’ undimmed defeatism, Judas went right to the authorities to work out a mutually agreeable plan for Jesus-’ capture. His incredibly timely offer was immediately welcomed by the rulers who awarded Judas the purchase price of a slave for his efforts. Thereupon he began plotting a course which would lead to his plan’s realization.

**NOTES

THE TRAITOR’S TRADE-OFF

Matthew 26:14 Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests.** When did he go? Matthew, having concluded the historical flashback, now returns to his narration of events that occurred two days before the Passover (Matthew 26:2-5; cf. Mark 14:1 f.; Luke 22:1-6). However, then, points to the anointing in Bethany as the psychological, if not the immediately chronological, background in which Judas-’ determination to betray Jesus finally crystallized. The element common to Matthew’s two paragraphs (Matthew 26:1-2 and Matthew 26:6-13) is Jesus-’ repeated allusion to His death. His disgusting negativism apparently proved too much for his ambitious disciple. But the betrayer did not arise from the Bethany supper to hurry over to Jerusalem in hopes of concluding a midnight deal with the powers-that-be. The likelihood is very slim that he would have found them assembled on that Sabbath evening. That he did not see the priests for several days is clearly implied in the council’s desperation as late as two days before the Passover (Matthew 26:3-5). Further, the Triumphal Entry on the day after the Bethany anointing, as also the furious purification of the Temple on the following day, would have seemed to Judas to cancel all of Jesus-’ negativism, pointing to the immediate realization of his own nationalistic hopes. But, when ensuing events did not confirm this prognosis and Jesus continued to arouse the bitter enmity of every segment of Jewish political life into a white-hot-rage, Judas grew more frustrated with Jesus-’ political inaction. Then, Jesus-’ latest prediction of His own death tipped Judas over the brink (Matthew 26:2; Matthew 26:14). Two days before Passover, inspired by a diabolical plan, he sought out the priests and found them ready to talk. (See below on priests.)

Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot. That Matthew should resort to this rather elaborate introduction of someone already introduced and described (Matthew 10:4) has been thought to verify the theory that he merely follows stereotyped tradition. But, as we have seen, to establish his own credibility, Matthew needs no copy-book similarity to the other Evangelists. To assume categorically that he unimaginatively copied other work is to fail to take him seriously. Rather, Matthew remained shocked that the ultimate betrayer of the Messiah of Israel should turn out to be one of the twelve! Nevertheless, he does not draw back from recording this sordid picture of one of his brother-apostles, because, as has been his approach throughout this Gospel, he must show the disciples-’ slow growth in faith through their many falls. Thus, even in this horrible contradiction of discipleship, he objectively displays the options that confront every potential disciple. In the life of Judas Iscariot, Matthew warns, are to be found the same alternatives and components of betrayal which tempt every disciple. Not merely one of the twelve, but all of them faced the scandal of the cross. Matthew’s message is that one of the twelve cracked, because of the flaws in his own personal faith. By examining this negative example, we may learn what flaws of our own would, in the end, make us turn against Jesus.

WHAT MADE JUDAS DO THIS?

Many tend to judge Judas in the light of the grandeur and divinity of the One whom he betrayed, but not according to his own motives. Hence, in the highly-colored, negative language used to describe the heinousness of his crime, they obscure Judas the real man. He becomes the model of all hatred and infamy with not one scruple left to cause him to shudder at the baseness of his treachery. He is pictured as wilfully forgetting everything he knew about Jesus: His compassionate love, His matchlessly holy life, His unequalled teaching and His supernatural deeds.

While the view is credible, it fails to take into account another route that alienation from Christ can take, a route which, ironically, still permits the disciple to believe himself a loyal follower of the Lord. It is the road more commonly taken by those who believe themselves wiser than He, more practical, more versed in worldly know-how, who simply know how God’s Kingdom should be run better than the King Himself. They retain their own right to rule, their own worldly ambitions, their private, unimportant sins. But this too is no less a betrayal of Jesus Christ. In fact, it is essentially more diabolical, because perpetrated by those who, in the name of loyalty; to Him, actually prove false to (= betray) everything He stands for. The result is the same and he who does it is no less a betrayer or traitor (Matthew 10:4; Matthew 27:3; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16; John 6:71) or a devil (John 6:70). It is from this standpoint, therefore, that Judas Iscariot is the more valuable case study in discipleship destroyed. So, what made Judas betray the Lord? We must see him as.

JUDAS ISCARIOT, THE COMMON SINNER

GOD did not predetermine his choices, because, aside from His determinate counsel and foreknowledge which decided that the Christ would be betrayed, by whom or how were items neither foreordained nor the subject of prophecy. (See on Matthew 26:24.) Here we see most clearly the interplay between divine sovereignty and human freedom. The Sanhedrin, following its own political fears, defined Jesus a wanted man (John 11:57). Here was opportunity for anyone to betray Him. Judas, moved by his own ambitious desires, took the bait.

SATAN? Luke (Luke 22:3) attributes this diabolical plan directly to the devil who entered into Judas. And why not? Judas had left too many doors open in his life. (See below.) This, however, was no literal possession, hence presents no problem fatal to the moral freedom of Judas who remained fully free in his conscious choices. As will be seen, Satan already owned much territory in Judas-’ thinking. (Contrast John 14:30 b.) Judas did not offer Satan any resistance. (Contrast James 4:7.) Why should he? Judas thought Satan’s ideas sound, because they were already so identical with his own concepts! There is no overwhelming demoniacal power in Judas-’ case any more than in our own (1 Corinthians 10:13). Rather, Judas found the temptation to betray Jesus irresistible, because he found his own concepts irresistible.

AVARICE? His stealing from Jesus-’ common fund revealed His love of money (John 12:6). His proposal to Jesus-’ enemies, What are you willing to give me? (Matthew 26:15) seems to confirm his greed. That covetousness is not an altogether insufficient motive was ably defended by Farrar (Life, 551f.).

How little insight can they have into the fatal bondage and diffusiveness of a besetting sin, in the dense spiritual blindness and awful infatuation with which it confounds the guilty, who cannot believe in so apparently inadequate a motive! Yet the commonest observance of daily facts which come before our notice in the moral world, might serve to show that the commission of crime results as frequently from a motive that seems miserably small and inadequate, as from some vast and abnormal temptation.

And covetousness is simply civilized idolatry (Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5).

However, while avarice can drive a man to be cold and unscrupulous, crushing conscience to gain more, this does not explain how such a man could have ever become the disciple of that poor Man who had no place to lay His head (Matthew 8:20). Surely, in first-century Palestine there were faster routes to sheer financial success!

VINDICTIVENESS? Was the rage of hatred now boiling in Judas because of the gentle rebuke he received at the anointing in Bethany? Had he not taken a public stand for righteousness (given to the poor), but was rejected? No matter how kind were Jesus-’ words, did he feel humiliated publicly? Did Jesus-’ defense of Mary’s sentimentalism and lavish waste wound and provoke the betrayer to the limit? This hypothesis does not explain the time Judas had to cool down, his apparent inactivity for four days from the anointing until his going to the priests. Further, raging hatred, burning to get even, does not explain Judas-’ surprise, as great as anyone’S, that his bargain actually resulted in Jesus-’ death sentence (Matthew 27:3 ff.). Contrary to his own expectations, his ill-conceived plan had produced precisely the opposite result from what he intended. Then, as he had never accepted Jesus-’ own self-understanding of Messiahship, he was left no alternative but to imagine Jesus-’ total failure. Shattered and hopeless, Judas took revenge on himself.

Again, vindictiveness finds satisfaction, not in silver, but in blood. Were Judas merely vengeful, he would have despised pay offered for his deed, since revenge itself would have been pay enough. THWARTED POLITICAL AMBITION. Much of Judas-’ motivation is bound up in his reason for being Jesus-’ disciple in the first place. Contrary to popular belief, Judas Iscariot may well have been a Galilean. (See note on Matthew 10:4 my Vol. II, 272f.) He would have been exposed to the nationalistic fervor for which the Galileans were noted. Further, Iscariot, family name of both Judas and his father, has been interpreted by some as an Aramaic transcription of the Greek sicàrios, meaning assassin from the Latin sica, a dagger. This label covered the most fanatical group among the Jewish nationalists quite hostile to Rome; they did not hesitate to assassinate their political opponents (Arndt-Gingrich, 381, 757). If so, Judas stood farther to the political right than Simon the Zealot. So, if Judas followed Jesus in the hope of fulfilling the extremist political ambitions of this misguided nationalistic spirit, the fierce radicalism of Judas would be decidedly frustrated by many elements:

Jesus inexplicably refused to preach the standard Messianic doctrine generally held by right-minded patriots. He stedfastly declined to inaugurate a materialistic Kingdom of God (John 6:14 f., John 6:66-71). Because the Lord so emphatically opted for a spiritual messiahship and refused Israel’s crown (John 6:15), perhaps Judas discerned the beginning of the end of his own materialistic dreams of personal wealth and power. His political disenchantment may have become a bitter, vindictive drive that empelled him to formulateeven if ever so slowlywhich move to make.

Then Jesus constantly warned of heartaches, set-backs, even martyrdom ahead for His most intimate followers (Matthew 24:9 ff.). Utopian dreams of wealth and glory for anyone were conspicuous for their absence.

Jesus-’ apparent failure to meet the public challenges of the Pharisees (Matthew 12:38 ff.; Matthew 16:1 ff.) in smashing ways that would command belief, shook all the Apostles, not merely Judas (Matthew 15:12; Matthew 16:6). And the enemy kept attacking.

Jesus-’ doctrine of the cross (Matthew 16:21-28; Matthew 17:22 f.), for the disciple that neither understood nor believed it, would be deeply discouraging and liable to be labelled morbid defeatism. Exasperatingly, Jesus continued to use this language (Matthew 26:2; Matthew 26:12).

Perhaps most disgusting for Judas was Jesus-’ obvious inability to seize the political advantage. After feeding the 5000, He turned down Israel’s crown during a moment of high revolutionary spirit among His most ardent followers! Now He did not follow up the Triumphal Entry by declaring the Kingdom. Rather, He continued inciting the authorities to implacably bitter antagonism (Matthew 21-23).

In short, Jesus-’ gradualism, His emphasis on spiritual power and intangible riches and His repudiation of power politics all add up to the disenchantment of ANYONE thoroughly enamored with instant political solutions and tangible spoils. Even John the Baptist seemed staggered by the direction and slowness of Jesus-’ program (Matthew 11:2 ff.). Sadly, evaluation of Judas-’ motivation is not difficult, because there are so many political activists like him! The kind of person that would betray Jesus in light of these elements is fundamentally selfish, impatient, ambitious and demanding. This volatile mixture adds up to one clear controlling passion in Judas: INSTANT UTOPIA. Judas-’ thievery is of a piece with his disappointment at Jesus-’ political impotence. Avarice and desire for security from the pain, grief and sufferings of the world will lead a person not only to steal, but impatiently demand the immediate, permanent solution that instantaneously eliminates intolerable people and problems. Immediate solutions is Judas-’ operating procedure. The long, hard road of patient teaching, self-giving service and suffering to transform man’s present ills he considers absolutely intolerable. Such a man is fundamentally a person without faith. He cannot allow God time to transform into things of beauty and eternal worth all that he finds disgusting and imperfect.

Therefore, in his disgust with Jesus-’ astounding lack of progress, he may have resolved to force the issue by precipitating a supreme crisis that would force Jesus to declare the formation of the Kingdom, accept the Crown so long refused, and issue a call to liberate Israel from the oppressor, and initiate a program that would elevate and enrich His loyal supporters. It is even conceivable that Iscariot, honestly felt that this betrayal could promote the success of God’s plan for Israel. He was enough of a believer in Jesus to foresee that his Master could prove Himself invincible in the ensuing clash, consequently would never even risk death. Perhaps Judas imagined that the end of the affair would find Israel’s enemies outwitted, frustrated and finally beaten, as on so many other occasions when Jesus had shown Himself the master of every situation. Not incidentally, Judas richer by far more than thirty pieces of silver, could chuckle smugly at their discomfiture. Thus, Judas could expect himself to be forgiven this momentary sin, because, by personally masterminding what he may have considered Jesus too impractical and other-worldly to put together, he would actually become Christ’s benefactor. Not incidentally, too, Christ’s consequent political indebtedness to Judas the king-maker promised enormous financial benefits for his daring foresight and brilliant execution. Thus, even in this betrayal Judas could consider himself quite loyal to Jesus. He could not only keep up the appearance of friendliness, but actually feel it. Was he not acting in the best interest of Jesus and of the other disciples, indeed of all Israel? From this point of view, the intention to have Jesus killed is the furthest from Judas-’ mind. So, in reality, Judas is not a man apart, the archtype of monstrous wickedness. This traditional image is as unrealistic as it is popular. It is but a caricature that blurs our own spiritual kinship with so much of Judas-’ own failures as a disciple. So, what was his fatal flaw? Barclay (Matthew, II, 367) well concluded:

However we look at it, the tragedy of Judas is that he refused to accept Jesus as He was, and tried to make Jesus what he wanted Him to be. It is not Jesus who can be changed by us, but we who must be changed by Jesus. We can never use Jesus for our purposes; we must submit to Him to be used for His. The tragedy of Judas is the tragedy of the man who thought that he knew better than God.

To see Judas as a misguided, worldly-wise king-maker is neither to excuse his crime nor detract anything from the real awfulness of his sin (Matthew 26:24) or from the certainty of his condemnation (Acts 1:25). Rather, to picture him as a common disciple who followed ordinary temptations that lie before any of us has the intensity practical value of showing how desperately real is our own vulnerability to the temptation to be false to the Lord, while contemporaneously believing ourselves upright citizens of the Kingdom of God in good standing.

Judas Iscariot went to the chief priests. Even though the Pharisees also shared the determination to put Jesus to death, that Judas approached the chief priests and captains (Luke 22:4) points to an encounter different from the Sanhedrin’s earlier informal meeting (Matthew 26:3 ff.). Perhaps he went first to the Temple police requesting permission to make an interesting offer to the chief priests. These captains (strategoîs) are probably not Roman soldiers, since this military term could also apply to the Levitical Temple guards who maintained order at all times in the Temple. (Cf. Numbers 8:5-26; 2 Chronicles 23:1-19; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:24; see also Josephus, Wars VI, 5, 3; Edersheim, Temple, 147ff.; cf. 2Ma 3:4.) Eventually, these Levitical officers would need to be brought into the picture, because, being under the authority of the chief priests, they could be counted on to participate in Jesus-’ arrest (Luke 22:52). Approaching one of these who could take him directly to Caiaphas, Judas could present himself as ready to obey the official order to turn Jesus in to the authorities.

There is no evidence that Judas appeared before the entire Sanhedrin to bargain with its members, unless it be assumed that the aforementioned council were still in session (Matthew 26:3 ff.). That all three Synoptics mention only priests and Levites, points not to the Sanhedrin, but to the clergy alone. Judas-’ approach, therefore, was not the cause of a convocation of the Sanhedrin, but an unexpected element that radically catalyzed the ecclesiastical authorities-’ decision to act.

2. THE TAWDRY TRANSACTION

Matthew 26:15** and said, What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver. **Jesus had not formed a clandestine movement, but operated openly. But the chief priests-’ dilemma lay in their fear to arrest Jesus publicly and in their ignorance about His whereabouts in private during the constant movement of people during the feast. So, Judas-’ entire usefulness and offer hinged on his valuable particular knowledge of Jesus-’ habits. (Cf. John 18:2.) Being a member of the most intimate group of disciples, he could conduct the Lord’s foes directly to Him during the private, evening hours in the absence of cheering crowds to protect Him from arrest. Further, to avoid capturing the wrong person, Judas could correctly identify Jesus during a night raid.

And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver. Mark and Luke state that they promised (engaged) to give him money, to which Luke adds, He agreed. Was this merely the early stage of the negotiation between Judas and the leaders, and they later actually gave him the full amount after consigning Jesus to them? Both Hendriksen (Matthew, 902) and Lenski (Matthew, 1012) argue that the priests paid right away. The testimony of Mark and Luke only means to record the priests-’ instant reaction to Judas-’ offer, to which he declared agreement, then, according to Matthew, they paid him outright. The psychology of the situation would demand that the priests seize this unparalleled chance by morally binding Judas to go through with the betrayal.

That Matthew reports, They weighed unto him, rather than They paid him, alludes to the use of a scale to determine monetary value by weight (éstesan, they placed [on the scales] - they weighed). Because coins were then in common use (cf. Matthew 5:26; Matthew 10:9; Matthew 10:29; Matthew 17:24; Matthew 17:27; Matthew 22:19; Matthew 25:15 ff.; Luke 10:35; Luke 15:8), three things may have been true:

Weighed might just be a linguistic holdover among Palestinean Jews, meaning simply paid.

Either they actually weighed out the silver in the ancient manner, sanctimoniously showing religious precision in doing their wickedness.

Or they simply handed him the coins, but Matthew utilized the ancient expression to point to the prophecy of Zec 11:12 (éstesan tòn misthòn mou triàkonta arguroùs, LXX; Matthew has argùria).

Taken in shekels, thirty pieces of silver equals 120 denarii, the equivalent of four month’s wages of a common day-laborer. Nonetheless, that so little should be awarded him by the Jewish authorities for the life of a MAN seems unrealistic and out of proportion to the value of their Prey.

Some see this low evaluation as the priests-’ contempt for Jesus. Perhaps the priests belittled the assistance Judas offered, and finally conceded a small compensation for his offer which would be but a minimal convenience to them. The brevity of our account, however, neither affirms nor denies such haggling. In fact, if Judas sought merely to push Jesus to act, any price that appeared to cover his true motive would be right.

Did this sum represent only the down-payment of more? This is highly doubtful because,

The non-coincidental allusion to Zechariah 11:12 suggests that this amount was the total price. (See on Matthew 27:9-10.)

When Judas had been paid in full for betraying Christ and he discovered that his plan had backfired, he returned only the thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 27:3 ff.). There is no indication of more.

So, the priests haughtily judged that the value of a slave (Exodus 21:32; cf. Genesis 37:28) was quite adequate for the Nazarene! Edersheim (Life, II, 477) sensed the high symbolic significance, unappreciated, of course, by the Temple bosses:

The Lord was, so to speak, paid for out of the Templemoney which was destined for the purchase of sacrifices, and that He, Who took upon Him the form of a servant, was sold and bought at the legal price of a slave (Philippians 2:7; Exodus 21:32).

Ironically, thirty pieces of silver is the handsome price paid the Lord for His service in caring for Israel. (Zechariah 11:12; see only on Matthew 27:9.)

If Judas-’ petty bargain for the going price of a male slave seems paltry, this petty cash embezzler’s love of money would not stick at turning his private plans to profit. On the other hand, if he dreamed that by pushing Jesus into a crisis which He could escape only by inaugurating the long-awaited Davidic Kingdom, then Judas stood to gain far more materially in the ensuing glory and inflowing wealth that must come. So, thirty pieces of silver would not be the last income realized at the expense of the Galilean Prophet. This small bargain would thus have been but a minor incident on the way to bigger things.

The task targeted

Matthew 26:16 And from that time he sought opportunity to deliver him unto them. From that time means from two days before the Passover (Matthew 26:1; Mark 14:1). Thus, on Tuesday night (the beginning of Wednesday) he made his contact and on Thursday night (the beginning of Friday) he fulfilled it. But this interval is also his last moment to repent and revoke his evil agreement and return the blood money, confessing his sin. (Cf. Matthew 27:3 ff.) But, from his point of view, why should he want to fail to help Christ do what He apparently cannot bring Himself to begin? Such is the blindness of error!

The opportunity he sought must be one in which the crowds favorable to Jesus could not impede His arrest. In harmony with the Sanhedrin’s fear that people would riot, should the police attempt a public arrest, Judas agreed to the priest’s strongly recommended directive to betray him to them in the absence of the multitude (Luke 22:6; cf. Matthew 26:5). Despite the leaders-’ enthusiasm prompted by Judas-’ unexpected offer, their basic solution arrived at earlier has not fundamentally changed. Postponement until after the feast is still a fundamental part of their strategy, because, although they sense their ability to move more freely than they could have without the guidance of an insider like Judas, a risky collision with the people still spelled political suicide for them.

But something imperceptible has changed. Unbeknownst to them, by their accepting Judas-’ proposal, they surrendered absolute control of the situation back to Jesus, because he could now control the events by guiding Judas to their disadvantage. (See on Matthew 26:21-25; cf. John 13:27.)

Undoubtedly, the priests and Judas imagined themselves in control of the situation, unconscious of the overruling providence of a God who can make even the wrath of men to praise Him (Psalms 76:10). Those who would not willingly serve Him as instruments of righteousness, can, without violation of their human will, be made to serve the purposes of God. Even while they are bent on gratifying their selfish desires, God’s program moves irresistibly forward. While they will not consciously cooperate with Him, He shall still be glorified in their reactions to His providence through the elements He brings into their lives and in the choices He places before them. Because He has the right to decide their options, He rules, while leaving completely unshackled their human freedom to decide.

FACT QUESTIONS

When did this consultation between Judas and the authorities occur?

Explain Matthew’s elaborate introduction of Judas as one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot.

List facts in Judas-’ life with Jesus that conspired to tempt him to betray Him.

What circumstances in Jerusalem facilitated Judas-’ going to the chief priests to offer to turn Jesus over to them?

State the probable terms of the agreement.

What is today’s value of thirty pieces of silver?

List other Biblical allusions to thirty pieces of silver.

In what way did Judas-’ offer create the mechanism whereby the Sanhedrin’s decision not to capture Jesus during the feast was completely reversed so as to make Jesus-’ earlier prediction come true?

Describe the type of opportunity the authorities wanted Judas to find that would be ideal for capturing Jesus. Why did not Judas betray Jesus immediately?

How much time did Judas think He had to deliver Jesus into their hands? How much did he actually have, according to the actual history of the events?

Matthew 26:17-30

SECTION 65 JESUS CELEBRATES HIS LAST PASSOVER AND INSTITUTES THE LORD’S SUPPER

(Parallels: Mark 14:12-26; Luke 22:7-39 a; John 13:1 to John 18:1)

TEXT: 26:17-30

17 Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover? 18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Teacher saith, My time is at hand; I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. 19 And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them; and they made ready the passover.

20 Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples; 21 and as they were eating, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. 22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began to say unto him every one, Is it I, Lord? 23 And he answered and said, He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. 24 The Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born. 25 And Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, Is it I, Rabbi, He saith unto him, Thou hast said. 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. 30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why did the disciples ask Jesus where preparations for the Passover should be made?

Why do you think Jesus had not previously announced the location? c. Does it not appear that His instructions, as to where this feast is to be celebrated, are deliberately devious? What possible purpose could there be for such ambiguousness, if His disciples needed to know? Or did they?

Since Jesus was a wanted Man, do you think His disciples would have encountered difficulties with the authorities as they presented the lamb for slaughter by the priests?

What is the householder, where the Passover is to be eaten, to understand by Jesus-’ mysterious phrase, My time is at hand? Do you think His most intimate disciples understood it? If so, what would it mean to them? If not, how could Jesus expect a less intimate disciple to grasp it? If so, why say it?

On what basis could Jesus count on the host’s consent?

Why do you think Jesus waited until evening to go to the appointed house for the Passover meal?

If Judas already knew he would betray Christ and Jesus Himself had clearly predicted that someone would do this, what possible purpose could be served by repeating this prediction at the Passover supper?

If Jesus-’ intention were to predict Judas-’ betrayal, why did He continue to use such ambiguous language right up to the very departure of Judas? Should not prophecies be expressed in clear, literal language without all this beating around the bush?

How do you think Judas reacted to Jesus-’ blunt, even if somewhat ambiguous, prediction that one of the Twelve would betray Him? How would you have reacted, if you were Judas and knew what he knew?

Jesus said, The Son of man goes, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man, if he had not been born. How does this affirmation relieve God of all responsibility for Judas-’ actions and lay the blame squarely on the betrayer himself?

How does the above-cited affirmation prove that Judas-’ betrayal did not catch God unawares, but, rather, was actually foreseen and planned for by God, to carry forward His own program?

How does this statement of Jesus demonstrate categorically that the widely-believed hope, that everyone shall finally be welcomed by God, is simply without any foundation in truth?

Do you think that Jesus waited until the Passover supper was completed before instituting the Lord’s Supper, or that He simply transformed its various elements as they moved from one part of the Passover ritual to the next, thus giving new meaning to them? Why do you decide as you do?

Is there any special symbolism involved in Jesus-’ taking the Passover bread, blessing it and breaking it for distribution among the disciples? If so, what symbolism?

How could Jesus say, This is my body, with reference to the bread, when, as a matter of fact, He was present bodily there before them?

Now deal with the cup: how could its contents be called my blood, if His blood were yet in His veins?

If Jesus is our Passover Lamb, why did He make no use of the literal lamb to say what He uses loaf and cup to teach?

Why did He term it the blood of the covenant?

Why would not Jesus drink that cup again until the day it could be drunk new with you in my Father’s Kingdom? In what sense would He do this? In this particular context, why is this promise such glorious news?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

The first day of Unleavened Bread arrived, on which it was necessary to sacrifice the Passover lambs. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, Go and get the Passover meal ready for us to eat. Where do you wish us to go and do this? they asked. Go into the city, He told them. Just after you enter the city, a certain man carrying an earthenware water-jug will be coming toward you. You follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, -The Teacher sends word: My appointed time is near. At your house I shall celebrate the Passover. Where is my guest room where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?-’ He will then show you a large upstairs room all furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there. The two disciples did as Jesus had directed: they left and went into the city. They found things just as He had told them they would. So they prepared the Passover. When the evening hour came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve and took His place at the table with them. They were reclining around Him at the table.

[At this point Luke records Jesus-’ earnest desire to eat the Passover with the Apostles and the first cup. John records the washing of the disciples-’ feet and the first intimations of the unclean betrayer. Perhaps Luke’s narrative of the ambitious contention among the disciples about their relative personal importance should also be included here.]

As they were at table eating, when Jesus had spoken about the betrayer and His own direct connection with God, He became deeply agitated in spirit and exclaimed, I tell you the truth, one of you who is eating with me will betray me. The disciples were deeply pained to hear this. One by one they began to ask Him, It is not I, is it, Lord? The one who will betray me is right here at the table, eating supper out of the same dish with me! He answered. The Son of man is going to His destiny, as the counsel of God has determined for Him and as the Scriptures have written of Him. But what misery awaits His betrayer! It would have been better, if that man had never been born! The disciples looked at one another, puzzled and uncertain as to whom He referred. They began to question each other about which of them was going to do this. One of Jesus-’ disciples, an especially close friend, was reclining at the table on Jesus-’ right. So Simon Peter signaled to him: Ask Him whom He is talking about. So that disciple leaned back close to Jesus and asked, Lord, who is it? Jesus responded, It is the man to whom I give this bit of food after dipping it in the sauce. So when he had dipped the morsel, He handed it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Then, after the morsel, Satan took possession of him, and he spoke, Surely, it is not I, is it, Rabbi? Jesus said to him, It is you, not I, who said what is the case. What you are going to do, make quick work of it! Now, no one at the table guessed what He meant by this. Some surmised that, because Judas was in charge of the common fund, He was telling him, Buy what we need for the feast. Others thought He meant that Judas should donate something to the poor. So, after Judas accepted the morsel from Jesus, he left immediately. And it was night.. After Judas-’ departure, Jesus commented, Now is the Son of man glorified, and in Him God is glorified. If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and do it at once. [Here John records the new commandment.] As the meal proceeded, Jesus picked up some unleavened bread. When He had blessed it by giving thanks, He broke it and shared it among the disciples, saying, Take this and eat it: it represents my body which is sacrificed for you. Do this to remember me. Similarly, after the meal was concluded, He lifted a cup of wine. When He had given thanks, He offered it to them, stating, Drink from it, all of you. So they all drank from it. Then He went on. This cup represents my blood which seals the new covenant with God, the blood which is to be shed on behalf of multitudes of people for the forgiveness of their sins, I can tell you for sure that I shall never drink this wine again, until the day comes when with new meaning I drink it with you in my Father’s Kingdom, the long-awaited Kingdom of God!

[Here John reports Jesus-’ prediction that the disciples cannot follow Him where He must go. Peter promises total loyalty, but Jesus predicts his threefold denial. Luke also reports the predicted denials and the unexplained sword purchase (Luke 22:31-38). Jesus presents His last discourse (John 14-17). John 14:30 may mean that Jesus and the Twelve arose to leave, but lingered further in the Upper Room until Jesus completed His instruction and His intercessory prayer. Otherwise, what are the probabilities that Jesus did all the teaching of John 15-17 while walking through the streets of Jerusalem that night?]

When Jesus had spoken these words, they sang the Passover Psalms, Then they went out of the city across the Kedron Valley, as He was in the habit of doing, to the Mount of Olives.

SUMMARY

Jesus organized the Passover supper preparations in such a way as to leave Judas ignorant of the location until the last minute, and, in doing so, demonstrated His divine foresight. During the supper itself He clearly pointed out His betrayer, while contemporaneously giving him clear warning to back out. When, however, Judas left, Jesus gave new meaning to the bread and wine. It would now represent His own suffering and the ratification of the new covenant. After a long series of far-reaching instructions, He led His men out to His appointment with destiny.

NOTES I. PREPARATIONS FOR THE LAST SUPPER (26:17-19)

Matthew 26:17 Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover? According to Luke, Jesus called Peter and John to begin these preparations. This question, then, reflects their obedient response to His order (Luke 22:8).

Technically, the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread are two distinct festivals, the former being a one-night celebration on 14 Nisan and the latter a feast lasting one week from 15-21 Nisan. (For their history and character, see Exodus 12:1-51; Exodus 13:3-10; Exodus 23:15; Leviticus 23:4-8; Numbers 9:1-14; Numbers 28:16-25; Deuteronomy 16:1-8; Ezekiel 45:21.) Two circumstances led people to call both feasts by the same name.

Because the feast of unleavened bread immediately follows the Passover, at which only unleavened bread is also eaten, the day of the Passover itself could be considered the first day of unleavened bread, although technically, the longer feast began on the evening of 14 Nisan (= 15 Nisan).

If Jews purified their houses of all leaven during the evening of 13 Nisan, or at the very latest, during the morning hours of 14 Nisan (Cf. Edersheim, Temple, 221), the 14th becomes virtually the first day of unleavened bread, even though, technically, it is Passover.

Even Josephus (Ant., XIV.2, 1; XVII, 9, 3; cf. XI, 4, 8) calls the feast of unleavened bread Passover, which would make the first day of unleavened bread coincide with the Passover (cf. Wars, V, 3, 1), precisely as does Matthew. Josephus does this fully aware that the official first day of unleavened bread occurs on the day following (Ant. 111, 10, 5). He even speaks of the feast of unleavened bread thus: We keep a feast for EIGHT days, which is called. of unleavened bread (Ant. II, 15, 1). This makes Passover virtually part of the feast of unleavened bread.

This popular, untechnical language explains why the first day of unleavened bread is clearly defined by Mark and Luke as the day. on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Both authors use imperfect tense to point to Jewish customary practice. Further, all the Synoptics describe it as the day on which Jesus intended to eat the Passover. Again, since no oneneither the disciples nor the host-questions Jesus-’ order to prepare the Passover meal at this particular time, one is lead to the natural conclusion that this moment is the regular time. No one asks, Why at this unusual time? but, simply, Where do you wish us to prepare? Therefore, the first day of unleavened bread, according to Matthew, is Thursday, Nisan 14. This is because the events narrated from the Passover supper until Jesus-’ burial all occurred by normal Jewish reckoning, on Friday, Nisan 15, which began at sunset on the preceding day. (See Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:42; Luke 23:56; Matthew 27:62; Matthew 28:1.)

IS MATTHEW’S DATING WRONG?

Even a superficial reading of Matthew’s chronological notices concerning events in Jesus-’ Last Week must lead to the conclusion that he reports a consistent, straightforward story: Jesus actually participated in the Passover supper at its normal time on the evening of Nisan 14, was captured and tried that night by Jewish authorities, and, next day (Nisan 15) was tried and crucified by the Romans. He was in the grave by Friday evening (= beginning of Nisan 16), all day Saturday (= Nisan 16) and arose Sunday morning, Nisan 17. With this accounting the other two Evangelists are in total agreement. Some scholars attempt to prove that John contradicts (or silently corrects) this view. Then they seek alternative solutions that would leave the Synoptics a semblance of historical respectability, notwithstanding this apparently undeniable error. Accordingly, say the scholars, Jesus ordered a supper on Nisan 13 that in many respects resembled the Passover, but, of course, without the lamb. At this meal He instituted the Lord’s Supper. Consequently, then, being arrested that night, He died on the cross at the very hour the rest of the Jews were sacrificing their paschal lambs on Nisan 14. Thus, He fulfilled the Passover symbolism. But does this reconstruction fit the facts? Several unprovable presuppositions are necessarily involved:

The Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, gradually, but erroneously, came to identify what occurred in the Upper Room with the Passover itself, whereas John supposedly corrects this erroneous connection. Their motive, it is supposed, was to give emphasis to Jesus-’ fulfillment of the Passover typology, by picturing Him as dying at the very hour the paschal lambs were slain.

However, why did the Synoptics so obviously place Jesus-’ death on the day AFTER what they mistakenly took for a Passover meal, instead of linking it with the Passover itself? They set Jesus-’ death too late for synchronizing the supposed typological symbolism with His death. Either they inexplicably failed to see this contradiction or such symbolism was not part of their belief or purpose.

Further, if the symbolic synchronization of Jesus-’ death with the Passover slaying were truly God’s great design, surely the Gospel writers would have been alert and sympathetic to this nuance and as much as anyone else. Granted that they linked Christ’s death with the slaying of the Passover, how explain how these intelligent writers could blunder so obviously as to connect Jesus-’ Last Supper with the actual Passover (i.e. 14 Nisan) in their histories, rather than with the night preceding His death, i.e. Nisan 13, as according to the theory, they should have done?

It is also assumed that the Evangelists did not intend to describe a regular Passover meal. Contrarily, their every phrase clearly affirms the traditional preparation for and participation in a common Passover supper. Absent is any inkling of deviation from the standard celebration, either on the part of Jesus, His disciples or their host. Simply underline the word Passover in the following texts for complete conviction of this fact: Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-10; Luke 22:13; Luke 22:15.

If Jesus were crucified at the very hour the Passover lambs were slain, how could we explain the multitude of Hebrews milling around the cross, when they should have been in the Temple most deeply involved in preparing their own lambs by sacrifice and in purchasing whatever was needed for their own celebration of the Passover that very evening? (Luke 23:48 ff.; Matthew 27:55 f.; Mark 15:40 f.).

Affirmations in John are thought to militate against the version presented by the Synoptics:

John 13:1 supposedly dates the Last Supper as before the regular Passover time. John simply affirms, however, that Before the feast of Passover. Jesus loved His disciples. It does not date the supper, because John next documents how Jesus acted at the feast when the supper [finally] came (John 13:2).

John 13:29 When Judas left the Last Supper, the others supposed he went to purchase items essential to the feast. Some usually assume that no shops would have been open at that late hour, were it the regular Passover night. Again, they assume for the feast means for the Passover proper next day.

(1)

However, for the feast means only for the total seven-day celebration, not strictly for the Passover. (See above.)

(2)

How would the high holiness of the Passover stop merchants from desecrating it more than the solemn sacredness of the Temple would stop the priests from desecrating it by their operating their animal market with its precincts?

(3)

Edersheim (Temple, 394; cf. his Life, II, 508 and Append. XVII, 786) citing the last two Chapter s of the Mishnah, notes that, even on the assumption that the Sabbath followed the Passovera belief essential to some interpretations of Joh 19:31

Though servile work was forbidden on the first Paschal day, the preparation of all needful provision for the feast was allowed, and must have been the more necessary, as, on our supposition, it was followed by a Sabbath. Indeed, Talmudical law distinctly allowed the continuance of such preparation of provisions as had been commenced on the -preparation day.-’. Even now Rabbinical ingenuity can find many a way of evading the rigour of the Sabbath-law,

Therefore, anyone who assumes that absolutely no stores would be open hence nothing could be purchased on Passover evening must be able to prove it, against the conclusion of the disciples who were well acquainted with what could or could not be done in Jerusalem on Passover night. (See Keil-Delitzsch, Pentateuch, II, 439.) This greater freedom explains the disciples-’ reasoning. Edersheim (Life, II, 508) argues even further:

The mention of these two suggestions by the disciples seems almost necessarily to involve, that the writer of the Fourth Gospel had placed this meal in the Paschal Night. Had it been the evening before, no one could have imagined that Judas had gone out during the night to buy provisions, when there was the whole next day for it, nor would it have been likely that a man should on any ordinary day go at such an hour to seek out the poor. But in the Paschal Night, when the great Temple-gates were opened at midnight to begin early preparations for the offering of. the festive sacrifice, which was not voluntary but of due, and the remainder of which was afterwards eaten at a festive meal, such preparations would be quite natural. And equally so, that the poor who gathered around the Temple, might then seek to obtain the help of the charitable.

John 18:28 Because the Jews feared defilement that would prohibit them to eat the Passover, many assume John means the regular Passover meal had not yet been eaten. This assumption is fallacious because:

(1)

Passover does not necessarily nor exclusively refer to the Passover meal proper, since tò pàscha has the following well-documented meanings: (See also Josephus-’ usages above.)

(a)

The Passover lamb itself (Matthew 26:17; Matthew 26:19 = Mark 14:12; Mark 14:14; Mark 14:16; Luke 22:7 f., Luke 22:11; Luke 22:13; Luke 22:15)

(b)

All that concerns the meal itself (Matthew 26:19; John 13:1 f.)

(c)

Passover day itself (Exodus 12:14; Exodus 12:17; Exodus 13:3; Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 28:16; John 12:1)

(d)

The entire Feast of Unleavened Bread is loosely called the Passover (cf. Ezekiel 45:21; Luke 2:41= Mark 14:12) and Passover is termed first day of unleavened bread. The use of the expression the feast refers, not merely to the Passover Supper, but to all the festivities of the seven-day festival (John 13:29; John 19:14; Matthew 27:15 = Mark 15:6). This use of the feast harmonizes with other examples. (Cf. John 4:45 = John 2:23; Tabernacles was a seven-day feast yet termed the feast. Cf. John 7:2; John 7:10 f., John 17:14, John 17:37; Passover, John 11:56; John 12:12.)

(e)

The offerings of the Passover week. (See Edersheim cited below.)

So, the Pharisees were concerned about their ceremonial purity to eat other sacrificial meals of the Passover week. (Cf. Deuteronomy 16:2 f.; 2 Chronicles 30:22.) So, John is in perfect harmony with prophetic precedent, since Ezekiel calls the Passover, a feast lasting seven days (Ezekiel 45:21, NIV, esp. in Heb. and LXX). Thus, John refers to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, treating it as virtually part of the Passover.

(2)

Edersheim (Temple, 218) reminds that Hebrews must bring TWO sacrifices for the Passover: the regular Passover lamb and a peace- or fellowship-offering. (Cf. Exodus 23:14 ff; Exodus 34:18 f.; Deuteronomy 16:16 f.; Leviticus 23:37 f.) Because this second offering was in addition to the Passover lamb, it could be offered anytime during the Passover week, but must be eaten only by persons who were ceremonially clean (Leviticus 7:19-21). This explains the hypocritical preoccupation to remain outside Pilate’s defiling quarters. They could not have eaten their Passover peace-offerings, not the Passover lamb itself, in a state of defilement.

To this it might be objected, Was this fellowship offering ever called -eating the Passover,-’ as John terms it? Edersheim (op. cit., 251f.; also 395) proves that this Chagigah (festival offering) was specifically Paschal, citing a learned Jewish writer, Dr. Saalschutz, The whole feast and all its festive meals were designated as the Passover. See Deuteronomy 16:2; comp. 2 Chronicles 30:24; 2 Chronicles 35:8-9; Sbach. 99b, Rosh ha Sh.5a, where it is expressly said, -What is the meaning of the term Passover?-’ (Answer) -The peace-offerings of the Passover.-’ Thus, it is this second Chagigah which the Jews were afraid they might be unable to eat, if they contracted defilement in the judgment hall of Pilate (Edersheim, op. cit., 218).

(3)

Further, because defilement from whatever cause always ceased at sundown with washing (Leviticus 11:24 f., Leviticus 11:28; Leviticus 11:31; Leviticus 15:1-27; Leviticus 17:15, etc.), these Jews could never have feared defilement for the regular Passover Supper which is always eaten after sundown. Rather, they feared defilement that interfered with their sacrificing and eating the festive sacrifice (Chagigah) that very day, Nisan 15.

John 19:14 is rendered by some (cf. RSV), Preparation FOR the Passover which describes the day Jesus was tried, therefore, He partook of an early pseudo-Passover supper or did not respect the proper, normal date. But this unnecessarily forces John to contradict the Synoptics. However, this verse should be rendered (as NIV): It was the day of Preparation OF Passover week (paraskeuè toû pàscha). That pàscha here does not refer to the Passover meal, but to the entire week, is evident in that John already recorded that meal which the Synoptics unquestionably connected with eating the Passover (lamb).

John 19:31 is interpreted to mean that Jesus was crucified on the day used for preparation for the Passover which that year fell on the Sabbath making it a high day.

(1)

But Paraskeué actually says Friday as clearly as words can communicate. Not only does this term mean preparation in general, but, as a technical term for a day of the week, it means Friday (Rocci, 1422; Arndt-Gingrich, 627). Josephus (Ant., XVI, 6, 2) clearly documented the day before the Sabbath as the day of preparation in the time of Augustus, i.e. a custom in use long before Jesus-’ death. John further defines the day meant, by his registering the Jews-’ urgency to remove the bodies from the crosses, lest they remain there on the sabbath. Therefore, it was Friday. Their concern arose because that sabbath was a high day, but this does not prohibit its being Saturday. Again, John himself agrees that Jesus was in the tomb before sunset on Friday (John 19:42). Further, this Saturday was called a high day, not because it was the first day of Passover, but the second, when the firstfruits offering was made. (Sabbath in Leviticus 23:11 refers to the Passover rest, not Saturday. Cf. Joshua 5:11; see Keil-Delitzsch, Pentateuch II, 439-441.) No evidence exists to show that, in the year Jesus died, there were any coincidence between (a) the first day of unleavened bread, and (b) the weekly Sabbath, which would make that Saturday a special Sabbath, or high day. Rather, that Saturday, Nisan 16 that year, was a special Sabbath, because the weekly Sabbath coincided with the firstfruits offering. (See Edersheim, Temple, 256ff.)

(2)

That Joseph of Arimathea could buy a linen shroud or that the women could prepare spices on Nisan 15 is not contrary to the hypothesis that the day was a festival involving Sabbath rest. (That Nisan 15 was Friday is proven by the women’s resting next day, on the sabbath according to the commandment.) So they were able to function on the Passover without any consciousness of having violated its sanctity (Luke 23:56). Obviously, the festival rest was not observed with the same rigor as normal Sabbath rest. Edersheim (Temple, 396) cites the Jerusalem Talmud that expressly declares it lawful on Sabbaths and feast-days to bring a coffin, graveclothes and even mourning flutesin short to attend to the offices for the deadjust as on ordinary days.

Therefore, is it not of utmost importance to seek out those facts that render possible a satisfying, yet uncontrived harmony between the Synoptics and John? Any supposed contradiction between them is the creature of intolerable ignorance and uncritical acceptance of pseudo-scholarly hypotheses that show a philosophical and moral bias toward driving a wedge between the Lord’s witness.

The various movements of Jewish leaders and other people involved in Jesus-’ arrest, trials and crucifixion all on the night of gravest importance and high solemnity is no argument against believing the Last Supper identical with the Passover. Their mad zeal to crush the Galilean Prophet would completely explain the actions of men who, in trying Him, did not hesitate to violate their own criminal code and tread on the principles of truth and righteousness.

The silence of the Synoptics as to whether a lamb were present on the table can be no positive argument that there was none. Since they declaredly intend to describe a Passover meal, they may safely assume that an intelligent reader, who knows anything about a Passover, must also know that, by definition, such a supper must include the lamb that was sacrificed. (Cf. Mark 14:12 = Luke 22:7.)

That Jesus observed the Passover regularly is further evidenced by the impossibility of His obtaining a lamb at any other time. Unless He made some exceptional omission of the lamb, of which deviation Scripture silence is complete, the presence of the Paschal lamb on the table meant that the meal was eaten on Nisan 14 at evening. In fact, the lamb, by definition, had to be sacrificed in the Temple and its blood applied to the altar by the priests. But as no Sadducean priest could be induced to comply with exceptional requests of that renegade Nazarene, no Paschal lamb would be sacrificed at any time other than the traditionally appropriate time. Hence, no Passover supper could be observed complete with lamb, until the correct day for slaying it.

John’s Gospel shows incidental agreement with the Synoptics with reference to the release of Barabbas. They say that customarily a prisoner was to be released at the feast (Matthew 27:15 = Mark 15:6) and John specifies at the Passover (John 18:39). But this conversation between Pilate and the Jews occurred in the morning (Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66; Luke 23:1; John 18:28; John 19:14; cf. Mark 15:25). Therefore, Jesus-’ crucifixion and Barabbas-’ release could never have occurred on 14 Nisan, since the forenoon hours of that day could not be termed the feast nor the Passover, except by a very loose use of language, because the feast does not begin until evening. Otherwise, Barabbas was officially released before the feast.

Consequently, Matthew’s dating is neither wrong nor contradictory to that of John. (See Seth Wilson’s Was Jesus Crucified on Friday? in Butler’s John II, 405ff.)

The passover

Matthew 26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Teacher saith, My time is at hand; I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. Evidently Jesus intended to remain outside of Jerusalem (perhaps at Bethany?) while Passover preparations were going on. This accomplished several practical purposes: He risked no untimely clashes with the authorities and by His absence He did not distract worshipers from their own preparations. Go ... to such a man (pròs tòn deina) is Matthew’s summary of how the disciples were to find the proper house. (See PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY for Mark and Luke’s information.) It is extremely doubtful that Jesus mentioned the man’s name, because Judas, by inquiry, could have learned his address and directed the police there before Jesus could finish teaching His men (John 13:31 to John 17:26). For security reasons, therefore, Jesus did not name the man and thus effectually hid the address from Judas. Consequently, He could enjoy that last, earnestly desired Passover meal in an undisturbed privacy with His disciples.

And say unto him. The identity of this completely unknown householder cannot be even partially discovered from what Jesus told His men to say. The Teacher saith. My time is at hand. For Jesus, this was to be a bitter-sweet hour with its positive side (cf. John 2:4; John 12:23; John 13:1) and its painful crisis (John 17:1). In His mind, this phrase meant, the schedule set by my Father for bringing to a successful conclusion my mission to redeem the world. Thus, Jesus proves how thoroughly conscious He was of the impending suffering (John 7:6; John 7:8; John 7:30; John 8:20). However, my time is at hand is not so precise an expression of time that one must assume He thought His suffering were so near that the Paschal meal must be observed ahead of its proper time.

I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. No irregular schedule is implied here; rather the contrary, because, were this some abberration from the norm, a great deal more explanation would be required to convince an unsympathetic householder to cooperate with the exceptional nature of the request. Therefore, it is quite likely that Jesus had already established some previous understanding with this person. That Jesus could describe the needed space as my guest room (Mark 14:14), and that it would be furnished and ready (Mark 14:15), points even more certainly to a previous agreement. In fact, because thousands of families would be seeking just such a room in Jerusalem for observing the Passover, it is more in keeping with Jesus-’ foresight to suppose that, to insure absolute tranquility for this Last Supper.

Speculation surrounding the man’s identity ranges from people of means and potentially spacious houses like Nicodemus (John 3:1 ff; John 19:39) and Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57; Matthew 27:60; Luke 23:50), to the capacious residence of Mary, John Mark’s mother (Acts 12:12). Was this the same Upper Room utilized by the Twelve and others for prayer and temporary lodging later (Acts 1:13 f.)? Nevertheless, the man’s identity is as unknown to us as it was to Judas.

The hypothesis of a previous contact does not compromise Jesus-’ supernatural discernment that guided His two messengers to meet the man bearing the water-pot at precisely the right moment (Mark 14:13 ff. = Luke 22:10 f.).

Matthew 26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them; and they made ready the passover. Peter and John entered Jerusalem, saw and followed the man indicated by Jesus. The gracious householder showed them spacious, second-floor room (Mark 14:15 = Luke 22:12). Did Jesus mean that it would be furnished with cushions to sit on and a low table, or that it had already been inspected for leaven? Perhaps the Apostles were to do this latter task before bringing the other elements for the feast such as water, basin and towel (John 13:4 f.).

Merely because nothing in this entire account is ever said about a paschal lamb does not prove that there were none, or that Peter and John could not have procured it, or that Jesus deliberately celebrated the Passover one day earlier than the official date. That they could have procured the lamb is obvious for several reasons:

The Law required that the lamb be selected on 10 Nisan (Exodus 12:3; Exodus 12:6). This means that the lambs all be set aside on Sunday, the day Jesus made His Messianic entry into Jerusalem. Would the necessity to select the lamb four days early be obviated in Jesus-’ time by purchasing directly from Temple stock preselected and approved and kept among Temple sacrificial animals until purchased by Passover buyers? (Cf. John 2:15.) However, it is morally unlikely that Jesus, who severely condemned the market in the Temple proper, would send His men there to take advantage of its convenience, unless, of course, that markets were by now relocated somewhere outside.

That the two Apostles could have slain the lamb at the regular time is completely reasonable, because of the vast assembly of Hebrews who must crowd the slaying of their lambs into the afternoon hours of Nisan 14. Thousands of lambs were normally slain between three and five o-‘clock (Wars, VI, 9, 3) by hundreds of priests with the assistance of Levites who skinned them (2 Chronicles 35:1-19). It is only remotely possible that one of the apostles would be recognized by any unfriendly priest assisting with the slaying. Contrarily, were there no friendly priest or Levite to whom they might turn?

Unless the owner of the Upper Room furnished everything, the two disciples would need to procure unleavened bread, wine, the bitter herbs and the fruit sauce and roast the lamb.

II. CELEBRATION OF THE LAST SUPPER (26:20-25)

Matthew 26:20 Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples. The time is not Thursday evening, 14 Nisan, the beginning of Nisan 15. Presumably, Peter and John’s preparations occupied the better part of the day, so they did not rejoin the others until finished. Mark (Mark 14:17) notes that Jesus did not even come near the Upper Room until after sunset, perhaps choosing to remain outside of Jerusalem all day for the above-mentioned practical considerations. At the Passover hour everyone else in and around Jerusalem would be deeply absorbed in his own participation in the Passover meal.

Matthew begins his narration where He was sitting at meat already. Before this, however, the disciples had bickered among themselves about their relative importance, perhaps as they took their places at the table (Luke 22:24 f.; however, Luke’s account may not be in strictly chronological order). Then, Jesus washed the disciples-’ feet to teach them the meaning of true greatness of humility and service (John 13:1-20).

He was sitting, rather, reclining (anékeito) Roman-style on a couch, or in the Oriental custom, on cushions arranged on the floor spoke-like around a low (U-shaped?) table in the center of which the food was placed. The original Passover institution required Israelites to eat the meal standing (Exodus 12:11). By custom, however, this detail had been abandoned to bring the feast’s observance into line with Israel’s Egypt, their enjoyment of security in the Promised Land seemed to dictate that they partake of the meal comfortably sitting or reclining.

With the twelve disciples means in the absence of many others. The women who came with Him from Galilee (Matthew 27:55) and the other men were apparently scattered out over Jerusalem as guests in private homes or camped out on the hills surrounding the City.

The betrayer betrayed

Matthew 26:21 And as they were eating, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Into the phrase, as they were eating, Matthew compressed several incidents that occurred before this. (See PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY; cf. John 13:1-20; Luke 22:14-18; Luke 22:24-30.)

Verily I say unto you gives this statement a deep solemnity that arises out of Jesus-’ own deep, spiritual agitation (John 13:21). In effect, then, Jesus faced a multifaceted crisis:

He must warn the disciples that the impending shock was no surprise to Him, so that they would be the better braced for it when it came (John 13:11; John 13:19). Yet He must not tell them too much, lest they block Judas-’ freedom to act and thus hinder God’s plan.

Foreknowledge of Judas-’ betrayal did not diminish the pain for Jesus. He is fully aware that one of His own men is under contract to betray Him. But He loves that man. Now He must put words to His mounting concern for him, revealing enough to be effective yet without saying too much.

He must warn Judas that He knows all, giving him the opportunity to back out while there is time. Yet He knows that Scripture portrays the betrayer as His own intimate friend. So, He cannot force Judas to repent without violating his freedom of choice.

Yet, in some way, He must create a spiritually receptive environment in which He could proceed with the last, vital instruction. Until Judas left, perhaps Jesus felt the oppressive spirit that evilly moved the man to act.

So, even if in His humility He washed Judas-’ feet along with the others-’. He must now distinguish him from the rest. But this revelation is not easy for Jesus because of these pressures (John 13:21).

One of you shall betray me. Study how Jesus treated Judas, and stand in awe of God’s respect for human freedom. The Lord did not expose him by name, violently attack Him or wither him with supernatural power. His arsenal of appeals was multiple and varied: He began by shocking him with the heinousness of what he was contemplating, a move that was calculated to catch Judas completely off-guard. Then He appealed to Judas-’ sense of fellowship and love. Last, He appealed to Judas-’ self-defensive instinct by a stern warning well calculated to stir his fear of God. Granted, none of these appeals turned the man around, but it was because Jesus completely respected his freedom of choice. In no case did Jesus coerce Judas even to save him.

What does this revelation say about Jesus? Even this prediction of the betrayal documents Jesus-’ confidence in the resurrection. Of what value would it be for a permanently dead Christ to vindicate His true identity by revealing that He knew all along which course events would take? To what purpose assert that He was able to elude the cross, but consciously chose to die thereon, only to remain buried forever? Merely to glorify a one-way martyrdom? If He knew how to avoid death by eluding His betrayer, but was trapped in full knowledge, would He not be judged a fool, if there were no resurrection to free Him from death’s clutches? Thus, even though the announcement of the betrayal shook these men, it was nothing compared to the supreme horror of His crucifixion. But when these events had all become history and Jesus stood triumphant on life’s side of the grave, what faith-grounding energy they could derive from the knowledge that Jesus saw it all ahead of time and, despite, the temptations to avoid it, and at great risks to Himself, chose to go through it anyway! What does this revelation mean to the Church? Just as Judas was at the table of Jesus Christ, so rogue disciples, in the role of believer, continue to appear at the Lord’s Table, so we must not be scandalized whenever and in whomever it appears.

Doubt mixed with hope

Matthew 26:22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began to say unto him every one, Is it I, Lord? Unable to believe their ears, these men are stunned, grieved. Their distressed reaction cries out the pain of their soul. They are sorrowful, not only because Jesus would be betrayed, but because one of them would do this unthinkable, cowardly deed. Regaining their voices, they formulate their hesitant, incredulous question in Greek form that expects a negative answer, It is not I, is it, Lord? They hope against hope for a negative answer. Since the Lord did not indicate when the betrayal would occur, they may not even have connected His words with that very night. (Contrast Matthew 26:31; Matthew 26:34: this night.) Perhaps they believed that He referred to some distant future when they might possibly be tempted to betray Him. This explains why their reaction reflects a distressed self-doubt. Otherwise, they could have categorically denied any intention to be traitor to Him that very night, Instead, they began to say unto him every one, one after another (Mark 14:19; heis katà heis).

By this keen sensitivity and genuine self-doubt, they really proved their innocence and deep loyalty to Jesus. Pricked by memories of their lack of graciousness, their weakness of love, the extent of their selfishness and the reality of their doubts, their own conscience accused them. Painfully aware of the deceitfulness of their own hearts, they distrust themselves. But they prove their discipleship real as they bare their soul for His scrutiny and trust His testimony both to the fact just announced and to the identity of the guilty one. Better question one’s own maturity and loyalty than doubt the Lord’s word!

It is a mark of the beauty of their humility that each lays himself open to accusation. Not one of them questioned the loyalty of his fellow apostle, even by insinuation. Peter will break this rule later (Matthew 26:33). But for now the group is compact, each disciple searching his own heart.

Out of their self-examination arises two observations:

It illustrates how thoroughly Judas had succeeded in hiding his plans and even his mentality from his brother-apostles. They saw nothing unusual in Judas-’ character or talk that would arouse their suspicions. But Jesus read the secrets of Judas-’ heart.

But that the other disciples had discerned nothing unusual in Judas may actually depict to what extent they too shared his false, carnal Messianism. (See notes on Matthew 26:14; cf. Acts 1:6; Matthew 20:20 ff.; Luke 22:24 ff.) This may simply indicate how close to disaster they too walked, were it not their greater confidence in Jesus!

Each dismayed, Is it I, Lord?, should have shaken Judas with powerful force, because the betrayer knew the innocence of each man. Finding himself in the moral minority could have persuaded him to repudiate his plan. But the innocence that drove the others to question Jesus does not motivate Judas, so he does not speak up at this point. He may be taken aback that Jesus has somehow uncovered his plot, but for reasons of his own, he cannot be greatly distressed that such a betrayal is really also a denial of his discipleship. (See on Matthew 26:14.)

Dare we ask ourselves with the same painful objectivity what kind of situation or temptations would ever undermine our resolve to serve Jesus, sufficiently to compromise our loyalty to Him? This humility is the only appropriate spirit with which to approach the Lord’s Supper. Hope as we might that we be equal to the severe testing of any future situation, no one can predict with certainty that he shall stand up under fire.

The outrageousness of treason

Matthew 26:23 And he answered and said, He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. Rather than use knives and forks to eat, they followed Oriental manners by dipping their food from the common dish with their hands. Some believe the dish He refers to was the charoseth, a dish of thick spicy sweet-sour fruit sauce composed of figs, dates, raisins, vinegar and other ingredients.

It is evident, however, that Jesus has not yet directly answered anyone’s heart-wrenching question. Although he that dipped (ho embàpsas) appears to point to one past act, as if Judas had just done so, the Lord refers, not to an act just completed, but to the fact without reference to time. (Time, per sè, is not a necessary part of the sense of the aorist participle, the emphasis being primarily on the act itself, as opposed to a continuing process.) Because many were dipping in the bowl with Jesus during that meal, the dipping would not in itself unmask the traitor. However, probably not all of the Twelve would dip his hand with [Jesus] in the dish; as there might be several such dishes on the table for that many people. So, this revelation decidedly limits the list of potential betrayers to those dipping directly with Him, a fact that even more decisively highlights the closeness of this fellowship. Further, if, as Edersheim (Life, II, 493f.) pictures it, Judas is seated on Jesus-’ left and John on His right, it would be an easy matter for Judas to dip his hand with [Jesus] in the dish. It also explains how Jesus could easily be talking directly with Judas without others hearing (Matthew 26:25) and then hand him the sop (John 13:25 ff.).

Jesus-’ purpose is not merely to point to the mechanics of eating nor specifically to the seating order at the table. Nor is this a whispered aside to John, as is His later remark (John 13:26), because nothing is said here that would distinguish Judas from the others. Rather Jesus-’ semi-enigmatic response intends to rouse the moral indignation and stir the conscience of everyone present. This response underscores the moral inconceivableness of the betrayer’s act. He is my table companion, sharing the deepest bonds of fellowship. The very instrument of betrayal, the hand of him who betrays me, was not only ready to grasp the opportunity to be false to Jesus, but even at that moment was on the table with Him (Luke 22:21).

He pushes every disciple to distrust his own heart and loyalty against the presumption that would cause the failure of nearly everyone that very night. Everyone of them, in a sense, dipped his hand. in the dish then deserted Him and fled (Matthew 26:56).

He focuses on the underhandedness with which He, the Lord of glory, would be betrayed to suffer. To the Oriental, to eat together is to form a bond of fellowship for which those who thus participate should be willing to give their lives to protect that of the other covenanters. The ultimate treachery, as Jesus hammers it out, is that one would arise from this meal, in which he had shared from the identical dish, and go out to repudiate this covenant of friendship and be traitor to Him.

Jesus also demonstrates how thoroughly He Himself is master of this crisis. He is not merely tightening the accusing circle around Judas. His purpose is didactic apologetics: I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he (John 13:18 ff.).

By appealing to the bond of fellowship to which Judas was theoretically committed by eating with Jesus, He intends to rouse Judas-’ conscience to grasp the enormity of what he planned. Not only does He warn Iscariot that he is found out, He also longs to save him, if possible. For Judas to resist the pressure of his conscience will demonstrate how far he was beyond recall. In fact, his rationalizations (see on Matthew 26:14) probably justified his eating with his Victim, because, if we have rightly understood him, he did not admit that Jesus would be hurt in the final life-and-death crisis. Consequently, Judas could see no violation of hospitality, table fellowship or implied friendship. For Judas, therefore, Jesus was not Lord, nor His appeals or arguments final. Judas still reigned over his heart, not Jesus.

Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born. All the disciples needed to come to terms with the true purpose behind Jesus-’ suffering. Their mistaken sorrow and shock were caused by a wrong view of God’s program in which there was no place for a butchered Christ. So He must assure them of two things:

The Son of man goeth to His death. This is a conscious decision to which no human being is forcing Him. They cannot snatch His life from Him. Rather, He actually intends to lay down His life (John 10:17 f; John 15:13; Romans 5:7). By establishing these priorities, higher even than self-preservation itself, He explains both to Judas and the Eleven why He was making no move to stop this terrible deed.

Even as it is written of him. His death would not spell the unaccountable victory of evil, but, rather, the marvelous success of God’s set purpose. Luke (Luke 22:22) has: as it has been determined. This sovereign decree was well-documented ahead of time by the prophets. (Cf. Isaiah 53; Psalms 22; Daniel 9:26 f.; Zechariah 12:10 ff; Zechariah 13:1.) These the disciples were far too reluctant to believe. (Cf. Luke 24:25 ff., Luke 24:44 ff.; John 20:9.) What is written of him must take place! (Cf. Luke 22:37; Matthew 26:54; Matthew 26:56.) Our Savior, God’s Son, plants His feet firmly on the Old Testament as upon a firm foundation that can never be shaken. For Him, its message, which centers in His own Messiahship, is the revelation of God’s determination to carry out His program to head up everything in Christ. Jesus is unafraid to say this, even if those Old Testament prophecies predict His shame and suffering.

Woe unto that man. good were it for that man if he had not been born. This sentence sounds so drastic a pronouncement that Judas-’ sin is often blown out of proportions, as if we common mortals could never match his consummate wickedness. But, elsewhere, Jesus endeavors, with the same vigorous language to impress upon every disciple that all arrogance, self-satisfaction and indifference toward others deserves the severest measures, even death (Matthew 18:5-9)! Nonexistence is to be preferred to sin! (Did this concept lurk in Judas-’ mind to become the twisted autosuggestion that led to his suicide?) Further, if Judas be thought a common sinner, (see notes on Matthew 26:14), what does this ominous sentence of awful judgment awaiting him mean? Why was Judas-’ sin so wrong? These questions find their solution in Jesus-’ warning: Woe to that man. In this woe are two sentiments:

FOREBODING JUDGMENT. While there is not even a breath of personal animosity in Jesus-’ heart, His sorrowful outcry is founded on the curse that God must pronounce upon such a sinner.

Judas sinned, because it is a crime to turn an innocent man over to the violence of his fiercest enemies from whom he could never receive just treatment and who are unquestionably determined to kill him. This is objectively wrong, whatever Judas-’ subjective reasons might be (cf. Matthew 26:14).

Further, it is objectively wrong because of the unspeakable wickedness of any disciple who dares believe himself wiser than the King Himself to organize and manipulate the program and progress of the Kingdom of God to achieve his own ends, whatever they be or whatever his supposed motive.

Judas sinned, because Jesus here exposed and condemned Judas-’ master plan to betray Him. This final warning pushes Judas to realize that, if the betrayal now goes through, he must now sin with full awareness. Now there can be no extenuation of guilt nor excuse. That Judas bull-headedly plunged on to this diabolical appointment must mean, then, that he considered his own rationale far more convincing that Christ’s attempted deterrent. This is the moral failure typical of most of us. Whether meant as open rebellion or not, Judas hereby defied the wisdom of Jesus Christ!

Judas-’ sin is objectively wrong, because he did it deliberately, regardless of the use God planned to make of his treachery. The man acted freely. If interviewed about his scheme before Jesus-’ arrest, Judas would probably openly claim personal credit for the genius of his plot. Nowhere could he have discerned any compulsion from God. Thus, not even Judas would have blamed God for this severe condemnation, because he fully expected something quite different to develop from his plotting. (See on Matthew 27:3 ff.) Nor is his sin transformed by the fact that God knew he would do it and permitted him to go ahead. God’s secret purpose to utilize the man’s falseness for His own glory does not change the objective nature of the crime freely chosen by Judas. That Jesus is destined by Divine sovereignty to be betrayed does not in any way minimize the responsibility of His betrayer nor justify him in any sense, merely, because he made God’s plan functionany more than Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar or Caiaphas could be excused for their hardness of heart. McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 226) rightly argued:

This shows that a man who, by a wicked act, brings about the 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,

SADNESS MINGLED WITH LOVING MERCY. Jesus-’ awareness that with His disciple, Judas, He shall fail, notwithstanding His last impassioned appeals to turn him, wrings from Him this wail of sorrow. If there is any anger in Jesus, it is not so much against Judas the man, as against the superstition, ignorance, selfishness and resultant evil in him that makes him impervious to the last heart-broken pleas to reconsider. Jesus-’ sadness may also be wrung out of Him, because He foresees the unbearable self-reproach that would engulf Judas when he finally grasped the horrible impact of his deed.

The Lord’s dire warning actually treats Judas with merciful indulgence by effectually furnishing the traitor a motive, hence also a chance, to back out of the conspiracy. Let the Bible texts affirm that the Messiah must suffer and even suggest that a close friend betray Him (Psalms 41:9; John 13:18), but let not dear Judas decide to be that man!

Good were it for that man if he had not been born. But Judas had been born, and his only escape now is by repentance. Nothing in sovereign predestination demanded that he be the apostate apostle. God’s program would have been fully carried out, even if Judas backed out! Prophecy only said, Someone. Let that turncoat be someone else! Jesus-’ solemn sentence must silence everyone who would defend Judas. For, from this point on, to become Judas-’ defense lawyer is to commit the same sin of which Iscariot himself was guilty: presumption to argue against the Lord’s judgment.

Jesus-’ warning should have shaken the man to core, because He has just affirmed, I know whom I have chosen (John 13:18). Although the Lord had not consciously selected Iscariot to groom him for treachery, at the same time He made no miscalculation in choosing him, as if He could somehow be taken unawares by Judas-’ scheming.

On what basis could Jesus reasonably admonish the man, if He knew all along that this disciple would not submit to His will? Should not Jesus have simply given up without trying? This quandary faces every disciple who must feel the attraction of doubting whether a given reprobate can be brought to repentance. But that Jesus did admonish Judas urges us to go ahead and try. Further, He acted in harmony with God and His prophets who also mercifully attempted the impossible. (Study Genesis 4:6 f.; Proverbs 29:1; Isaiah 5:1-7; Isaiah 6:9 f.; Ezekiel 3:18 ff; Ezekiel 18:30 ff; Ezekiel 33:1 ff. esp. Ezekiel 33:30-33; Luke 13:6-9; Luke 13:34 f.; Acts 20:25-31.) So, ironically, even from Jesus-’ full consciousness of His own failure to persuade Judas, we may draw strength to labor incessantly to win others, despite the ever-increasing odds against their conversion. Even while using every appropriate persuasion to lead them to repent, we may not force their will. And, in the end, their loss will grieve us, but never so greatly as did the loss of Judas to our Lord. But He thoroughly understands what we undergo when we fail, because He has been there too on the night when Judas walked out eternally unpersuaded.

The betrayer’s bold bluff

Matthew 26:25 And Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, Is it I, Rabbi? He saith unto him, Thou hast said. While others questioned themselves, for Judas to remain silent would have been damning evidence of his complicity. Steeling himself, therefore, he risks exposure. However, if, as we believe (cf. notes on Matthew 26:14), Judas felt no malevolence toward Jesus personally, but, rather, a certain superiority, his question here is, from his point of view, neither shameful nor defiant mockery. Rather, as he reflects on Jesus-’ revelation that a turncoat is in their midst, he may be thinking, You may call me a traitor today, but tomorrow you will thank me for what I am doing for you! Further, Judas-’ curiosity may have been pricked by Jesus-’ startling announcement, so he now tests the quantity and quality of His intelligence source to discover how much the Rabbi really knows. Or is He merely guessing? So, Judas-’ question is not wholly false, even if it is a feint.

Is it I, Rabbi? While the others called Jesus, Lord, Judas, alone terms Him, Rabbi. Could he not bring himself to confess Jesus as Lord? Although to call Him their Teacher was a mark of high respect and true discipleship (John 13:13 f.), how very far Teacher is from confessing Him Lord (Romans 10:9; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Philippians 2:11)! This title for Judas is really hypocritical, because in this very moment he was unwilling to let Jesus teach him! For him, Jesus was neither really Teacher nor Lord.

Not asked together with the pained questions of the others (Matthew 26:22), but after Jesus-’ stern warnings (Matthew 26:23 f.), Judas-’ bold question appears too isolated to have escaped the notice of everyone. But in the confusion of the general debate that arose, while others continued asking, Jesus continued to talk. (Cf. John 13:22; Luke 22:23.) Then, Judas, sensing that continued silence would be damning, speaks.

He saith unto him, Thou hast said. Did Jesus really say this, or is this merely Matthew’s summary of the incident related by John 13:23-27, in the sense that Jesus answered Judas positively only by handing him the sop? (So, Godet, John, 255.) While this signal gesture was intelligible to John, unless Judas (and potentially others) heard the signal, It is he to whom I shall give this morsel, when I have dipped it (John 13:26), it would not have been understood by Judas to whom the answer here in Matthew was supposedly given. Therefore, Jesus actually spoke to Judas to reveal His supernatural insight into Judas-’ perfidy. Then later, when Peter gestured to John, He told John the signal, but to no one else.

Although some believe that Thou hast said means Yes in the same way the American expression, You said it! affirms so definitely, several factors must be taken into consideration:

Jesus-’ answer was not heard in the confusion. Everyone was talking, because they began to question one another which of them it was that would do this (Luke 23:23). Otherwise, had these words been distinctly heard in that electric atmosphere, the other disciples could have pounced on the traitor instantly. Perhaps Jesus whispered His positive answer.

Further, if they heard Him, they may not have believed the betrayal imminent, supposing that this revelation referred to some distant future, not to the impending crisis that very night. Because they could not believe that Jesus would die soon, despite His many warnings, they would even postpone the eventual betrayal to some hopefully distant day.

However, it may be doubted whether this expression is so precise and definite as would appear from its use elsewhere (cf. Matthew 26:64). While not intentionally evasive, this response mildly demurs at the formulation of a statement made by the other party in the conversion. Hence, there is no need to suppose that, had anyone heard Jesus say this, he would instantly recognize Judas for the traitor. Rather, Jesus-’ less-than-definite expression, The words are yours, might have even appeared to deny Judas-’ treachery. Not I, but you, Judas, said it. Thus, whoever overheard it may have judged Jesus-’ answer too vague for certainty. But a meaningful look of Jesus may convince Judas that He really does know about Judas-’ plot, but will not tell, leaving Judas really free to decide his own course.

That this response of Jesus is not a precise answer exposing Judas is proven by the fact that no one correctly guessed why Jesus sent him out from the Passover (John 13:28 f.). Because thou hast said is all that Matthew records, since he omitted the dipping of the sop, we must conclude that Jesus did, in a sense, commit Himself to a positive answer. Nonetheless, because of the foregoing considerations, it may be that this commitment is much clearer in light of subsequent events than it was when originally uttered by Jesus there at the table.

However, one disciple, John, did learn the traitor’s identity, not directly nor verbally, but by a gesture (John 13:23 ff.). Jesus dipped a bit of bread into the sauce and handed it directly to Judas. Some see this gesture as treating Judas as an honored guest on the part of a careful host, a last, loving attempt of Jesus to break through Judas-’ reserve of determination to carry out his plan. Jesus thus directed this last appeal to all that was possibly yet loyal in the man. Contemporaneously, by this exquisite gesture of oriental hospitality. He hid Judas even more effectively from all others. But Iscariot’s brazenness remained impenetrable, leading Jesus to hurry him out into the night to get on with his demoniacal business. Still, John could not react swiftly enough to block him, because the Lord deliberately hurried the man out before anyone really grasped what was happening. Perhaps John did not react in harmony with that explosive revelation, because he saw that it had been Jesus Himself who sent Judas beyond their reach.

The fact that John alone records the dipping of the sop specifically points to a Passover meal. In the Passover Haggadah the Passover supper is distinguished from all other meals in several ways including -on all other nights we do not dip even once, but on this night twice-’ (Barrett, John, 373; cf. Mishnah, Pesach, 10, 4). Further, that John alone records that when Judas left it was night (John 13:30), points to the Passover meal, not some other, because, while any other supper meal could be eaten at any time from the later afternoon to early evening, the Passover-offering could be eaten only during that night and only until midnight (Zebahim 5.8 cited by Barrett, John, 374).

Judas, strongly urged by the authorities not to precipitate the crisis but to wait until after the feast in the absence of the multitude (cf. Luke 22:6), now finds himself discovered. Compelled by his fear of retaliation from the others, if they learn he is to act this very night, and hurried out by Jesus, he dashed to his fellow plotters to obtain the necessary men to arrest Jesus. Thus, before they really wanted it, he hastened the crisis, making Jesus-’ arrest and sufferings to occur during the Passover feast contrary to their earlier prudential judgment to wait. But this precipitation of the events began with Jesus-’ quiet, skillful move that sent Judas forth to his ungodly, morally mad mission. This resulted in the fulfillment, right on schedule, not of the rulers-’ careful plotting, but of God’s eternal plan. Even in this detail Jesus showed Himself Master of men and circumstances, and, bless God, fully Master of Himself!

III. INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER (26:26-30) THE BROKEN BREAD

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed and brake it; and he gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. The expression, as they were eating, by its very ambiguity does not permit us to know at what stage in the Paschal Supper Jesus established His memorial. Edersheim (Life, II, 510) is undoubtedly right to affirm that it almost seems as if the Evangelists had intended, by their studied silence in regard to the Jewish Feast, to indicate that with this celebration and the new Institution the Jewish Passover had for ever ceased. Further, Matthew does not indicate when Judas went out. John, who alone reports his departure, does not document the Lord’s Supper. So, the final proof is lacking whether Judas partook of it.

However, it is more probable that Jesus did not confuse matters unnecessarily by mixing the exposure and expelling the betrayer with the vital instruction on the Lord’s Supper, since the disciples-’ minds would have wavered back and forth from their consternation about betrayal to their concentration on Jesus-’ death. But even this is not conclusive, since our own self-examination easily accomplishes this every Sunday as, at the Lord’s table, we contemplate our own betrayals of discipleship.

Again, because of the divided manuscript evidence in Luke, scholars are divided concerning the order of the Lord’s Supper institution: did the cup or bread come first, or were there two of the traditionally four Passover cups involved in Luke’s account, one mentioned before the Lord’s Supper and one during its institution? Two answers are possible to deny the unwarranted assumption that Matthew and Mark are at insoluble variance with Luke:

While the available manuscript evidence of Luke is definitely debatable, there are valid reasons for considering it virtually certain. (See the controversy even among textual editors in Textual Commentary, 173.) The longer form of Luke’s text containing the cup-bread-cup order appears to enjoy the best manuscript documentation and best reasons for its inclusion.

There are affinities between Luke’s account and that of Paul (cf. Luke 22:19 f. with 1 Corinthians 11:23 ff.), which, according to some, argue that Paul and Luke share the same oral tradition. Nevertheless, Paul, when reporting the essential facts of the Supper’s institution, always follows the order: eat/drink, bread/cup, and body/blood, never inverting either of these elements. (1 Corinthians 10:16 f., 1 Corinthians 10:21 does not relate the Passover event.) Therefore, if Luke intended to transcribe the tradition as he received it originally from Paul, the original autograph of Luke likely had the rendering given by the majority of textual witnesses; cup-bread-cup, the first of these cups being related to the Passover, not the Lord’s Supper.

Jesus took bread, not loaves of raised dough, but the flat, unleavened bread of the Passover meal. And blessed: to give God thanks for any food is virtually to bless it, since thanksgiving consecrates it (1 Timothy 4:4 f.). In this sense, blessed (eulogésas) and gave thanks (eucharistésas Matthew 26:27; cf. Matthew 14:19 with John 6:11; see Mark 8:6-7) amount to the same thing, hence are practically synonymous. While undoubtedly Jesus always gave thanks for food, His doing so at the Passover was also traditional, not specifically commanded by God as an essential part of this ordinance. Why is it that He brake it? Although breaking for others after giving thanks was Jesus-’ habit (cf. Luke 24:30; Luke 24:35), Edersheim (Temple, 241f.) considers the act a normal traditional part of the Paschal ceremony.

Take, eat; this is my body. Because it was bread that He broke and gave to them, calling it His body, He pointed to Himself as the Bread of life that would nourish them with eternal life. (See John 6:53 ff.) Take, eat: this symbolic enactment teaches them that His life and its power over death must be appropriated by each disciple in a way so intimate and personal that it may be compared to the assimilation of food whereby its nutritional power becomes part of the disciple, giving him the power of Christ’s life. When taken literally, His language sounds like mystical nonsense. Nevertheless, the implication is that Jesus-’ life, as this is expressed in His concrete historical incarnation is literally our only life. He really is the only source and sustainer of our physical and spiritual life (Colossians 1:17; Colossians 3:1 ff.; Philippians 1:21; John 1:4; John 15:1-11). But this life is not merely our juridical acceptability with the Father, but our personal, conscious feeding our souls on Christ Himself.

The shared cup

Matthew 26:27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. Both Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25; and Luke 22:20) agree that the institution of the cup took place at the conclusion of the Passover meal. He gave thanks! Aside from the traditional blessing of the cup (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16), how could He sincerely feel like giving thanks to God for the somber meaning of that cup? He gave thanks, because He thoroughly believed in the final victory of the program of God whereby the Father would bring joy out of shame and death. He could be grateful, because He believed!

In English, Drink ye all of it sounds like Drain the cup, whereas Jesus said, All of you drink of it (píete ex autoû pàntes). This all of you stands in evident contrast to the general Roman Catholic practice of forbidding the cup of anyone but the priest, but Jesus emphasized the common sharing. All of you does not prove that Judas was present, as if the Twelve were addressed as a yet unbroken group, for Jesus could reasonably address this to those yet present and faithful to Him, though Judas be now gone.

Rather, His point is another: unity in the fellowship. As each disciple drinks from the cup he shares not only with every other who does so, but he thereby commits himself to that fellowship. He drinks together with others in the memory of Jesus-’ redemptive death, thus committing himself to share in the meaning of that sacrifice. This also involves our moral obligation to the rest of the family. More than any other, this must be thought of as the cup of brotherhood. Western Christians must recapture what it means for people to drink together, notwithstanding the ungodly abuses of this concept among drunkards. Drinking together constitutes a pledge of mutual loyalty. This simple act practically expresses an oath of allegiance to live in fellowship with, to defend and die for those with whom one drinks. In the Lord’s Supper it is with Jesus Christ and His Church that we drink! There can be no higher allegiance, no more precious fellowship, no more sacred commitment than this. As we eat and drink, honoring the memory of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, we commit ourselves to hate sin and abandon it to express our loyalty to Him. We solemnly consecrate ourselves to the promotion and progress of all that is precious to Him.

In this light, then, there could be little doubt that He also drank from this same cup. Luke’s citation, I shall never eat. drink. until the Kingdom of God comes (Luke 22:15; Luke 22:18) is to be interpreted in harmony with Matthew 26:29, i.e. after this sad celebration of the Last Passover, He would no longer participate in the Passover itself until its full significance were realized in the Kingdom. (See on Matthew 26:29.)

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. After the disciples all drank from the cup (Mark 14:23 f.), Jesus furnished this threefold explanation of the cup’s symbolism:

This is. blood of the covenant. This entire sentence is a highly compressed reference to the long-awaited arrival of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31 ff.) which God, through the Messiah (Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 53:12 death) would make with His people and whereby He would completely forgive their sins, absorbing its penalty Himself. But even such a covenant could not be ratified without the shedding of blood, as was the ancient Mosaic pact (Exodus 24:8). Because ancient covenants were considered a life-and-death matter, they were sealed with blood, because the life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). Failure to keep them spelled the forfeiture of the transgressor’s life. So, a covenant with a holy God that offers forgiveness of sins and fellowship could not be established without the judicially appropriate substitionary shedding of blood for the sinner (Hebrews 9:22). So, by saying, the blood of the covenant (tò haîma ... tês diathékes). Jesus associated this new symbolism with the ancient words of Exo 24:8 pronounced at Sinai. By using this Mosaic terminology, Jesus deliberately interprets the Mosaic institution as having no meaning except as it finds its perfect final fulfillment in Him. God has never had but one grand scheme of redemption, even though this was expressed in various covenantal relationships. The initial phases only prepared for the final, perfect covenant established by Jesus Christ.

Further, because the Sinaitic pact united the many tribes of Israel into a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession with a mission to accomplish in world history (Exodus 18:4 f.), it would appear that Jesus intends that the new covenant create the new Israel of God from all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues to have the same privilege and purpose. (Cf. 1 Peter 2:9 f.; Galatians 6:16). In this light, then, the Lord’s Supper becomes a celebration of this new brotherhood, for it points not merely to a personal covenant with God, but also to the covenantal creation of the new people of God. (See Paul’s use of this concept: 1 Corinthians 10:17 and perhaps Matthew 11:29.)

This is my blood. which is poured out. His expression excludes natural death and points to the blood-shedding of a sacrificial victim. So saying, Jesus depicts Himself as God’s Lamb. (Cf. John 1:29; Hebrews 7:27.) His self-giving institutes a new relationship which makes the Mosaic covenant obsolete.

For many unto remission of sins. His death as a substitutionary sacrifice was the purpose of His coming (Matthew 20:28). This phrase gives the clearest sense to the suffering of Jesus. His mission is neither simply to teach pious moral doctrine or eschatological visions, nor suffer martyrdom as a supreme model of fidelity to duty. His purpose was to establish a covenant between man and God in the only way it could be: by blood which achieves remission of sins. By beginning with elements of the Passover, He drew attention to the exodus, no more from the slavery of Egypt, but from slavery to sin. Consequently, participation in the Supper must involve our renewal of our own individual total self-commitment to God’s program to eliminate all sin in ourselves and in others, for in Jesus-’ death God’s passionate hatred for sin and His passionate love for sinners meet.

For many may be an intentional echo of Isa 53:11 f. that pictures the Messiah’s vicarious death in the place of sinners. He did not give His one innocent life for the forgiveness of but one personone life for one life, but for all humanity (John 12:32; cf. Paul’s argument, Romans 5:12-20).

Unto remission of sins does not connect forgiveness with participation in the Lord’s Supper, as if He said, Drink. for the remission of sins, so that whoever missed the Supper for whatever reason could not be forgiven until the next occasion for partaking. Rather, the participation is a celebration of a past fact and renews our confidence that we have been forgiven by His blood. All the disciples who partook that night were already clean before Jesus instituted this Supper (John 13:10 f; John 15:3).

Whereas Luke (Luke 22:20) and Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) both say, -This cup is the new covenant in my blood, the difference is slight, because the real basis of the covenant whereby remission of sins is to be enjoyed, is still Jesus-’ blood. He simply makes the cup stand for this fundamental principle. When one partakes of the cup, he thereby recognizes and respects the covenant and its provisions.

The translation of the RSV, This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood (Luke 22:20) wrongly applies the pouring to the cup, rather than the blood. Even though both cup and blood are neuter gender in Greek, the appositional phrase, which is poured out, is located after my blood, and should be considered to modify it. A much better rendering would be: this cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins.

Take, eat. This is my body. Drink ye all of it. This is my blood. Literal identification of Jesus-’ body and blood with the bread and cup is excluded by the fact that Jesus stood there before them, holding these symbols in His hands. Instead, although this eating and drinking are physical acts, they are nonetheless truly spiritual, because they are based on a belief and a participation in something that cannot be seen or felt. While not literally a partaking of flesh and blood, the acts are nonetheless real, precisely because spiritual. What is eaten and drunk is still bread and wine to the sense, but to the soul, it is undoubted spiritual participation in all the reality of Jesus Christ.

This bread is my body ... this cup is my blood. By beginning with elements common to the Passover meal, Jesus pointed to Himself as the true fulfillment of the Paschal symbolism. It is remarkable that He made no direct allusion to the lamb. This is because the lamb is to serve no purpose in the new Supper He instituted, for He Himself is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed (1 Corinthians 5:7). By His choice, therefore, we partake only of bread and wine that symbolize to us what the Paschal lamb represented to the Israelites, God’s Lamb. Thus, because our Lord Himself fulfilled this symbolic feast in all of the rich meaning God intended Israel to grasp as they observed it, our participation in the Lord’s Supper fulfills all the symbolic significance of the ancient Passover. So, if Israel’s eating of the Paschal lamb signified their identification with all that the lamb represented and accomplished spiritually for them, our eating of the bread and drinking the wine signifies our loyal fellowship in all that Jesus accomplished through His flesh and blood too.

What bread and wine mean to the body, participation in the body and blood of the Lord must mean to our inner life. By sharing in the broken bread and the cup of blessing, we really, even if symbolically, participate in the vibrant life that was His (1 Corinthians 10:16 f.). Therefore, if not to partake of bread and wine, common staples of the Middle-East diet, is to starve, not to absorb Jesus-’ soul-sustaining love, message and attitudes cannot keep us alive spiritually either. We must have Him to live! For the disciples, the net result of this revelation should be high encouragement to believe that Jesus-’ approaching suffering was no freak disaster inflicted by brutal men or unforeseen by God. So far from frustrating His purpose, His death would actually accomplish His true mission. While His suffering would seem to be the entirely unjustified sin of resentful, ungodly men, it would be Jesus-’ freely chosen way of ratifying a covenant which would redeem men from sin and initiate a new age. Rather than shiver in horror of His shameful death, He glorified His suffering by elevating it to a central place in the institutional life of His people. In this covenantal ritual of eating and drinking, they thereby bind themselves once again to keep the covenant, by their own self-giving life like that of Jesus. Thus, the Supper is more than a supremely appropriate commemoration of the great redemptive act He would accomplish on the cross. It is also a continuing reminder of His love and of our dependence upon Him. Thus, the appropriate attitude for partaking of the Supper must be aroused, not so much by an intellectual acceptance of a past fact alone, as by hearty gratitude toward the generosity of Him who did it: Christ’s love compels us. (2 Corinthians 5:14; Galatians 2:20).

SPECIAL STUDY GOD IN THE BOX: ROMAN CATHOLIC TRANSUBSTANTIATION

The miracle of transubstantiation whereby the bread and wine undergo a change into the literal body and blood of Christ is a tradition that entered ecclesiastical life around 380 A.D. and became dogma of the faith in 1215. (Cf. Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, chaps. VIII-X for the history of its development.) In 1226 Catholics began to kneel in the presence of the host, the consecrated wafer of the Eucharist kept in a special box called the Tabernacle, because it was thought to become the presence of Christ in their midst. Continuing idolatry must be the judgment on this worship of the consecrated Host, whereby, according to Pope Paul VI (Encyclica Mysterium fidei, No. 35).

Not only during the offering of the sacrifice and the carrying out of the Sacrament, but also afterwards, while the Eucharist is kept in the churches and chapels, Christ is truly the Emmanuel, that is God with us. Since he is with us day and night, he dwells with us full of grace and truth.. The Catholic Church professes this service of worship of the Eucharistic Sacrament not only during the Mass, but also beyond its celebration, by saving the consecrated bread with the maximum diligence, presenting it to the solemn veneration of the faithful Christians, carrying it in procession for the rejoicing of the Christian multitude.

In theory, these views of traditional Romanism (as opposed to modern controversial Catholic theology) are based on Jesus-’ words, This is my body. this is my blood. By these words Catholics officially believe that Jesus Himself worked, hence, sanctioned the miraculous transformation. That such a position cannot be sustained from the words of Christ, is proven by the following considerations:

After having said, This is my body. this is my blood, He referred to the bread as simply bread (1 Corinthians 11:26) and to the cup as the fruit of the vine, (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25), although both, according to the theory, should have already changed into flesh and blood. Paul, too, speaks of the supposedly transformed bread as simply bread two more times and calls the wine simply the cup three times, after citing the supposedly miraculously transforming words of Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:27 ff.). Now, if neither Jesus nor Paul could discern any change in these elements, there must have not been any.

In the Catholic mass there is no transformation that can be discerned by the impartial observer, not even by the Pope himself (Osservatore Romano for 1-2 July 1968, p. 2). The wafer remains what it is and the wine drunk by the priest is still wine. But calling it a spiritual miracle is inexcusable, because, when Jesus worked real miracles, tangibly verifiable changes occurred. When He turned water into wine, for example, everyone could tell that it was no longer water, but the finest wine (John 2:9 f.). There was no need for ecclesiastical hocus-pocus nor mental gymnastics nor autosuggestion to cause people to think a material change had taken place when it had not.

Such a miraculous transformation, in the nature of the case, is not to be expected from Christ. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass, established by the Council of Trent (canons 1 and 2 of the Decretal on the Eucharist, and sanctioned by Vatican II), affirms that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice that is offered to take away the sins of the living and dead in Christ. (Cf. Documents of the Second Vatican Council, The Liturgy, §§9,354, 1288.) Thus, every mass becomes a repeated renewal of Christ’s sacrifice, which shifts the believer’s attention from the proclamation of Jesus-’ death and resurrection to the pretended mystery of the mutation of the Eucharist’s elements (ibid., §§286, 1252-1254). But Christ’s sacrifice was a unique event: once for ever (Romans 6:9 f.; Hebrews 7:25-27; Hebrews 9:22; Hebrews 9:25-28; Hebrews 10:12-14)! Thus, the supposed necessity of other, repeated, complementary sacrifices of Christ’s body and blood to remove sins, is diametrically opposed to the Bible doctrine of the uniqueness and sufficiency of Christ’s original sacrifice (Hebrews 10:17 f).

Such an interpretation turns into wooden, prosaic literalism the figurative language of a Teacher whose lessons abound in vivid pictures. This is my body. my blood are simply metaphors, that vivid figure of speech which creates a relationship between two objects by calling one of them by a term that denotes the characteristic of the other, thus, rhetorically transferring the characteristic of the one to the other so as to suggest some analogy between them. While many illustrations could be cited (like John 10:7; John 10:9; John 14:6; John 15:1; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Matthew 5:13-16; Jeremiah 2:13; Genesis 49:9; Genesis 49:14; Genesis 49:21-22; Genesis 49:27), the one which shows most convincingly that Jesus-’ language is to be understood figuratively is Luke’s version: This cup. is the new covenant in my blood (Luke 22:20; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:25). By affirming that this cup is a new covenant, He brings together two otherwise unconnected ideas to make His point. This combination is simply another metaphor of the same type utilized by Matthew and Mark’s version: This is my body. my blood. At any rate, Jesus warned against turning metaphor into literalism with precise reference to His body and His blood, when He cautioned so emphatically, The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life (John 6:63).

The disciples themselves understood Jesus to speak symbolically, because no serious objection arose from these Hebrews against the cannibalism implicitly involved in eating real human flesh and drinking real human blood, for to them this could not be less than totally abhorrent. (Contrast the unbelievers, who, like the traditional, Catholic position, thought Jesus spoke literally, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? John 6:52!)

Possibly utilizing the ancient formula of Exo 12:11, at the Passover Hebrews spoke of the Passover lamb thus: This is the body of the lamb which our fathers ate in Egypt. (Cf. Edersheim, Temple, 232, who documents a similar statement in Mishnah, Pes. 10.3.) Although it was decidedly not the same lamb, each Passover lamb stood for and memorialized it.

We present a photograph to our acquaintances, saying, This is my mother, knowing that they cannot misunderstand us to affirm that the picture itself is our parent. Similarly, while alive in their presence, Jesus could even more easily hand them bread and wine and affirm, This is my body. my blood, without their misunderstanding Him to mean that some metaphysical change had come over those common elements which even their own senses could not discern, but which Jesus continued to speak of as bread and wine.

Therefore, certain knowledge not only of this text but also of Jesus-’ general use of metaphors and of His style of Kingdom, as well as genuine spiritual discernment are all needed to restrain us from repeating the sacramental substitution of the Church’s Dark Ages. Those men, unwilling to believe that the spiritual influence of the Supper lay in mere symbols, attributed to the figure all the powerful virtue of the things symbolized, transferring the power of salvation from Jesus the Savior to the sacrifice of the mass. But salvation cannot be acquired through the magical properties of earthly elements, but by a new standing before God, a position determined by personal faith in Jesus Christ and attained by His self-sacrifice once for all forever. The certainty that we truly and properly partake of Christ is not made possible as the result of an ecclesiastical magic trick accomplished only by authorized personnel (which also shifts attention to a special priestly hierarchy). Rather, this certainly is obtained by the willing confession that all who eat His flesh and drink His blood in the sense that HE expressed, that is, by absorbing His words, His Spirit and His life, have His life abiding in them (John 6:53-63).

This supposed miraculous change only occurs because of the sacerdotal authority of the priest, hence the attention of the participant is directed toward celebrating the glories of the sacerdotal hierarchy while he concentrates on that imaginary miracle performed thereby. Thus, the conscience of the worshipper is gradually drawn away from the Gospel emphasis to an obsession with human mediation and a god in the box, the consecrated wafer in the Tabernacle. The most negative effect of this belief is its emphasis on a daily miracle created by priestly power, while the power of a Christ risen to die no more is relegated to an event in the dusty past, remembered once a year at Easter.

That not even all Catholicism is agreed on the transubstantiation dogma is evidenced in all the Catholic theologians-’ struggles to oppose it especially before Vatican II. The Pope’s stern rebukes of Catholics who oppose the doctrine, measure the magnitude of lower-level dissent among progressive Catholics (Encyclica Mysterium fidei, No. 4). Let us hope that the new Catholic theology be able to free itself from the official dogmatics of the past which had nothing to do with the Bible and were useless to strengthen the faith, and that they might proceed more swiftly and freely on the road toward a return to God’s Word.

Undaunted confidence in the future

Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. This declaration stands in astonishing contrast (légo dè humîn) with what, to His disciples, must have seemed inexplicable pessimism. But Jesus intends to infuse into them His own unshakable confidence in His final victory. After picturing His death in the symbols of bread and wine, He now lays before them a stunning challenge: I have just talked about my death, but now I promise you that the long-awaited Messianic Kingdom of God will have come on earth before another Passover rolls around! Dare you believe that? This year I drink this cup of Passover wine, part of the old, Mosaic economy. Next year we will drink together in an entirely new way in the Kingdom!

His words, however, must not be mistaken for a somber refusal to drink, as if, by a supposed Nazarite vow of abstinence, He were consecrating Himself for the imminent sacrifice of His life. Nor is there any indication that He were fasting, rather than participating in the Passover. I shall not drink henceforth implies, without distinctly affirming it, I have drunk up to now. It is henceforth, i.e. from now on, that the change would come. Otherwise, the disciples must wonder why, of all people, Jesus alone did not participate with them in the Passover in the normal way. But of His non-participation there is not a word in Scripture. That He neither ate nor drank is a hypothesis contrary to His strong desire expressly declared (Luke 22:15 f.). In fact, henceforth (ap-‘àrti). until (héos) means that He ate the Passover meal, but this is absolutely the last time to do so under these conditions. From this Passover feast forward, He would not participate in such a festal celebration until it could be shared with His people in a new way in the Kingdom. Thus, He says farewell to the Passover, and consequently, to the Mosaic dispensation founded on it. Edersheim (Temple, 233f. with bracketed additions from his Life, II, 492) described the Passover as specially suited to typify Christ and end with His death:

It was a sacrifice, and yet quite out of the order of all Levitical sacrifices [and distinct from all others]. For it had been instituted and observed before Levitical sacrifices existed; before the Law was given; nay, before the Covenant was ratified by blood (Exodus 24). In a sense, it may be said to have been the cause and foundation of all the later sacrifices of the Law, and of the Covenant itself. Lastly, it belonged neither to one nor to another class of sacrifices; it was neither exactly a sin-offering nor a peace-offering, but combined them both. And yet in many respects it quite differed from them. In short, just as the priesthood of Christ was a real Old Testament priesthood, yet not after the order of Aaron, but after the earlier, prophetic, and royal order of Melchisedek, so the sacrifice of Christ was a real Old Testament sacrifice, yet not after the order of the Levitical sacrifices, but after that of the earlier prophetic Passover sacrifice by which Israel had become a royal nation.

No wonder, then, that Jesus should make a definite break with the Mosaic institution once the completion of His own mission should bring it to final fulfillment. It is this finality that causes this particular Passover to be called the Last Supper. But the break is not so radical that He must be seen as refusing to participate in the last Hebrew Passover. This fruit of the vine means this Passover wine (Luke 22:15-18), because not only had Jesus given the wine new meaning, but now categorically affirms that He would nevermore taste it until this new meaning had been realized in the Kingdom. On the question of wine versus grape juice, see below. He cannot mean He would nevermore eat common meals with the disciples before the Ascension (Acts 10:41). The fact remains, therefore, that for Jesus the cup still contained simple fruit of the vine, not blood, even after referring to it as His blood.

Until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. Did Jesus see the Last Supper as a prelude to the great Messianic or to the Lord’s Supper, or both?

THE MESSIANIC BANQUET (Matthew 8:11 f. = Luke 13:28 f.; Luke 14:15 ff.). That day in my Father’s kingdom has an eschatological ring to it, since that day commonly points to some great day of the Lord. (Cf. Isaiah 10:20; Isaiah 10:27; Hosea 1:5; Amos 9:11; Zechariah 12:3-11; Zechariah 13:2; Zechariah 13:4; Zechariah 14:4-21; Matthew 24:36; Luke 21:34; 1 Thessalonians 5:4; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 4:8.) Further, even in Matthew the Christian era is distinguished from the eternal Kingdom (Matthew 5:10?; Matthew 13:43; Matthew 25:34 as opposed to Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 10:7; Matthew 12:28; Matthew 13:11; Matthew 13:19; Matthew 13:24; Matthew 13:31; Matthew 13:33; Matthew 13:44-47; Matthew 16:19; Matthew 16:28, etc.). And in that realm of eternity we may anticipate full, uninterrupted, unsullied, restored fellowship with the Lord. (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:17; ?Revelation 3:20; Revelation 7:14 ff; Revelation 19:9; Revelation 2:1-4.) Not only does this supper commemorate; it anticipates, looking backward to the cross and forward to our future celestial fellowship. Our present, earthly communion is not mortal like our bodies, but has a joyous, eternal future. We celebrate in hope of that grand reunion with our Lord in His eternal Kingdom.

But the true eschatological fellowship with the Lord cannot exclude all fellowship with Jesus now or be thought to be postponed until the Lord’s Supper find its heavenly fulfillment in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. This view discounts the high importance Jesus attributes to His real fellowship with His Church on earth now (cf. Matthew 18:20).

In my Father’s kingdom may rightly be thought parallel to Luke’s expressions until the Kingdom of God comes. until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God (Luke 22:16; Luke 22:18). These are similar in thought to Luke 9:27 (= Matthew 16:28 = Mark 9:1) and refer, not to the post-judgment eschatological Kingdom, but to the Kingdom of Christ which began during the lifetime of the early Christians, i.e. the Church.

c. Certainly, we proclaim His death until He comes again (1 Corinthians 11:26), but to suppose that His promise refers exclusively to the great Marriage Supper of the Lamb, is to minimize the present participations of all living saints in the Kingdom.

THE LORD’S SUPPER. Jesus officiated at the last Passover supper ever truly celebrated according to God’s will. That very next day at three o-‘clock in the afternoon,at the hour of prayer and the offering of the last daily sacrifice (cf. Acts 3:1; Mark 15:34)the Passover was fulfilled when the Lamb of God was sacrificed (1 Corinthians 5:7; Colossians 2:14). The following Pentecost the Kingdom of God was fully inaugurated on earth and the new covenant executed. From that date on, Jesus began to have communion with His disciples in the kingdom as it is now in anticipation of the Messianic banquet in the eternal Kingdom. So, even now the eschatological fellowship with the Lord may be ours in foretaste and promise at His Table. Even now, therefore, Jesus communes with His own (Matthew 18:20; 1 Corinthians 10:16). He is not content to be without us at His table where He is Master Host and our Fellow-banqueter. So, there is joyful optimism in His promise: I shall. drink it new with you in the Kingdom. How this prospect inspires us to be at that Table, meeting Him there as the Church to have fellowship with Him!

FRUIT OF THE VINE: WINE OR GRAPE JUICE?

Would first-century Hebrews ask this question? Or, is not this a query typical of a sympathy for a dogmatic position of total abstinence, rather than temperance, toward all forms of alcohol? (See author’s study: Should Jesus Drink Wine? my vol. II, 526ff.) The question of wine versus grape juice does not revolve around whether grape juice were available in the spring at Passover time or whether Jews anciently used hermetic sealing methods to prevent it from spoiling or fermenting. The question is what they did, when both wine and grape juice were available.

Fruit of the vine, as Jewish sources reveal, is but a beautiful paraphrase for wine. (See Davis, Dictionary of the Bible, 818ff., where Mishnah Berakoth Matthew 6:1 is cited; I.S.B.E. art. Wine, 3086ff.; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, V, art. oînos, 163.167; also I, art. génema tês ampèlou, 684.) According to the Mishnah, Pes. 2, fermented drinks of grain that had had contact with the yeast of bread were forbidden. Edersheim (Life II, 485) contends that the wine was the ordinary one of the country, only red; it was mixed with water, generally in the proportion of one part to two of water. To this he appends the footnote: The contention that it was un-fermented wine is not worth serious discussion, although in modern practice (for reasons needless to mention) its use is allowed. He cites the Jerusalem Pes 37c as indicating that each of the Paschal cups generally contained only about 94 grams (or 3 ounces) of watered-down wine. By the end of the traditional four cups, if the wine were diluted to half water, the most alcohol anyone would have drunk would be about 11-12% of a third of a liter (or about 1.4 oz.)! Today, normal Jewish table-wine straight from Israel, labelled Pure for Passover (kosher Ie Pesach), Isaiah 11-12% alcohol.

The argument that the fermentation of wine, as opposed to unfermented grape juice, would disqualify wine for use on the Passover Supper, assumes that Jewish authorities considered such fermentation to be equal to leaven or yeast. This view, however, does not accurately reflect Biblical logic. The fermentation of wine was obviously not considered leaven, since wine could be poured out as a libation on God’s altar during a burnt-offering (Exodus 29:39-41; Leviticus 23:13; Numbers 28:7 f.), whereas no leaven must ever appear there (Exodus 23:18; Leviticus 2:11). (Only when offerings were to be eaten by priests, Leviticus 7:12 ff., or by other, Leviticus 7:16 ff., could yeast be allowed with offerings. Cf. Leviticus 23:15-20.)

McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 658) decides,

The word wine is nowhere used in any of the accounts of the Lord’s Supper, the terms cup and fruit of the vine being employed in its stead. Those, therefore, who choose to use unfermented grape juice are guilty of no irregularity.

However, such brethren usually also insist that the original type of Passover bread, i.e. Mazzoth, or unleavened bread, be restored in the Church’s faith and practice. Would not consistency demand that they respect Jewish Passover practice in their fruit of the vine as much as their unleavened bread?

Then, are those who use grape juice sinning, because they do not use Passover wine along with Mazzoth (unleavend bread)? While the unfermented grape juice they drink in the Lord’s Supper is probably not what Jesus distributed among His disciples, nevertheless, their conscience is weak due to their acceptance of total abstinence taught for Christian doctrine (despite Colossians 2:16-23). So, they cannot change until they be convinced of the Scriptural validity of using wine. To change without conviction is sin (Romans 14:23). However, until they are persuaded, they must never condemn their brothers who use wine with understanding and Scriptural bases. Similarly, their wine-drinking brothers must not sneer at their abstaining brothers-’ conscience against using wine.

THE LORD’S SUPPER, A PERMANENT INSTITUTION

That Jesus intended a perpetual observance of His Supper is suggested in His plea: Do this in remembrance of me (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24 f.). Paul points to the only appropriate termination of our participation: until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26). Although no specific rule determines the frequency of participation, our love for Jesus is our highest norm. Subsequent early Christian practice illustrates their understanding that Jesus expected His Church to observe it perpetually (Acts 2:42; ?Acts 2:46; Acts 20:7; cf. Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, Chap. VI).

Logically, by virtue of our continued need to feast our souls on Christ Himself, the Lord’s Supper would be a continuous reminder of our dependence on Him and on the terms of the covenant under which our forgiveness is secured. The question, How often should we observe the Supper? is thus already answered in a non-legalistic way: No more than you need to be reminded of the cost of your salvation, no oftener than you need to express your dependence on Jesus, no more regularly than you need forgiveness for your violation of the covenantal terms of your relationship with God, no oftener than you need to meditate on your responsibility to the whole Body of Christ, the -many-’ for whom this sacrifice was made. Therefore, observance of the Supper every week could never be too often for those who are spiritually sensitive to these needs. From this point of view, then, every Lord’s Day may not be enough, but merely the accepted minimum for the local assembly of Christians to be able to get together. Edersheim (Life, II, 491) saw the symmetry in Jesus-’ ministry as it relates to us:

With a sacrament did Jesus begin His Ministry: it was that of separation and consecration in Baptism. With a second Sacrament did He close His Ministry: it was that of gathering together and fellowship in the Lord’s Supper. Both were into His Death: yet not as something that had power over Him, but as a death that has been followed by the Resurrection. For, if in Baptism we are buried with Him, we also rise with Him; and if in the Holy Supper we remember His Death, it is as that of Him Who is risen againand if we show forth that Death, it is until He come again. And so this Supper, also, points forward to the Great Supper at the final consummation of His Kingdom.

God’s son defies with a triumphant song

Matthew 26:30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. Much preceded this hymn that Matthew does not report. John penned the fuller account of those last, precious hours with the Eleven during which Jesus unburdened His heart in a discourse that forms the content of Joh 13:31 to John 17:26. Although John 14:30 reports Jesus-’ order, Rise, let us leave here, they may have stood up to go, but lingered further in the Upper Room, while Jesus continued His instruction, His intercessory prayer, and finally this hymn.

As a translation of Matthew’s words, the phrase, when they had sung a hymn, is misleading, because it points to a single hymn, whereas Matthew wrote humnésantes: they having sung hymns or having hymned. This aorist participle does not specify how many hymns they sang or for how long, but merely views the action as an event. It was traditional to bring the Passover celebration to a close by singing Psalms 115-118. It is not necessary to treat these Psalms together as a bloc to be sung together as one hymn. So, they could well have sung these Psalms. Edersheim (Life, II, 488) affirmed that, during the actual slaying of the Paschal lambs in the Temple, while the blood was being applied to the altar, the Levites led the worshipers in chanting Psalms 113-118. This repeated Psalm-singing vividly brought the slaying of the Paschal lamb right into the Passover supper itself. Sometimes also Psalms 120-137 were sung at the close of the feast (Edersheim, Temple, 244, note 2).

The original precept required, Not one of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning (Exodus 12:22). That they went out, rather than remain in the Upper Room, cannot be cited as proof that Jesus did not participate in the truly Last Passover. The Jews in Palestine distinguished the characteristics of the original Egyptian Passover from those of the permanent institution, since some of the former were considered out of harmony with the true meaning of the Passover, once Israel arrived in the Promised Land. These features were not to be considered an essential part of the ordinance itself. So, as was His custom (Luke 22:39) every night during His Last Week (Luke 21:37), He left the City.

They went out to the mount of Olives. Leaving the Upper Room they started walking through the dark streets of the City toward their specific destination, the Garden of Gethsemane. This ended Jesus-’ privacy, because He was aware that Judas knew His habits well enough to predict He might eventually make this move (John 18:2).

So, after singing of the victory over sin and death, of zeal for the glory of God, of the joy of service to God, of the goodness of God in all of its manifestations, Jesus went out to Gethsemane and the cross, SINGING, Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; His love endures forever (Psalms 118:29). How could He SING with the doom of divine judgment and human infamy awaiting Him just a few hours later? In those Psalms He sang of consecration to God, calm truthfulness and fortitude in trial. Because Jesus SANG, we too can sing, even if our eyes and hours are now washed with tears.

For a rich spiritual experience, why not turn to Psalms 113-118 and read those great songs aloud, as if you stood with Jesus and the Eleven in the Upper Room, knowing what He knew about the coming cross? What thoughts go through your mind as you contemplate the cross through the language of those Psalms? What must Jesus have thought about? How do these Psalms calm your troubled soul, as you too say, The LORD is my strength and MY SONG? Or, The LORD is with me: I will not be afraid. What can man do to me? (Cf. Hebrews 13:6.)

FACT QUESTIONS

List five ways the Scriptures use the term Passover.

During the Last Week did Jesus eat the regular passover meal at the normal time? What texts show whether He did or not?

On what day of the week did Jesus eat the passover meal? Prove your answer.

Identify the first day of unleavened bread: Why call it by this title? What was its function? What two major preparations did the Jews usually make on this day? How do the Synoptics distinguish this day from the day of preparation?

What does Jesus mean by the expression, My time is at hand?

What specific arrangements would normally be needed to be made for Jesus and His men to eat the Passover?

Name the two disciples commissioned to make the arrangements.

How were these two disciples instructed to proceed from the moment they left Jesus to make the arrangements?

Why did Jesus eat the Passover in the evening?

When, precisely, did Jesus point out Judas as the traitor? List the various events at the supper in order to show this moment.

How did Jesus indicate the traitor to be Judas?

How did Jesus hide the betrayer’s identity until his departure from the Upper Room?

How did the other Apostles react to Jesus-’ announcement that one of them would betray Him?

Quote the text wherein Jesus absolved God of all responsibility for Judas-’ betrayal and contemporaneously established Judas-’ complete freedom of choice.

At what general point in the Passover did Jesus institute the Lord’s Supper?

What was the original symbolism of the unleavened bread in the Passover?

Name the figure of speech involved in the expression: This is my body. my blood, then explain how Jesus-’ words are to be understood.

Explain how blood and covenants are connected in the plan of God, then apply this understanding to Jesus-’ use of these terms in connection with forgiveness of sins.

Jesus said, I shall. drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. To what astounding reality does this promise point?

Were Jesus and His disciples accustomed to sing a hymn in connection with Passover? If so, what hymn was it?

What does the Lord’s Supper say to the participant about the purpose of Jesus-’ death?

Show the meaning(s) of the Lord’s Supper by quoting passages of Scripture that state or imply its meaning.

Matthew 26:31-35

SECTION 66 JESUS PREDICTS PETER’S DENIALS AND OTHERS-’ FAILURE

(Parallels: Mark 14:27-31; Luke 22:31-38; John 13:31-38)

TEXT: 26:31-35

31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. 32 But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee. 33 But Peter answered and said unto him, If all shall be offended in thee, I will never be offended. 34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. 35 Peter said unto him, Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why do you think Jesus announced the disciples-’ failure ahead of time? Would not this tend to discourage them from doing better? What specific advantage(s) did He seek, by giving them this advance notice?

What does it mean for someone to be offended in Jesus?

Why did Jesus inform the disciples that, After I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee? How could the anticipation of His return to Galilee do anything for them in their bewildered state?

Do you think Peter heard Jesus-’ clear reference to His resurrection and anticipated return to Galilee? What makes you think so?

What combination of traits caused Peter to deny the possibility of his failure? Why did Peter react this way? How does his reaction to Jesus-’ warnings differ from that of Judas when the latter was faced with Jesus-’ predictions of his betrayal?

Why do you think Jesus predicted Peter’s denials? to show Peter how wrong he was? to show Himself omniscient? or something else?

In what ironic way did the disciples practically deny their discipleship by their vigorous protests of unswerving faithfulness?

Jesus predicted Peter’s denials would occur in connection with a cock’s crowing. What does this tell you about the time intended? What does it tell you about Jesus?

Luke says this day whereas Matthew says this very night Peter would deny the Lord. How would you resolve this apparent contradiction?

On the basis of this incident what may we learn about: (1) Satan and temptation? (2) the weakness of human nature, even in disciples? (3) Jesus?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Tonight, Jesus said to His men, you will all feel deeply shocked because of me. In fact, the Scriptures say, -I [God] will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of his flock will be scattered.-’ However, after my resurrection from the dead, I will be back in Galilee before you are! To this, Peter protested, Even if everyone else stumbles and loses faith in you, I will never desert you! Jesus demurred, I solemnly assure youyes, you Peter, today, in fact this very night, even before the rooster crows twice, will disown me three times! But Peter protested even more vehemently, Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you! All the other disciples kept saying the same thing.

SUMMARY

In harmony with Zechariah’s prophecy, Jesus warned the Twelve that they would be deeply shocked because of Him. Impetuously, Peter refused to accept this possibility and led the others to affirm their undying loyalty, despite Jesus-’ predictions of their failure.

NOTES

Deserters unanimous

Matthew 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them. All ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. Then, as they were leaving the City to make their way toward the Mount of Olives. The following warning is probably not the first. Rather, as Luke (Luke 23:31 ff.) and John (John 13:36-38) indicate, Jesus broached the subject with Peter while still in the Upper Room, distinctly predicting his failure. Now, because of the rapid approach of their break-down in courage, the Lord repeats His warning, first generalizing it to include everyone, then specifying Peter’s denials again.

That two separate warnings could occur and be followed by two distinct protestations of faithfulness is psychologically possible both for Jesus and for Peter as also for the others. During the washing of the disciples-’ feet, several arguments were required before Peter genuinely acquiesced. Since the disciples remained so naive as to their own strength under fire and so unbelieving as to His rapidly approaching suffering, Jesus must bring them back to reality in the hope of saving them from their not inevitable cowardliness. But His repeating this prediction would undoubtedly result in the repetition of the same bad scene Peter played earlier, with the difference that now the others second his vehement objections.

All ye: was there to be no one left faithfully brave until the end? At first all deserted Him and fled every man for himself (Matthew 26:56). However, John boldly infiltrated the arresting contingent and succeeded in entering the palace of the high priest himself and later procured Peter’s admission too (John 18:15 ff.). Shall be offended in me: Earlier (Matthew 11:6), Jesus had challenged John the Baptist to believe Him without wavering due to his personal concepts of what the Messiah had to be. Now the meaning of His strange Beatitude touched His men personally. The personal prejudices of the Twelve would leave them exposed to extreme psychological shock when they saw their Lord tied and dragged away to the slaughter like a common criminal. Even though He had revealed it many times before, they had not the faith to see Him as God’s Lamb taking away the sins of the world. They could not interpret the arrest and trials as minor incidents on His way to the Throne at the center of the moral universe by the only route that could take Him there (Revelation 5). This night: The relative calm with which they had enjoyed the Passover supper and Jesus-’ subsequent instruction and prayer must not disguise the suddenness and fury of the tempest that would break around them within a few hours.

All ye shall be offended in me this night. This important text sharpens our understanding of what it means to cause others to stumble. Jesus clearly warned His men that He Himself would be the cause of stumbling for them. However, He did not swerve from His path of duty to accommodate their scruples and points of view that were the true cause of their shock. He had done everything in His power to correct their misapprehensions and misguided expectations as to His kingly Messiahship. Their minds remained largely unchanged. Now, however, He must do the will of God, even if His conduct caused them to stumble. (Cf. Paul’s refusal to circumcise Titus because of Christian’s prejudices and his circumcising of Timothy because of Jewish feelings. Galatians 2:1-5; Acts 16:3 in the context of Acts 15! Paul continued to proclaim the Gospel, even though it was scandal to the Jews. 1 Corinthians 1:23.) This understanding frees us from guilt when we do proclaim the will of God and, to our chagrin and deeply-felt anguish, cause hard-headed, unconvincible people to declare themselves scandalized. It does not, of course, exonerate us from that gentle sensitivity that seeks to protect the weak conscience of the ignorant (1 Corinthians 8:7). It does free us from slavery to the opinionated who would impose their prejudices on believers. (See notes on Matthew 26:10.)

He must awaken His much-loved companions to their vulnerability. To see Jesus overpowered by His foes would severely tempt them to question whether He were God’s Anointed or not.

To steel them for the blow soon to strike them, He predicted their downfall. This pessimistic outlook counselled them to take appropriate measures to resist the shock. His meek, voluntary surrender to His enemies must not come upon them unexpected.

But because they would desert Him anyway, He must point to the way back from their debacle. So doing, they would not drown in despair, because He Himself will have already shown them His forgiving spirit. That He foresaw everything and still did not reject them, warms them with His love, leaving them the hope, hence, the power to repent and repair the damage of their desertion.

The knowledge that the Scriptures too had foreseen their failure would actually rebuild their sagging faith and rekindle their courage, because, if the Scriptures were right about their failure, the Bible could be trusted about their ultimate victory too and dependable to lead the stunned disciples back to reasonableness and faith.

I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad (Zechariah 13:7). I will smite is a free quotation from the Hebrew, since the Hebrews imperative (Strike the shepherd) is reworded as a simple future, changing from God who orders the striking, into the one who does it. What one does by means of an agent may correctly be said to have done for himself. The result of this alteration is to affirm even more clearly that God is in full control of the events, even it if would appear that evil men are authors of what must appear to the disciples as inexplicable chaos surrounding Jesus-’ death. History is in God’s hands, so everything will proceed according to His design, even if men cannot understand or accept it. Pointing to Isaiah, Hendriksen (Matthew, 913) justifies Jesus-’ rewording:

It was Jehovah himself who -laid upon-’ the Mediator -all our iniquities-’ (Isaiah 53:6). It was he who -struck him down, bruised him, put him to grief,-’ -made his soul an offering for sin.-’. It was God the Father who -spared not his own Son-’ (Romans 8:32).

That the smitten shepherd in question is the Messiah, is amply sustained by an examination of Zechariah’s larger context (Zechariah 9-13), The King who came to Israel meek and riding on an ass (Zechariah 9:9) is the Shepherd they detested and priced at 30 pieces of silver (Matthew 11:12 f.), the one who was pierced (Matthew 12:10 ff.) in whose day a fountain of cleansing from sin and impurity would be opened (Matthew 13:1). Most convincing is the identification of my shepherd as the direct companion of the Lord Almighty (Zechariah 13:7 a).

Family reunion in Galilee

Matthew 26:32 **But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee. **Whatever else this promise means, it sings of Jesus-’ forgiveness for their foreseeable desertion. He thus empowers them to recover themselves, believing that their cowardly unbelief was not beyond help or hope. Though you desert me, I will not desert you. When they later reflected on their bad showing and His loving warning, they would be stronger and able to gather around Him once again.

I will go before you (proàxo humâs), just as would a Shepherd (John 10:4). This touch is reminiscent of the second part of Zechariah’s prophecy whereby those who survived the severe trials God would bring upon them would belong to Him in the closest fellowship imaginable (Zechariah 13:7 b - Zechariah 13:9).

I will go before you into Galilee suggests three things:

They would naturally return to Galilee after the feast, because it was home, but this time, instead of slinking ashamedly back to their homes like beaten men, they would return with high heads and singing hearts, as old friends to a long-awaited rendezvous. Jesus deliberately gave them an appointment to meet their risen Lord as a hope to steady them during the emotional earthquake of the cross. (Cf. Matthew 28:15; John 21 and possibly 1 Corinthians 15:6?).

Why Galilee? Because it was home for Jesus too. With stunning cheerfulness in the face of impending disaster, He challenged them to believe that He Himself would enjoy that comforting joy of returning home among the loved and familiar before they would. It was as if He said, Don-’t let the intervening crisis shake you so: I-’ll be back home in Galilee before you are!

Did He prefer Galilee because the area around Jerusalem in Judea would be too turbulent to permit calm teaching after the resurrection and in consequence of it? (Cf. Acts 1:3; Acts 10:40-41.)

Why didn-’t Jesus mention also His appearances to them at various times in and around Jerusalem first on the very day of the resurrection? The point here is that He encourages them to believe that, despite the shock, sadness and horror of the crucifixion and entombment, the time would come when they would all walk together in the fresh air and sunlight of Galilean springtime as truly as they had done in happy days gone by. Just when they were crushed by their own unbelief and timidity, He rallies them with thoughts of home!

The grave danger of self-confidence

Matthew 26:33 But Peter answered and said unto him, If all shall be offended in thee, I will never be offended. Just as Peter took the initiative to confess Jesus as Lord, he impetuously pledges his loyalty. And just as before, he launches an entirely unjustified protest against Jesus-’ revelations (Matthew 16:22). When Jesus Christ says something, no disciple has any right to object, demur or protest, because, even when Jesus puts our loyalty in doubt, to disagree with Him is to prove Him absolutely correct in His evaluation! So, why did Peter protest so?

He was prejudiced. If he intended to cheer Jesus out of what must have seemed to him a dark, despondent mood, then it only proves how far he rejected the divine necessity of Jesus-’ death and to what extent the scandal of the cross menaced him personally. Peter would fail because his expectations of what Jesus would do when confronted by death were false. Peter could not foresee,nor if told, accept, the drastically changed conditions into which Jesus was even then moving. Like anyone else, he assumed that everything would go on as normal, Jesus would conquer all opposition and tomorrow would be another day like this. Hence, neither he nor the others could imagine what they must soon undergo. Nothing could be the same, because Jesus-’ hour had now finally come.

His overconfidence is grounded in his self-reliance. Of all men could he alone survive the avalanche of temptations that would bury all others? Although to be shocked at Jesus is not equal to betraying Him, yet it is no cause for bragging about one’s faithfulness. What overconfidence and presumption to believe himself alone able to surpass the loyalty of everyone else! Only blind self-conceit kept him from confessing his own weakness and dependence upon God’s grace. Earlier, along with the others, he had asked in severe self-examination, Lord, is it I? Now, however, he considers himself above the fears of common mortals. Though they all fall away. I will never.

In these horrified reactions of a zealous disciple whose loyalty has just been questioned, Alford (1, 270) sees evidence that the following warning is not the first Jesus had given Peter. Hence, the warnings sounded in Luke 22:31-34 and John 13:36 f. had possibly occurred before. He argues that Peter’s anguished disjoining himself from the others so as to distinguish the level of his faithfulness above the rest, suggests that this is not the first time his reliability has been questioned that night. This explains his growing vehemence.

Cowardice in the crisis

Matthew 26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crows, thou shalt deny me thrice. Although the fisherman-Apostle was self-convinced that he must succeed better than he understood himself, must inform him that he would do worse. Peter committed the common fallacy of trusting a heart unsustained by grace: his own. Peter had boasted, Never! but Jesus warns, This night, before the cock crows. Peter had said, Not I! Jesus retorted, You! Peter protested, Not once! but Jesus specifies, Three times. Not by hasty, thoughtless speech, but deliberately, hence with aggravated responsibility.

This night: although Luke (Luke 22:34) has this day. there is no contradiction, because this day had already begun with sunset, therefore at the beginning of this night. Mark (Mark 14:30) reports both of these expressions together (*sémeron taùte tê nuktì).

Before the cock crows.* Where Matthew, Luke and John imply that Peter would deny the Lord before the rooster crowed even once, Mark’s citation states before the cock crows twice. This implies that the cock would crow, then Peter would deny the Lord, then the cock would crow a second time. Several explanations have been given:

The first cock crow might have occurred around midnight, the second about three or four o-‘clock in the morning. Between the two the denials would occur. Most people in a profound sleep at midnight would not hear the first cock and so would consider the second one as the first, whereas there were literally two. Problem: why did not Peter hear this first cock and be reminded of Jesus-’ words and repent?

Before the cock would have had opportunity to crow twice, Peter would have denied the Lord. Further, the night was divided into various watches (cf. Matthew 24:43; Matthew 14:25), one of which was nick-named the cock-crowing (cf. Mark 13:35 alektorofonias). In this way Jesus indicated the approximate hour of the denials. The pre-dawn stillness of the city would permit anyone awake to hear the rooster, making this a particularly precise signal to Peter.

Consider the high wisdom of Jesus: He planted in Peter’s mind the very signal that would be the means of pricking the man’s conscience at the appropriate moment and save him. However, who but a true Prophet could foresee that this humble fowl would crow at the right time and stab the moral sense of the fallen Apostle? This is the third time an animal would speak to Peter of Jesus-’ control over nature. (Cf. Luke 5:1-11; Matthew 17:27; cf. 2 Peter 2:16.) And yet, the precision with which Jesus predicted Peter’s denial neither persuaded him nor dissuaded him from confidently depending on his own strength. Imagine his shock when he heard that cock lustily crowing out the literal fulfillment of Jesus-’ solemn prediction! (For the fulfillment, see on Matthew 26:74.)

Lavish, impossible promises

Matthew 26:35 Peter saith unto him, Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples. Stubbornly, Peter continued insisting both emphatically and excessively (Mark 14:31). Unquestionably, this warm-hearted man means what he says, because true love is genuinely hurt to hear its sincerity put in doubt. Further, Jesus-’ astonishing predictions must have seemed absolutely incredible to him. Only the sad fulfillment of the prediction would finally convince him of Jesus-’ accuracy.

Even if I must die with thee accurately measures the strength of the temptation. He admits death’s power to question one’s willingness to abandon his integrity at the cost of his life. Peter’s bold affirmations, however, are not made while looking death in the face. Too easily he, and all the others with him, suppose themselves capable of doing anything. Too readily they feel offended when informed that they cannot do it and that their good intentions are no substitute for facts. But without the power and grace of the Spirit, without Jesus, what could they do (John 15:3; John 15:5)? Earlier (John 13:38), Jesus questioned Peter’s ability to surrender his life for His sake. Still the man continues to consider himself equal to his Master, not knowing, as does Jesus, with what reluctancy and struggle a life is laid down, and what a hard task it is to die.. His Master Himself struggled when it came to this, and the disciple is not greater than his Lord (Matthew Henry, V, 1106).

Likewise also said all the disciples. Earlier, when Jesus spoke of Peter’s denials, the others, who believed Peter as solid a disciple as anyone, must have been astounded but remained silent at this disclosure of his weakness, since they themselves were not involved. Now, however, when Jesus repeated the puzzling prediction, implicating them too, they join Peter’s fervent protest by ardently reaffirming their own undying loyalty. However, people are least prepared morally whenand precisely becausethey believe themselves most incapable of failure. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 10:12.) Believing themselves unable to betray Jesus, they feel themselves also safe against being shocked at anything He did or that happened to Him. All of them were unquestionably ready to follow Jesus in a patriotic power struggle for glory at the head of the nation. This vision did not prepare them to walk in His footsteps down the footpath of humiliation and frailty. It was quite beyond them to welcome insults, scourging and death without being able to retaliate.

Although these sincere, earnest men immediately abandoned Jesus, just as He predicted, in later life, however, they heroically kept these inconsiderate promises. According to tradition, most did give their lives for Christ. John lived and served unfailingly until a venerable age. But they triumphed not in their own strength, but in that of the Holy Spirit and by the grace of God, and not unlikely because of Jesus-’ pre-crisis admonitions here.

FACT QUESTIONS

When and where did Jesus predict the disciples-’ approaching failure: before they all left the Upper Room or after? Or both? Defend your answer.

Define the expression: offended in me. What other texts help interpret it?

What prophecy (book, chapter and verse) predicted the scattering of the flock upon the overwhelming of the shepherd? Show how it rightly applies to Jesus and the disciples.

According to the above-mentioned prophecy, who would strike the shepherd in question? How would this feature serve to encourage the sheep to remove the despair from their souls?

In what picturesque way did Jesus guarantee the certainty of His victory over death?

What was Peter’s reaction to Jesus-’ announcement?

How did Jesus treat Peter’s reaction?

What was the reaction of all the other disciples?

What time of day is cockcrowing?

Matthew 26:36-46

SECTION 67 JESUS PRAYS IN GETHSEMANE

(Parallels: Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46)

TEXT: 26:36-46

36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto his disciples, Sit ye here, while I go yonder and pray. 37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and sore troubled. 38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; abide ye here, and watch with me. 39 And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt. 40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. 42 Again a second time he went away, and prayed, saying, My Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done. 43 And he came again and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. 44 And he left them again, and went away, and prayed a third time, saying again the same words. 45 Then cometh he to the disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Arise, let us be going; behold, he is at hand that betrayeth me.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Do you think Jesus needed to go to Gethsemane? Could He not have remained in Jerusalem to pray just as well? Why go there, then?

Why do you think Jesus set the disciples as sentinels to watch and pray?

If Jesus knew that He had come to earth for precisely this hour, why do you think He prayed, in a sense, that the Father save Him from it? (Cf. Mark 14:35; John 12:27 ff.)

Why did that cup not pass away, contrary to Jesus-’ request?

Why do you think He requested the presence of Peter, James and John? (1) How would that help Him? (2) How would it help them?

What does Jesus-’ falling on His face to pray indicate about His feelings?

If Jesus always knew and did God’s will (cf. John 8:29), why, if He suspected His suffering inevitable, did He request to be exempt therefrom? What good did He really believe praying might do?

Why did the disciples keep falling asleep, despite the fact that Jesus requested that they stand watch with Him?

In what sense would they have entered into temptation, if they did not watch and pray? How does watching and praying keep one out of temptation?

Is it true of us that the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak? What should we do about it? What do we do about it?

Do you think it is ever right to pray the same prayer twice? What about using the very same words to repeat the prayer? Why do you say that?

How do you think Jesus addressed the sleeping disciples, Sleep on now, take your rest:-’ behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed. ? Was He angry, irritated, astonished, or what? What did He mean?

Do you think Jesus-’ prayers were answered? If so, when or how?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Then with His disciples Jesus went over the ravine of the Kedron, as He usually did, to a piece of land on the Mount of Olives where there was a garden called Gethsemane a word which means the oil-press. When they arrived there, He told them, Sit down here while I go over there and pray. Pray that you may not walk right into temptation. Taking with Him Peter and Zebedee’s sons, James and John, He began to show His grief and the deep dread He felt. Then He commented, I am so completely overwhelmed with grief that I could die right here! Stay here and keep watch with me. Walking on a bit further by Himself about a stone’s throw away, He knelt down. Then He threw Himself face down on the ground and began praying, that, if it were possible, He might not have to face the impending ordeal. He kept saying, My Father, if it be possibleeverything is possible for You.. if you are willing, take this painful destiny away from me! However, it is not my will, but Yours, that must be done! [Then an angel from heaven appeared to Him, encouraging Him. Being deeply anguished, He prayed more urgently. His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.] When He arose from praying, He returned to the disciples and found them sleeping, exhausted by sorrow. Simon, He addressed Peter, are you asleep? Could you men not stand watch with me a single hour? Rise, stay awake and pray, that you may not be unnecessarily exposed to temptation. Your spirit is certainly willing, but your human nature is frail. Once more, for the second time, He went away to pray, repeating the same words, My Father, since it is not possible for my destiny to be changed without my undergoing it, Your will must be done. When He came back, He found them sleeping again, because they could not keep their eyes open. They did not know what excuse to give Him. So, leaving them again, He went back and prayed for the third time, uttering the same words. When He returned the third time to the disciples, He chided them, Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough! Look, the time has come for me to be turned over to sinful men. Get up, let’s get going! Look, here comes my betrayer now!

SUMMARY

At the gate of the garden Jesus left eight disciples so as to be able to pray relatively undisturbed. Taking with Him His Inner Circle of Three, Peter, James and John, He urged them to stay awake and pray with Him during His intense crisis of soul. Leaving them, He walked deeper into the garden to pray that God’s will might be done without the suffering. Nevertheless, He acquiesced and submitted Himself to accept God’s choice. Three times He prayed this and three times He returned to find His men sleeping, not praying. Finally, He roused them once more to go to meet the foe.

NOTES THE TEMPTATIONS IN THE GARDEN

Many a man has defeated pleasure’s allurement only to be broken on the wheel of pain and fear of death. Finding Jesus at His most vulnerable moment, Satan could perceive that his most favorable opportunity had returned. (Cf. Luke 4:13.) The temptation to deviate from the path of obedience and devotion to God was present in this garden no less than in the Garden of Eden. The devil could well sense that the destiny of mankind was to be decided in this garden no less than in the first. Contrast the methods and results of the first Adam with those of this last Adam. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22; 1 Corinthians 15:45.) It is not surprising, then, that Satan should be present with Jesus in Gethsemane no less than during the wilderness temptations. (Cf. John 14:30.)

THE RIGHT WAY TO SUFFER FOR THE TRUTH

Matthew 26:36 **Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto his disciples, Sit ye here, while I go yonder and pray. **On the western slope of the Mount of Olives across the Kedron Valley from Jerusalem was a piece of ground locally called Gethsemane which means olive press. Since the entire hill was famous for its olives, a press would be needed to process them. Was this Jesus-’ usual camping place during the feast? (Cf. Luke 21:37.) If so, Judas could easily find it (John 18:1 f.).

Upon arrival Jesus divided His men into two groups: eight to sit at the entrance and the other three to enter with Him deeper into the olive grove. -Was this division to serve His own needs or that of the disciples? Would it have been too shocking for the eight to see His anguish? Or, did they serve as an early warning barrier against premature disturbance? Both groups were charged with the responsibility of praying so as not to fall into temptation (Luke 22:40).

While I go yonder and pray: Jesus Himself attacked His problems, not by anxious pondering or human reasoning, but on His knees. Coming away the Victor, He taught His men the road to triumph. (See Hebrews 5:7-10 as Scripture commentary.) What a revelation of their overconfidence: they can sleep, prayerlessly oblivious to the danger. By contrast, the Son of God is so conscious of His own frailty under stress that He must approach temptation with nothing less than concentrated prayer! Jesus-’ true humanness was never clearer than when He expressed His felt need for prayer.

He set this physical distance between Him and them for one or more of the following reasons:

He expected no substantial help from them.

He believed their own susceptibility to shock so great that it would be better for them not to observe His struggles.

He desired intimacy with the Father which only the distance of isolation could offer.

The loneliness of the struggle

Matthew 26:37. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and sore troubled. Until now Jesus had spent all His energies encouraging and instructing the disciples so as not to burden them beyond their strength. Now, however, in the privacy of the garden with only His inner Three present, He gave way to the deep dread He felt and began to express it as never before. These who had been privileged to witness His transfiguration glory (Matthew 17:1) and His power over death (Luke 8:51; Mark 5:40) must now behold Him horror-stricken, filled with dread and intense emotional agony in the shadow of the cross.

He took with him: Although human companionship is not incompatible with seeking God’s fellowship, He obviously felt a loneliness that no other human being could fully share. That He specifically selects these three out of a desire for human sympathy in the midst of suffering, points to a closeness of fellowship and affectionate understanding between the men chosen and Himself.

What are the starkly real temptations Jesus faced that night?

If in the wilderness temptations He was allured to end His bodily hunger by acting outside of God’s will, could not His human sensitivity to pain recoil from submitting to the torture of crucifixion?

He could have called down heavenly fire to destroy all His enemies, indeed all men and cancelled our redemption as a bad idea. Were not the Father’s heavenly legions instantly available at His word (Matthew 26:53)? He could easily have been spared (Matthew 26:53; John 19:11).

He could have taken advantage of the night shadows to flee from Jerusalem, taking refuge in some distant secret hermitage and living out His earthly life in relatively sweet tranquility.

He could have completely justified His refusal before any human court. What just human law would have sentenced the Innocent to die for the brutal wickedness and ingratitude of human unbelief?

The fellowship of his suffering

Matthew 26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: abide ye here, and watch with me. My soul = I myself in the frailty of my human nature. In a true sense, His whole earthly life had been characterized as one of sorrows and familiar with suffering, (Isaiah 53), but now there is an intense concentration of His affliction. No longer could He say, My hour is not yet come. Instead, He must now face being publicly branded as a false pretender to the dignity of Messiahship and brutalized as a common criminal. This epitomized His rejection by His own people, Israel. He faced also the shameful penalty for the sins of the whole world. This is the vision that overwhelmed Him with sorrow to the point of death, almost as if He meant, My spirit is so deeply burdened with sorrow it almost kills me! If psychological anticipation of death can produce physiological conditions that bring about death, this may explain why God met His Sons’s psychological need (Luke 22:43). This crushing agony of anticipation suffered in the garden may also explain why, when some victims of crucifixion linger for days, Jesus died so swiftly on the cross.

In simply coming to earth had He not already endured psychological pain and moral struggles that would have crushed any unblessed mortal? What was the capacity for pain of this sensitive, noble Man? The more sensitive the Sufferer, the more terribly felt the suffering. Beyond mere dread of death common to all fallen man, He was earth’s only Unfallen Man about to be sentenced undeservedly to the death of a sinner before God’s righteous sentence as if His were the accumulated guilt of all our sin. Unfairly and largely unappreciated, He would suffer under the curse of sin, the just for the unjust (Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:22 ff; 1 Peter 3:18).

But why did He disclose this weakness to His men? While He did not make a great show of His private prayers, neither did He scrupulously and totally hide them, when the witnesses could be taught thereby and share with Him. They must see that His deeply-felt dread proves that He had no ambitious claims to the High-priestly position. Rather, He meekly submitted to His being called by God, qualified and anointed for the task (Hebrews 5:4-10). His was the suffering of a real Man. In retrospect, He gave them a model of how rightly to suffer for righteousness.

Watch with me: while they are to pray for themselves, His concern is that they stay awake with Him. Even though these men were no real protection for Him against what He feared, He could derive some comfort simply from knowing that they were watching the approaching storm with Him. By expressing His need of human fellowship, He proved how deeply He is aware of our need for it too (Hebrews 4:15). In this meager request we see His sense of isolation which had already begun (John 6:66) and would soon grow (Matthew 26:56) until His abandonment by God (Matthew 27:46).

The battle with self

Matthew 26:39 And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. To fall on one’s face denotes particularly deep earnestness of soul. (Cf. Numbers 16:22; 2 Samuel 12:16; 2 Chronicles 20:18; Nehemiah 8:6.) To understand this agonizing struggle we must compare His brokenness and prostration here with His poise and power on every other occasion!

By addressing God as my Father, Jesus expressed two tremendous truths:

His unique relation to the Father: He is a Son of God in a way not shared by any other human being or angel. To Jesus, God is My Father, not our Father. (Cf. Matthew 6:9 notes.) Even though abba in Aramaic might be used for both (see Kittel, art. Abba, J. Jeremias, Supplemento al Grande Lessico dei Nuovo Testamento, Paideia, Brescia, 1968), all of Jesus-’ revelations of His unique relation to the Father argue that His meaning here is again His unique Sonship.

He revealed that His relation to the Lord of the universe is that of a close family. Because Abba is Aramaic for Daddy, this term belonged to the familiar, daily conversation of little children talking with their father. In fact, Jesus-’ choice deliberately intends to reveal a concept of sonship, and consequently, of fatherhood, that is absolutely new, unheard of in Judaism (J. Jeremias, Abba, op. cit.). In so doing, He revealed the heart of our Creator. He is not merely an icy-willed Supreme Being, but my Father, Abba, the highest possible encouragement to approach the Governor of the universe with all the confidence, tenderness and loving trust of a Person whose welcome and audience with God is unquestioned.

If it be possible: Mark has All things are possible to thee. Luke has If you are willing. It is easily conceivable that Jesus should have uttered all three expressions, since they are the kind of formulation to be expected of a person suffering and yet praying in earnest, such as He. Because Jesus fully comprehended both the physical and psychological pain awaiting Him (John 18:4) and the great purpose of His entire incarnation, this proviso means, If there is a way consistent with my mission whereby man can yet be saved. Never did He plunge to the nadir of demanding absolutely and unconditionally that He be exempted. Because He loved us more than Himself, there could be no other way!

God’s holy character could not and His love would not permit any deviation from redemption’s pain. Out of this submission come three awe-inspiring conclusions.

While Jesus-’ human instinct of self-preservation is deeply shaken by the dreadful prospect of suffering, His firm resolve to do God’s will remains steady, determined. His would be a free-will offering.

To save man there is no other way, but the cross of Christ. Had there been some other option, may it not be legitimately argued that His loving heavenly Father would have used it?! This realization uncompromisingly cancels all hope of salvation by any name, law, method, talisman or religion other than Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). Gethsemane settled it once and for all: He is God’s only way back home (John 14:6).

If God thought Jesus must endure such engrossing moral pain, then our salvation was neither easy, painless nor cheap. Woe to the Christian who expects his own discipleship to be somehow exempt from risk, sorrow, pain or expense!

Let this cup pass away from me. The cup is a Semitism referring to one’s lot, whatever God sends be it good or bad. (Cf. Psalms 16:5; Psalms 23:5; Psalms 75:8; Isaiah 51:17-21; Matthew 20:22; Revelation 14:10.) Two views of this cup are possible:

That awful hour of human weakness and temptation to surrender to His desire to save Himself from the menacing suffering. However, other, later martyrs would show more fortitude and composure than this, fearlessly facing death without flinching.

Because He came to taste death for every one (Hebrews 2:9), He means the entire Passion: Judas-’ betrayal, the mockery of justice, the pain of scourging and crucifixion, death and burial. It was the intolerable knowledge that most men would not either appreciate His act nor avail themselves of it (Matthew 7:13 f.; Luke 18:8). So that we might not have to suffer sin’s penalty, He must take our sins in His own body, as if He Himself had committed them (2 Corinthians 5:21). No human ever suffered this moral pain, nor ever will, because He alone was without sin. To be separated from the Father by this load of guilt would be for Jesus what Hell means to us. (Cf. Isaiah 59:2; Ephesians 2:1; Ephesians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:9.) No wonder He begged the Father for the privilege of exemption!

Undoubtedly McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 230) is right to sense a pause in Jesus-’ prayer between His cry of self-preservation and His sublime self-renunciation: there is a pausea solemn and momentous pause freighted with the destinies of a world, Do we dare believe that our salvation might not have been? Here is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt. This alone is true faith. He trusts God’s wisdom alone to know what is best for the race and for Himself. One believes very little about God, if he believes himself most qualified to know what is most needed in every circumstance. Jesus is willing to let God be God and rule His (Jesus-’) universe with righteousness and supreme wisdom. His submission both defines and exemplifies true godliness and reverence (Hebrews 5:7). Our Lord claimed no special privileges of sonship, but meekly submitted as should any son. And when the Father said no, He accepted it. Prayer is not a motor for twisting God’s arm to overcome His unwillingness, but a transmission that links us to His power to drive us on His missions.

The secret of His victory consists in deliberately choosing to subject His human desire to that of the Father. The victory over death on the cross began with this victory over self, because in it He submitted to the will of the Giver of life. Hence, He marched to the cross, not as victim, but as Victor. His ability to pray this mighty prayer was not the result of a last-minute heroic emotion suddenly blossoming there in the garden, but the set purpose of His whole life (John 5:30; John 6:38). Nevertheless: with this solitary word He defied the supposedly absolutely compelling demands of circumstances and the undeniable pressures of the world and crucified His own right of self-determination!

How His will could be truly separate from that of the Father shall remain forever a mystery to mankind whose own ignorance of the interrelation between body and spirit does not permit full understanding even of itself. Nonetheless, the distinction between Jesus-’ human desire to be liberated from His impending suffering and God’s will that He die, is a real one. His deity could not interfere with the will of God. Hence, what is manifest in this titanic struggle is Jesus-’ human instinct of self-preservation wrestling against His desire to do God’s will, even if it meant death. Though He was divine, it was in the manner of an entirely human being that He suffered (Philippians 2:5 ff.). Therefore, let us not attempt to explain what may well go far beyond our poor powers, but love Him for the great love that bound Him to us enough to go through that ordeal for us.

When best friends do not understand

Matthew 26:40 **And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? **That He findeth them sleeping speaks of His discovering what He did not previously know. This fact evidences the limitations of His human knowledge. Had He foreknown each time that they were asleep, He could not have discovered their failure. Even this insight into His limitations increases our appreciation of His suffering.

Sleeping for sorrow (Luke 22:45) indicates, not their indifference to Jesus, but their deep love for Him. Grief and the battle fatigue of previous days of campaigning alongside the Lord now took their toll. They could not guess what He was really suffering. The late night hour, coupled with the nervous strain brought on by that evening’s heart-breaking revelations, conspired to lull these emotionally exhausted spiritual sentinels to sleep.

Nevertheless, Jesus-’ reaction proves they could have stayed awake, if they had but besought God for power to overcome the grief that drained them so. What? expresses Jesus-’ disappointment and His words hit home. Although Peter had sworn to stand beside the Lord in prison or in death, he was anything but a Rock now. (See on Matthew 16:18; cf. John 1:42.) Shortly after, he would lunge wildly forward in a mad suicidal defense against a superior military force. Now, however, he lacked the stimulation to prove dependable in an isolated prayer vigil when Jesus really needed him. Already warned of his approaching failure, Jesus warns him once more. But none of the others (ye) proved stedfast either.

The problem and its solution

Matthew 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. He personally knew what a deadly peril temptation was. If He, earth’s Perfect Man, senses His own human frailty when face to face with the strain of the supreme demands of obedience to God, how much more so should His drowsy disciples! So He urgently repeated to the inner Three the admonition to the eight disciples upon leaving them at the garden gate. (Cf. Luke 22:40.) Although theoretically, they now hear it twice, to their own damage they failed to heed it even once. That you enter not into temptation means that you not walk right into unexpected trials without realizing you find yourself in such a situation. Their susceptibility to trials could be tragically fatal to their discipleship. (See on Matthew 26:31,) Hence, He graciously points to the source of their collapse, Therefore, staying away from temptation is dependent upon the close cooperation of two factors:

Watch: personal alertness which recognizes one’s own vulnerability in time and consequent need for grace. Otherwise, one begins to entertain temptation as a welcome guest, until the will to resist is itself overcome. Constant vigilance is the price of liberty.

Pray: dependence upon the leadership, power and protection of God. It also involves the constant submission of one’s desirestemptation’s target (James 1:14 f.)to the will and direction of God. Such prayer is not intended to eliminate all temptation per sè, because this would mean to compromise man’s freedom to desire, Rather, it pleads for strength to overcome what cannot be avoided. In the present case it was the disciples-’ own imperfect understanding of Jesus-’ Kingdom that was the source of their failure. Therefore, such praying must reorient the mind to let God’s wisdom decide their worldview. Had the disciples done this, they would not have been scandalized by Jesus-’ apparent inability to save Himself from what they assumed was a one-way trip to disaster. He wants them safeguarded by concentration on God, just as He was.

His justification for this admonition lies precisely in the vulnerability and tension created by man’s complex nature: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. (Cf. Galatians 5:17.) By spirit Jesus means our intellect, emotions, will and conscience. Flesh, then, refers to the basic instincts and emotions of our bodily human nature. (Remember Isaiah 40:6-8; cf. sàrx in 1 Corinthians 1:29; Galatians 2:16.) These men were not sleeping because of indifference, but due to emotional and physical strain. Hence, we are tempted to believe that, because our spirit is eager to do the right, we are necessarily completely committed to it. Unfortunately, our emotions, our body needs, our instincts, especially the basic instinct of self-preservation, may easily override our spiritual commitment. This weakness of the flesh regularly exposes us to temptations that overrule our most ardent commitment to the most truly orthodox convictions.

In this explanation of human vulnerability, can it be doubted that Jesus also included Himself, speaking of His own spirit and flesh? (Jesus has no total depravity doctrine in mind. For Him, the flesh is weak, not utterly dead.) Just as He had met decisive temptations at the beginning of His ministry, He must again meet this last, decisive assault which pitted the natural instincts of His flesh against the commitments of His spirit. Just as the disciples-’ flesh was overcome by emotional weariness despite their protestations that their spirit was faithful, His flesh was rebelling against pain and death itself, even though His spirit was perfectly ready to do God’s will. So, in His incarnation He faced problems and temptations common to us all. This imposed on Him the limitations of our human predicament too. So, if the Son of God needed such spiritual power to overcome, how much more do mortals such as we?!

Some see His gentle rebuke as Jesus-’ loving apology for their human weakness. He, the offended One, mercifully covered their offense with an explanation that in itself is amazingly helpful and edifying. Even so, His warning must not be an excuse for our indifference, but a bracing warning to be alert.

In these two verses are brought into play three elements of His own prayer model (Matthew 6:9 f.): 1. God is addressed as Father. 2. Thy will be done. 3. that you enter not into temptation echoes Lead us not into temptation.

He who stood firm against the temptation to do or be anything but God’s man in the crisis that night was the only one who watched and prayed. The others panicked and fled.

The victory over self

Matthew 26:42 Again a second time he went away, and prayed, saying, My Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done. He repeated the substance of the previous prayer (Mark 14:39). But in stating His former prayer negatively, there is now a subtle distinction in meaning. Jesus now assumes as settled that this cannot pass away. And, since He could have no doubt that the Father heard Him (John 11:42), the fact that His suffering was continuing already answered His first prayer, as you will. God had responded in the negative. Therefore, in His consenting to the impossibility, Jesus begins to drink the cup on this note of true, self-denial, not out of the bitter resignation of a false martyrdom but because it was the Father’s will.

While Jesus rightly prayed, All things are possible to you, the Father’s range of options was not limitless, because of the moral nature of God and man, the requirements of divine justice and the consequent redemption. God could not do absolutely all things, because He had limited Himself. How agonizingly painful it must have been for our Father to have to say No, His own heart broken by the choice between sinful man and His own dear Son! But if His submission is already totally settled, why, then, did He yet pray a third time? He was reiterating and confirming to Himself and God what He had so resolutely decided earlier.

Matthew 26:43 And he came again and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. His continuing to return to them proves His longing for friendly support. Undoubtedly, He was also anxious that they overcome through prayer and be valiant during the trial about to break upon them. Evidently, Jesus spoke again, but they did not know what to answer Him (Mark 14:40; cf. Mark 9:6).

Matthew 26:44 And he left them again, and went away, and prayed a third time, saying again the same words. Just as Paul prayed the same prayer three times and received a negative response from God with the assurance that My grace is sufficient for you (2 Corinthians 12:8 ff.), so also Jesus chose to glorify God through weakness. When Jesus appeared weakest because of insults, hardship, persecution and calamity, the power of God shone most brilliantly in Him. This saying again the same words has nothing to do with repetition of empty, fixed liturgical forms in prayer. (Cf. Matthew 6:7.) His complaint was against words empty of meaning and hearts unaware of God. Rather, His own repetition here is precisely the opposite, expressing deep intensity of His feeling as He continues to deal with the same soul-piercing problem. (Cf. 1 Kings 17:20 f.)

Matthew 26:45 Then cometh he to the disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. The command in Matthew 26:46 to rouse themselves stands in direct opposition to this (supposed) command to the disciples to sleep on now and take your rest (v. 45), because there, Jesus argues that they should get moving, rather than go to sleep. How should we interpret the verb form in question? Further, Mark (Mark 14:41) inserts a short word at this point (apéchei) that challenges translators and leaves our quandary basically unsolved. Two major interpretations seem appropriate:

It is enough from a commercial technical term meaning to receive a sum in full and give a receipt for it (Arndt-Gingrich, 84).

He (or perhaps: it) is distant. (See Johnson-DeWelt, Mark, 424.) Whatever danger for which they should stay awake is far enough away to justify a short rest before it arrives.

Sleep on now and take your rest, expressed in Greek as a second person plural verb, is ambiguous, because the form of the verb could be either indicative or imperative, i.e. either a statement, even expressed as a question, or a command.

If it is a command, the circumstance indicated by Jesus in the last half of the verse makes it sadly ironic: Try to keep asleep now and get a good night of rest! It just so happens that I am going to be betrayed in the next 15 minutes! Their indifference to their own spiritual danger as contrasted to their alertness to physical peril shown in their reactions merits this rebuke. Accordingly, Mark’s expression may mean: Enough of my scolding you for past weakness! We have other problems now. Here come Judas and his cohorts.

Similarly, others would see this expression as a sad question expressed in the indicative mood: Are you continuing to sleep, although I have urged you to wake and pray? Mark’s expression, then means, Enough [of your attempts to sleep and my efforts to wake you]!

Another view sees this as a paradoxical concession: Go ahead and sleep now, because, so far as I am concerned, I can no longer use you to watch with me. This accuses them of indifference to Jesus-’ needs. Mark’s expression then means: Enough [of your watching with me]. I cannot use your help any longer, because the time has passed for that.

McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 231) believes in the first phrase Jesus concedes, while in the second, having just noticed the near arrival of the enemy. He rapidly changes the subject. This is the expression of strong emotion that looks at the question first from His point of view, then from theirs.

Others, sensing the strident contrast between His comforting them to sleep and His two urgent statements: Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners, posit an unstated, undefined lapse of time after Jesus-’ Sleep on now, and take your rest, or perhaps after Matthew 26:45. This is a real concession to their weakness, as if He meant, There is a bit of time left for getting some rest before the storm (katheùdete tò loipòn: Sleep for the remainder of the time). So they drop off to sleep again. Hendriksen (Matthew, 920f.) marvels over Jesus-’ compassion:

The Shepherd, who has been asking the disciples to watch with him, is now tenderly keeping vigil over them. His own victory having been won, perfect peace has been restored to his own heart. He has been strengthened through prayer. To be sure, the three men had failed him. But never, no never will his love fail them! What we have here, accordingly, is one of the most touching pictures in the Gospels, and one, moreover, that is entirely in harmony with the sympathetic character of the Savior.

He may have sat quietly thinking while they slept on until the coming of the soldiers. Then, to give them the common courtesy of facing their foe awake and on their feet He aroused them with Mark’s expression, It is enough, meaning that their period of rest was finished.

Either way, they had missed their unique opportunity to be of any use to Jesus at His greatest hour of need for human help. His moment of frailty has passed. Their moral support is no longer needed, because He is now serene and self-possessed, ready to meet death face to face and win.

The son of God goes forth to war a kingly crown to win

Matthew 26:46 Arise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that betrayeth me. Our Lord, fully aware of what would befall Him, boldly presented Himself to be our sacrifice! Such tranquility and courage proves that Jesus-’ prayer was answered. Rather than remove His suffering, God gave Him strength to bear it. He arose from cringing and crying to face the grim battle of the ages. This is the purpose of praying: that while kneeling before God we may find the marvelous resilience and moral power to attack life’s problems head-on. Only after such prayer comes victory.

Behold, he is at hand that betrayeth me. The bobbing pinpoints of torch-light may have become discernible in the distance as the numerous arresting party poured out of Jerusalem. Perhaps Jesus could already hear the hushed murmur of voices, the clank of weaponry and the tread of boots on the rocky pathway leading to the garden. So He speaks with urgency, lest the drowsy disciples be totally unprepared for what must follow.

In an age where even religious activities are geared to stroking our feelings and coddling our sentiments in order to make us feel good in our sins, we must look to Jesus! In a day when we are instructed to find a life-style that feels good, we must remember that He could say NO! to His impulses in order to save us from our certain destiny. When, in order to assauge our sense of guilt, sentimental songs of self-congratulation take the place of God-centered hymns, when chummy pep-talks feebly supplant life-changing messages that exalt the living God and stir us to responsible action, we must look to Jesus! He did not feel like going to the cross for anyone. It is to this role-model that we are called (Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 2:21; 1 John 2:6; John 13:15).

FACT QUESTIONS

List the events that led up to the prayer in Gethsemane.

By what general route did Jesus arrive in the garden? Locate Gethsemane. What does this word mean?

How did He organize Himself and His men in order to achieve premium opportunity for prayer?

What various emotions are attributed to Jesus during this scene?

What personal admonitions did He give the disciples for their spiritual protection?

Explain the meaning of watch with me.

List and explain the various petitions Jesus included in His prayer.

What cup did Jesus ask the Father to remove?

What reproof did Peter deserve from Jesus?

Explain the relationship between watching and praying, then indicate how these protect a person against temptations.

How does one enter into temptation?

Explain why the disciples-’ eyes were heavy.

How many times did Jesus repeat His prayer?

What final rebuke did the disciples merit for their sleeping?

Matthew 26:47-56

SECTION 68 JESUS IS ARRESTED

(Parallels: Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-12)

TEXT: 26:47-56

47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. 48 And he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he: take him. 49 And straightway he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Rabbi; and kissed him. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, do that for which thou art come. Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. 51 And behold, one of them that were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear. 52 Then saith Jesus unto him, Put again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53 Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? 55 In that hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me? I sat daily in the temple teaching, and yet took me not. 56 But all this is come to pass, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him, and fled.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

What evidence of meticulous preparation do you see in this arresting party? Why so many armed men needed?

How does Jesus-’ attitude in this section differ from that expressed during His agony in Gethsemane?

Why does each of the Gospel writers entitle Judas one of the twelve as if their readers had never heard of this man already well-introduced earlier in every one of the Gospels? Are they merely copying a stereotyped tradition, or is there some other reason that made this formula necessary?

To arrest a teacher believed heretical, how many men are needed? What does the number of armed men with Judas indicate about their attitude toward Jesus?

The Synoptics relate that Judas immediately approached Jesus to betray Him, but John completely ignores the betrayal kiss and gives attention to Jesus-’ overawing the arresting party. Is a harmony of these facts possible? How should we treat the Gospels when one or more of them does not relate facts chronicled in the others? Are they completely unaware of information related by others?

Why do you think Judas needed to give a sign of recognition? Was not Jesus already well known? If so, why need the kiss to point Him out?

Why did Judas call Jesus Rabbi? Did not he know His personal name?

Who do you think Judas thought he was betraying: Jesus or the authorities? Do you think he really hated Jesus? Why did he betray Him?

Why did Jesus call Judas, Friend? Was He appealing to him or rebuking him or something else? What effect could this title produce in Judas?

If Judas had already given the betrayal sign by kissing Jesus, how could Jesus then say, Friend, do that for which you are come? Is not this nonsense? Or do we have a correct translation of Jesus-’ words?

Why do you suppose the well-armed men of the arresting force had not attacked Jesus before, or at least when Peter started slashing with his sword?

What does Peter’s violent reaction reveal about the man?

In what way(s) was he so wrong for using the sword?

What impression did Peter give others of Jesus-’ teaching that night?

What should everyone have understood when Jesus claimed the protection of an innumerable host of angels to avoid this arrest? That angels really exist? Would the Sadducean hierarchy have agreed with Him? Do you?

What should people have understood when Jesus asserted that the Scriptures foretold even this arrest? How would this help the Apostles?

Why did Jesus not hesitate to condemn the cowardly attack by His foes?

Why did the disciples abandon Jesus? Do you think that the soldiers would have arrested the disciples too?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Now Judas, who betrayed Jesus, also knew about the Garden of Gethsemane, for He had often met there with His disciples. So Judas procured a Roman detachment of 600 infantry and some subalterns of the Temple police dispatched by the chief priests and Pharisees. These went there equipped with lanterns, torches and weapons. Just as Jesus was still speaking about the near arrival of His betrayer, Judas, one of the Twelve appeared, accompanied by a great crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent by the clergy, theologians and rulers of the nation. Then Jesus, with full awareness of all the things that were going to happen to Him, stepped forward and addressed the mob, Who are you looking for? Jesus of Nazareth, they answered Him. I am He, Jesus told them. (Judas, the traitor, was standing there with them.) When the Lord said, I am He, they lurched backward and fell all over themselves. Once more He questioned them, Who is it you want? Jesus of Nazareth, they repeated. I already told you that I am your man, Jesus responded. So, if I am the one you want, let these other men go. This was how the word He had prayed came true, I did not lose a single one of these You gave me. Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them, saying, The man I greet with a kiss is your man. Arrest him and lead him away well-guarded. Going at once to Jesus, he said, Hello, Teacher! and kissed Him affectionately. But Jesus challenged him, What are you doing here, friend? Judas, would you use a kiss to betray me, your Messiah?

At this they stepped forward, grabbed Jesus and held Him tight. When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they shouted, Lord, shall we use our swords now? At this point Simon Peter, one of those who stood by Jesus, reached for his sword, drew it and slashed at the high priest’s slave and sliced off his right ear. (The slave’s name was Malchus.) But Jesus stopped Peter, Sheath your sword! Killing only leads to more killing! Those who wantonly take justice into their own hands and kill, rightly deserve death. Do you suppose that I cannot appeal to my Father or that He would not instantly place more than 72,000 angels at my disposal? On the other hand, how could the Bible texts be fulfilled, that say it must happen this way? The Father has given me a cup of suffering to drink; shall I refuse to drink it? (To those who held Him, Jesus said,) Let me do this much at least. He then touched the man’s ear and miraculously restored it. At that point Jesus said to the chief priests, the Temple police and the elders who were there to arrest Him, Did you have to march out heavily armed to capture me, as if I were a dangerous outlaw? Day after day, when I was in your reach, sitting in the Temple courts teaching, you never laid a finger on me. But this is the hour you choose and the authority darkness gives you! Yet all this has occurred just like the writings of the prophets said it would. Then the Roman detachment and their colonel along with the Jewish subordinates took hold of Jesus and tied His hands. Then all the disciples deserted Him and escaped. But a certain young man, wearing nothing but a linen cloth about his naked body, was following Him. They grabbed him, but he slipped out of the linen cloth and escaped naked.

SUMMARY

Judas led a large continent of men armed with weapons and judicial authority to arrest Jesus. However, He overwhelmed them by offering Himself up to them. When they regained their composure, Judas brazenly gave the betrayal signal. This moved the authorities to action, but also unleashed the armed disciples. Peter started carving with his sword, but Jesus blocked any further action and healed the wounded man. Further, He attributed all that was happening to the express will and planning of God. He then reproached the authorities for their moral cowardice evident in this night arrest of a man whom they could easily have taken in broad daylight. But this too was foreseen in Scripture. Jesus permitted them to bind Him and lead Him away, while His followers made good their escape, that is, all but one who barely made it.

NOTES THE MAN WHO REFUSED TO FIGHT Jesus, our model of forbearance and restraint I. THE AUDACIOUS, ALL-OUT ATTACK BY EVIL MEN (26:47-49)

Matthew 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. Matthew does not state when Judas left the Apostolic band to begin his evil mission, but simply presupposes what John records, that he rushed away from the Passover supper (John 13:30).

Why continue to call Judas, one of the twelve, when he was already well-known to Matthew’s reader? (Cf. Matthew 10:4; Matthew 26:14.) Rather than term this expression a stereotyped, traditional formulation, there are simpler solutions:

Judas shared this common name with hundreds of Judases in first-century Israel. (Cf. Matthew 13:55; Acts 1:13; Jude 1:1; John 14:22; Acts 5:37; Acts 9:11; Acts 15:22.) Since Matthew had not reported Judas-’ hasty departure from the apostolic group at the Passover supper (John 13:30), he must now identify the posse’s guide as the Judas who was one of the twelve. And precisely because of the commonness of names, would not the Synoptics identify the man all the more carefully, lest confusion arise in later years? But could the treachery of Judas Iscariot ever be mistakenly laid at the door of any other Judas?

This descriptive, one of the twelve, repeated here also has the flavor of shame and anguish that such a betrayal by one of His chosen disciples could happen. (See on Matthew 26:14.) Cannot Matthew register his shock more than once? Is this any stranger than repeating the list of conspirators, chief priests and elders of the people, which, for the godly in Israel, must have been just as unbelievable, because these leaders might be presumed to welcome, not crucify, God’s Christ (Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 26:57; Matthew 26:59; Matthew 27:1)?

Judas could be surer of a decisive strike because Jesus habitually used this olive grove as a camping spot (Luke 21:37) and possibly also a meeting place (sunéchthe, John 18:2). This detail points to Jesus-’ consistent efforts to convince Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37 f.; Luke 19:41 ff; Luke 23:27 ff.; John 2:13 ff.John 3:21; John 5:1 ff.; John 7:10 to John 10:39). Because Jesus knew Judas knew this, He facilitated the arrest for Judas by going there.

Great multitude, swords, staves, lanterns, torches and weapons, (John 18:3), ropes or chains (John 18:12) were prepared and Judas came as guide with his pre-arranged signal. That so many armed men were detached to bring in an itinerate Rabbi, Jesus Himself will term irresponsible overkill (Matthew 26:55). From this critics could reject the Gospel report as grossly overstated. However, looked at from the viewpoint of the Jews, every precaution underscores the thoroughness of their preparation, their fear of resistance or rescue by Jesus-’ many friends then in Jerusalem, or their fear that He might simply elude them, as on previous occasions. (Cf. John 7:45 f; John 8:59; John 10:31; John 10:39.) So, if Judas were not totally trusted, or if a Zealot ambush were feared, or if personal misgivings about attacking a miracle-working prophet, should paralyze the manliest among them, perhaps they could find psychological strength in numbers.

Although the mob was from the chief priests and elders of the people, i.e. representing the entire authority of Israel including the Pharisees (John 18:3; see on Matthew 26:3), the ecclesiastical leaders themselves came along. (See on Matthew 26:55.) Hendriksen (Matthew, 922) suggested that, because Jesus hurried Judas out into the night aware that his plot is discovered, he must have alarmed the authorities to take instant, decisive action lest the entire operation be compromised by some unpredictable reaction on Jesus-’ part. Further, a secret night raid, when Jesus-’ supporters were least expecting it, had a better chance of success, because any eventual resistance could be overcome more easily. Did the Jews among them simply not observe their Passover supper due to their primary preoccupation with capturing Jesus, or were they summoned away from it, being already alerted to assemble at a moment’s notice?

Matthew’s estimate, a great multitude, does not exaggerate the size of the contingent, because John specifies that the conspirators had been satisfied with bringing nothing less than the cohort (labón tèn sepeîan, note the article). This military detachment, a tenth part of a legion, usually consisted of 600 men under the command of a Roman tribune or chiliarch (John 18:3; John 18:12). That Romans garrisoned the Castle Antonia during feasts to maintain order and quell riots is well-documented by Josephus (Ant. XVII, 10, 1; XX, 5, 3; Wars V, 5, 8). John’s language seems to distinguish the cohort from the Jewish officers, the Temple police (hoi huperéti tôn Ioudaìon; strategoùs toû hieroû, John 18:3; John 18:12; Luke 22:52). Because Jewish officers had been swayed by Jesus-’ discourses before (John 7:45 f.), implacable Romans are added to guarantee arrest this time.

Nevertheless, because speira is also used in the ancient authors to refer to the Latin manipulus, a detachment of 200 men. John may not mean the entire Roman cohort, since this would leave the fortress undermanned and the city dangerously unguarded, if Pilate had brought only a 600-man cohort for this feast. Even so, 200 Romans with their officers, not counting the Levitical guards and other Jews, still amounts to a multitude involved in the arrest of a teacher! However, if the authorities feared popular resistance and if the rest of the legionaries remained in the fortress, the larger number would by no means be thought exaggerated, and the Roman officers would lead a detachment adequate to meet the supposed need.

Therefore, the Romans were involved in Jesus-’ arrest. But their participation at this early stage means that the Roman involvement began much earlier than the hearing of Jesus-’ case before Pilate. Would not this, in turn, imply that the elimination of Jesus had already been decided by common agreement between the religious and political authorities, by the Sanhedrin led by the priesthood as well as by Pilate? Are Pilate’s attempts to save Jesus, then, to be written off as a farce? Again, one must explain the disappearance of the Romans during the Jewish trials of Jesus, as well as from the Synoptic accounts. Attempts to solve this mystery are varied:

THE SYNOPTICS REWROTE HISTORY. Some attribute the Roman’s absence from Jesus-’ Jewish trials as due to a tendency in Christian tradition to transfer guilt for Jesus-’ death from the Romans to the Jews. But by what right can theological interest of the Evangelist justify inventing fact? Such tampering with truth undermines confidence in any other fact they report, leaving nothing certain. Further, if Roman soldiers were needed only for the arrest which succeeded, why should they be further required to continue what Jewish guards can now safely handle?

JOHN EXAGGERATED. Others, taking the opposite point of view, say that John simply added the Roman participation at Jesus-’ arrest for good measure to emphasize the numerical strength and superiority of Jesus-’ enemies. John is thought to argue that this big multinational force needed to take Jesus could not capture Him, had He not turned Himself over to them spontaneously (John 18:1 ff.). Further, Pilate’s question suggests that he knew nothing about the cause of Jesus-’ arrest (John 18:29). Hence, he could not have ordered his men to collaborate with the Jews in effecting it. Therefore, John too rewrote history. But Pilate’s purely formal question merely opens the trial and says nothing of what he himself already knew. (See also below.)

THERE NEVER WERE ANY ROMANS INVOLVED IN THE ARREST. Perhaps John used the military terms cohort (speîra) and tribune (chilìarchos) in a non-technical sense to indicate the size and organization of the Jewish band. Luke used captains (strategoì) in a similar way, and by adding of the Temple, indicates their strictly Jewish character. However, by calling the Jewish Temple police huperétai (John 7:32; John 7:45; John 18:12). John seems to distinguish them from the Roman cohort.

PILATE ENTRUSTED A COHORT TO CAIAPHAS. Is it not plausible that, in the interests of prejudicing Rome against the Nazarene. Caiaphas request a cohort from Pilate to capture a dangerous revolutionary? By not specifying further the exact character of Jesus-’ movement the wily priest could avoid complications. Perhaps Caiaphas need not even address his request to Pilate, but to the tribune. Was not such a guard at Jewish disposal at other times (cf. Matthew 27:65)? However, is it unthinkable that Pilate should have granted it personally, on the assumption that political cooperation in this unthreatening way could relieve tension in Judea? And would not Pilate’s otherwise inexplicable availability early the next morning be more credible, if his men reported to him on their unusual activities the night before (Matthew 27:1 f.)? His reactions during the trials point to high-quality intelligence reports concerning the true character of their so-called dangerous subversive and indicate he possessed a good grasp of events (cf. Matthew 27:18; Matthew 27:23 f.; Luke 23:4; Luke 23:14 f., Luke 23:22).

The audacity of hypocrisy

Matthew 26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he: take him. The kiss is decidedly part of the plot, not an afterthought on Judas-’ part. With many Paschal pilgrims crowding around Jerusalem, in case of a fight they ran the risk of arresting the wrong person in the dark. Why select this signal? Because this type of salutation was common among Orientals when friends meet after a long absence, especially when a disciple greets his beloved teacher. However, it is unnecessary to think that the betrayer would select a signal as far as possible from his true sentiment, so as better to mask his perfidy. By contrast to the commentaries, the Gospel writers are surprisingly subdued in describing Judas and his betrayal kiss.

If the kiss were thought not absolutely necessary for the success of the plot, was this choice the backlash of vengefulness? Could not Judas have pointed Jesus out to the authorities without committing himself so openly, remaining in the background? Does not this hypocritical greeting prove that Jesus-’ friend had been transformed into a mortal foe? If so, rather than be either revolting or repulsive to Judas, would not such a kiss be but part of the deep satisfaction of his demand for revenge? However, for men grimly determined to succeed, some definite, unmistakable sign of recognition was necessary in the semi-darkness to eliminate confusion and mistakes. So it is more likely that the kiss was selected, because it permits the betrayer to approach the victim for the most positive identification possible.

Was it that he was trying to assuage whatever in his conscience yet accused him of acting in a manner untrue to himself? Was this habitual act of formal respect and affection intended by Judas to hide from himself the full impact of his sin while doing it? Not too likely, because he may not have considered his act a sin in the final analysis, especially if he viewed the ensuing crisis as merely a crucial step in the final exaltation of Jesus to the Jewish Messiahship with its material throne, economic power and political clout. (See notes on Matthew 26:14.)

In harmony with his own warped views of Messiahship, this kiss was but an essential step toward the mistaken goal he envisioned. It was, thus, neither hypocritical nor vengeful, but simply part of the mechanism necessary to make his plan work. He himself could hold Jesus firm, distract Him and give the guards time to grab Him. At the same time, did Judas expect the kiss to have even a positive effect on Jesus, persuading Him of Judas-’ loyalty despite the fierceness of the crisis now beginning? Judas stood to gain, if Jesus were convinced of this. Thus, for Judas, the kiss is not a betrayal of Jesus but of the enemies who stood in the way of Iscariot’s Kingdom of the Messiah. What Judas said publicly to the enemy (Matthew 26:15; Matthew 26:48) may have no relationship to his own secret motives. Here is his hypocrisy.

This agrees better with Judas-’ consciousness of Jesus-’ many miracles, even if he forgot the Lord’s ability to read the motives of his heart. This refusal to read baseness in Judas-’ manner is not to clothe the man with motives more or less respectable, but to understand how a common disciple like me could ever become capable of committing so terrible a sin as turning the Savior of the world over to His enemies. In fact, The worst opponents of Christ are still those who betray with a kisssuch as those who oppose His claims while affecting to revere His character, and deny His Saviourship while acknowledging the excellence of His doctrine (P.H.C., XXIII, 543).

Matthew 26:49 And straightway he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Rabbi; and kissed him. Straightway should be understood in a relative sense, i.e. immediately in reference to what? Did Judas, instantly upon arrival at the garden, walk right up to Jesus, give Him the betrayal kiss and turn Him over to His enemies who immediately hauled Him away, with the sole interruption of Peter’s defense? John, however, clearly remember Jesus-’ bold self-surrender to the mob, an act that so overpowered them that He almost had to insist that they take Him (John 18:4-9). Solutions are related to the respective locations of Jesus, Judas, the apostles and the various components of the arresting party inside or outside the garden:

Would Jesus-’ bold challenge have had the startling moral ascendency that it did, if Judas strode straightway up to Jesus, as the mob expected him to, and gave the prearranged signal in a manner obvious to all? On the other hand, in the shadows cast by the flickering torches and the Paschal moon, Judas may have acted prematurely. If, in his eagerness to betray Jesus, he forged ahead of the mob, he may have approached Jesus directly and awkwardly betrayed Him with a kiss before the main body of troops and authorities could make out what he had done. (The same effect would occur, if, out of fear of Jesus, the troops and authorities held back somewhat, and consequently in the half-darkness missed Judas-’ signal.) After Judas-’ designation, then, Jesus identified Himself to the mob, majestically challenging them to arrest Him and free His men. Some prefer this view because Jesus-’ regal bearing and unexpectedly bold challenge could still shake the sternest of men even after Judas-’ kiss and precisely because they knew Him to be their quarry. See Lenski on John, 1181f., for his own and Luther’s arguments in favor of a miracle.

The PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY presents the view that Jesus, alone and unarmed, anticipated Judas-’ betrayal. Complete master of the situation, He offered Himself before Judas could act. This moral supremacy focused all attention on Him and avoided a universal round-up of His men. Then, to complete his part in the plot, Judas, who hitherto had been standing with the posse (John 18:5), blundered forward to give the now practically superfluous confirming kiss that signaled for anyone yet in doubt that Jesus is the one to arrest.

However, this gesture was neither totally worthless nor without effect. If the soldiers took the foreground, leaving the priests who knew Jesus behind them, for those officers who did not know Jesus of Nazareth personally, His self-identification might have been interpreted as shielding the real insurrectionist they sought. If the Romans had orders from their superiors to arrest only the man whom Judas identified by the kiss, they would not have acted until he did. Further, by daring to approach their Foe and touching him, Judas broke the spell of whatever fear they had of His divine majesty or of some terrible miracle He might use to defend Himself from them. (Cf. John 18:4-7.) This emboldened them to act.

By kissing Him with particular fervor (katephilesen) as opposed to a simple kiss (phileso, v. 48), some believe Judas merely prolonged the unrepeatable sign to assure the guards of Jesus-’ identity. This would be consistent with his ostentatious, Hail, Rabbi. (Cf. Matthew 26:25, not Lord, but -Rabbi.-’) Some see in this his conscience and affection that struggle with a stern will to get it over with. However, the kiss expressed strong emotion not inconsistent with his secret soul which he never sold out to Jesus-’ enemies. Dreaming only of future wealth, how would he treat the man who is his ticket to incalculable wealth and power? After all, he does not suspect that he is really turning Jesus over to His death. (Cf. Matthew 27:3; see notes on Matthew 26:14.)

II. HIS CHALLENGE TO MORAL SENSE (26:50)

Matthew 26:50 **And Jesus said unto him, Friend, do that for which thou art come. Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. **Addressing Judas as Friend (hetaîre), Jesus treats the man, not as a beloved friend (philos, cf. John 15:14 f.), but holds him at the briefest of distance, Buddy, mate. As in English, Friend can be used to address someone whose name one does not know (Matthew 20:13; Matthew 22:12; Arndt-Gingrich, 314). Depending on context, hetaîros refers to one’s companion or comrade in arms, one’s mate on ships, at table, in slavery, etc. Consequently, it can also mean lover, disciple, follower, adherent, partisan, body-guard (Rocci, 776).

Reminding Judas of all that they had shared together, this exquisite word combines a rebuke of Judas-’ treachery with a touching appeal to his heart and conscience to dissuade the man from his determination. After all, Judas has not yet killed himself: he could yet repent as would Peter. This view harmonizes with the words whereby Jesus also challenged and shamed Judas, Would you betray the Son of man with a kiss (Luke 22:48)? By calling Judas-’ act by its real name, betrayal, His words were calculated to shock the man with the real enormity of his sin. These words should haunt him, if he would but abandon his own mistaken views of Messiahship, while the gentleness of Christ’s pleading could not yet arouse his conscience, break his heart and lead him to repent and ask forgiveness. Over Akeldama the noose was not yet tied for Judas Iscariot..

Do that for which thou art come. Translated this way, this sentence is nonsense, for, by betraying Jesus with a kiss, Judas had already done that for which he had come. Jesus could know that his role in the entire procedure had just been played. So, why should the Lord still urge his betrayer to carry out his mission? Further, since the verb do does not appear in Greek here, the phrase (hetaîre, eph-’ ho pàirei) really breaks off suddenly, leaving His thought incomplete. Therefore, something must be supplied to complete it.

Some, like the RSV, treat it as a question: Friend, for what are you come? or, Friend, what are you doing here? Robertson (Word Pictures, I, 215). believes Deissmann has proven conclusively that it is a question, eph-‘ho in late Greek having the interrogative sense of epi ti (Robertson, Grammar, p. 725).. Most of the early translations (Old Latin, Old Syriac) took it as a question. However, ho is a not normally an interrogative pronoun, but a relative-demonstrative. Arndt-Gingrich (588) admit the possibility that the relative be used to take the place of the interrogative pronoun in a direct question but confess that the only example of this construction in our literature, i.e. Matthew 26:50, is much in dispute. Arndt-Gingrich (587) suggest as missing words, friend, (are you misusing the kiss) for that (purpose) for which you are here? or perhaps in connection with that (= the purposes), for which (= for the realization of which) you have appeared (do you kiss me)?

Blass-Debrunner (§ 300) term it.

Controversial Matthew 26:50. : hardly a direct question -For what?-’ The easiest solution is to take it as a painful, ironic reminiscence of a toast like the one attested on a goblet from Syria:. -Enjoy yourself! for that’s why you are here.-’

It could be viewed as an sad exclamation, almost a groan: What you are here for! Judas, Jesus-’ companion, was on the wrong side, so the Lord’s reaction compels him to grasp the outrageousness of what he is doing.

Either way, because Judas hid his dream of self-aggrandizement from Jesus, the Lord rightly rejects this apparently real affection as expressive of Judas-’ true motive.

Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. Matthew and Mark present this seizure before Peter’s attack, while Luke and John appear to place it afterwards. However, the latter give general summaries of the night’s activities, not a calculated refutation of their colleagues-’ affirmations. No one included a precise notation of the time or sequence. Accordingly, upon Judas-’ signal, when guards began to seize Jesus, Peter dashed in, his sword flashing. This temporarily halted the arrest. When Jesus halted Peter, the guards finished what they had begun. Then, as everyone turned his attention on Jesus, the disciples were permitted to escape with greater safety.

Having given His consent to suffer what He Himself had predicted and the Scriptures foresaw, declining every form of rescue whether from earth or heaven, He now willingly accepted those bonds that would be removed only to nail Him to the tree. But the only bonds which would or could hold Jesus, were not the puny chains of human manufacture, but love: He loved me and gave Himself up for me.

The interruption by violence (26:51)

Matthew 26:51 And behold, one of them that were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear. Some other armed disciple (Simon the Zealot?), misinterpreting Jesus-’ earlier remark about buying swords (Luke 22:35 ff.) and ignoring Jesus-’ demand that the disciples be permitted to leave (John 18:8), and recognizing the imminent danger in which Jesus now stood, cried out, Lord, shall we strike with the sword? (Luke 22:49). Not waiting for the answer and possibly emboldened by Jesus-’ overpowering His would-be assailants (John 18:6), the dauntless Peter drew his sword and rushed to attack a superior force single-handedly. With the courage of the desperate, he was determined to take out as many as he could before getting killed himself. He would show Jesus here and now the sincerity of his earlier promises of loyalty unto death!

But in doing so, he struck an ill-considered blow for worldly Messiahship, the same dangerous concept that drove Judas to create this crisis for Jesus. Peter’s violence reflected against the Lord Himself by justifying His enemies-’ fear that the Lord was the revolutionary head of a band of cut-throats. He was robbing Jesus of His right to claim, My Kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my officers would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place (John 18:36). Lenski (Matthew, 1050) wrote: Peter acts as though Jesus meant none of the things he said. His love does not listen and obey..

We too fall for Peter’s temptation when we put our trust in material weapons for the advancement of the Church of Christ. Wealth, political influence, power-plays and materialistic world-views that secularize in order to popularize, are methods that possess no divine power to save. However well meaning, these attempts to grab a larger slice of power and prestige in a power-hungry world are but the same violent slashing of swords. It denies Jesus-’ true goals and spiritual methods, and if unhindered, renders Scripture useless and effectually shuts the Kingdom of heaven against men. Such a program is as much an embarrassment to Jesus-’ cause now as Peter’s violence was to Him then. (Contrast 2 Corinthians 10:3-5.)

Smote Malchus (John 18:10) the servant of the high priest. This slave was a trusted personal agent of the high priest, a fact that explains his intervention to arrest Jesus. Struck off his ear: unquestionably, Peter aimed a deadly blow that could have split the skull of Malchus, but the servant’s instinctive sidestep foiled Peter’s thrust, so he lost only his right ear (Luke 22:49; John 18:10). If the slave wore armor, the blow harmlessly thudded into his shoulder armor. Peter really intended to kill the man.

The indefinite description of Peter as one of them that were with Jesus (John 18:10) furnishes incidental evidence of the early dating of Matthew’s document. In the darkness the soldiers did not learn the identity of the one who took up arms to resist arrest. To name him while he were alive could have meant unnecessary trials for the man who not only resisted in Gethsemane but also continued to be a thorn in the side of the Sanhedrin which was still ruling when the Synoptic Gospels were penned. (Mary of Bethany is a parallel case, Matthew 26:7.) Should Matthew’s book, supposedly current only among Christians, contain information that informers among false brethren could transform into vicious arms against the Church? (Cf. notes on Matthew 24:10.) But John, who alone names him, wrote long after Peter’s death under Nero sometime before 68 A.D. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. II, 25; III, 24).

Alford’s refutation of this hypothesis is ill-founded, because in the high priest’s courtyard Peter’s recognition as the assailant of the servant had lost its sting, precisely because Jesus had healed the man. Thereafter none could complain without admitting Jesus-’ supernatural power to heal hence His God-given right to say what they rejected.

III. HIS CALL FOR RESTRAINT A. The Law That Forbids Violence (26:52)

Matthew 26:52 **Then saith Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. **If the use of violence in defense of Christianity were ever justified, this is the moment to establish its appropriateness. Nevertheless, Jesus moved decisively to block His defenders. What did He mean here?

He did not proscribe the legitimate use of weapons of their ownership. It remained your sword to be put again into its place. However, some interpret these words as expressing Jesus-’ repudiation of ownership of any sword and of every use of it as having nothing to do with His cause. However, Jesus never demanded that Peter throw it away, as if He had a policy of absolute non-resistance, for this would be a contradiction of Luk 22:36. Rather, His defense is not the cause, time nor place to use it.

Nor does He repudiate the appropriate use of the sword in human justice (Romans 13:4), as if He hereby threatened constituted authority. To the contrary, Jesus-’ words may be considered as a legal sentence pronounced, not as a simple future, but as the imperative future (Alford, I, 278). Thus, His maxim becomes a virtual parallel to Genesis 9:6 to justify capital punishment: Those who wantonly take justice into their own hands and kill, rightly deserve death. Thus, Jesus stood up for the maintenance of law and order, even if His own trial would be illegal and its sentence unjust.

A divine law of retribution? Use the sword against men and God will similarly destroy you. In this violent spirit there is no time for mercy or forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-35). Despite their evil use of the legal system, these are little ones whose importance to God must not be despised (Matthew 18:6-14). They know not what they do!

A practical consideration? Killing leads only to more senseless killing. You cannot avoid escalation. Success in eliminating some does not mean destroying all. You too may be killed. (Cf. Sir. 3:26.) Ironically, this futile, bloody course was followed by many demagogues in Israel in their last desperate bid for freedom from Rome, and received what they deserved in blood.

An ethical principle? The use of bloodshed or violence, militariasm and inquisitions to advance Christ’s Kingdom, is hereby forbidden. (Cf. John 18:36.) If even saving the King, the supreme justification, is interdicted, how much less justified is the use of force to defend its lesser interests? Otherwise, Christianity’s foes will take up the sword, to attack the Kingdom, question its motives, block its interests, hinder its progress and silence its message,all in reaction to sword-swinging Christians. The only way to transform the course of history is through loving persuasion, not through belligerence and bluster.

So, Jesus commanded Peter to sheath his sword, not because all use of the sword is wrong, since Jesus Himself did not believe this, but because all taking the law into one’s hands by violent measures is wrong. Because the rule applied to every instance of private vengeance, Peter’s was a case in point and required correction.

B. The Heavenly Might That Protects Him (26:53)

Matthew 26:53 Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels? This reproaches His rash follower: Do you really suppose I could not escape if I wanted to? If a Roman legion was comprised of 6000 soldiers, He had 72,000 angels at His command. This potential Heaven-sent defense force provides two excellent reasons for not fighting to defend Jesus:

Peter’s feeble efforts are absolutely unnecessary and worse than useless in light of the virtually unlimited, formidable fire-power at His disposal, should He choose to use it. If little children are watched by the angels (Matthew 18:10), how much more God’s only Son? If God’s prophets are protected by heavenly might (Remember 2 Kings 6:8-17: Elisha surrounded at Dothan!), how much more so His Son?

The mob’s efforts to take Him against His will could avail nothing. It is immaterial whether or not Jesus-’ overawing the soldiers (John 18:4-6) be a supernatural expression of His divine power and majesty, no number of men on earth could touch Him, unless He permitted it.

If the Lord willingly surrendered, one arresting officer was enough. If He really resisted, all the world’s armies would never suffice! The irony of twelve defenders (Jesus and the eleven Apostles) against a multitude of Roman soldiers is only surpassed by the incomparably greater defence by twelve legions of angels whom Jesus sees ready to march but whom He refuses to summon. So He would die, not because unprotected or because a single foe got behind His line of defense, but because He deliberately abandoned His protection.

C. The Bonds That Hold Him (26:54)

Matthew 26:54 How then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? Here is another argument against fighting: Any kind of deliverance was completely irreconcilable with the destiny predicted for the suffering Servant of Jahveh (Isaiah 53; Psalms 22; Zechariah 12:10). Therefore, by attempting Jesus-’ defense, anyone who agreed with Peter was rejecting the deliberate purpose of God stated in the Scriptures.

In a critical moment such as this, a man’s character and his confidence in his religion are revealed for what they are. The hardest character trait of all to duplicate is a patient, long-suffering love that quietlty submits to this outrage. But unfaked godliness is born of confidence in Scripture: it has to be this way, because the Bible says so. Despite the fact that those prophetic Scriptures predicted His suffering and revealed that His death was absolutely necessary, Jesus does not hesitate to point men to them as true and God-sent. (See on Matthew 26:56.) We trust the Old Testament, because our Lord did, even though it meant death for Him to believe it.

IV. HIS REPROACH OF COWARDICE (26:55)

The Moral Inconsistency of Their Tactics

Matthew 26:55 In that hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me? I sat daily in the temple teaching, and ye took me not. The specific group addressed is the chief priests and captains of the temple and elders, who had come out against him (Luke 22:52). The presence of these dignitaries in this night raid is not at all improbable. They would have come to direct the arrest and make instant decisions, if such became necessary, as well as to give this lynch mob a show of legitimacy (Luke 22:52 f.).

Because lestés also means revolutionary, insurrectionist (Arndt-Gingrich, 474), as against a robber suggests two interpretations:

He draws an ironic contrast between His own conduct as He sees it and the way they see Him: on the one hand, a Jewish rabbi quietly lecturing in the Temple and, on the other, a dangerous terrorist engaged in subversive activity to support a revolution! Fully the Master of Himself, He scorns the crude arms to which they must now resort, since they have no other. Quiet Dialogue, convincing Scriptural argument, intelligent, fair-minded debate and honest, free decision are weapons they do not possess. But these are the arms with which He met His foes and with which He would have us promote His interests. (Cf. Matthew 28:18; 2 Corinthians 10:3 ff.; 2 Timothy 2:24 f.; Titus 1:9 ff.) It is one of the paradoxes of history that, whereas Jesus-’ enemies feared that He might be a dangerous revolutionary challenging the Establishment’s power structure, Judas probably betrayed Jesus precisely because He had refused to do just that!

As against a robber alludes to their manner of arrest, a night foray with its ridiculous show of force, that treated Him as a rebel leader and fugitive from justice, as if His privacy in the garden were an attempt to escape from His well-deserved fate as a nationalist guerilla who justified his lawlessness in the name of patriotism. Jesus was no Barabbas (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19; John 18:40). On the contrary, His daily teaching the way of truth and righteousness in broad daylight in the most public place possible, the Jerusalem Temple in the very heart of Judaism, proved that His was no clandestine, guerilla movement of opposition to the Roman regime, but one that was open, fearless and honest. He had made no effort to conceal Himself or flee. In fact, of His own accord, He had just come forward to turn Himself over to them. And yet they call out the army just to cope with a teacher (cf. Matthew 26:47)?

Unless Jesus refers exclusively to the events of the Last Week, I sat daily in the temple teaching points to a considerable ministry in Jerusalem, incidental Synoptic confirmation of John’s reports (John chaps. 2, 5, 7-10). Ye took me not. These treacherous leaders had made no public move to arrest Him and when they attempted something, their men returned empty-handed (John 7:45 f.).

At His trial Jesus would again expose this cowardly attack launched in the absence of people who could more honestly judge of its injustice (cf. John 18:20 f.). While the corruption, cowardice and malice of Jesus-’ accusers do not prove His innocence, that He has such as enemies is circumstantial evidence in His favor and suggests further examination of His character and claims.

Some criticize Jesus-’ rejection of their tactics as vengeful and unworthy of Him. On the contrary, His dignified protest reveals their sin to their face, that they might repent of it. That they did not immediately do so does not mean that His self-possessed, godly manner did not affect any of them or would not haunt them until their death and serve as their condemnation at judgment.

V. HIS SOURCE OF CONFIDENCE: EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO PLAN (26:56)

Matthew 26:56 But all this is come to pass, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him, and fled. Jesus calmly accepted the indignity of it all, because He was convinced that His suffering was part of a larger picture painted, even if in dark colors, by the prophets. This conviction of the true significance of His suffering tended to calm His spirit. His resignation here is tantamount to saying: Let the Scriptures be fulfilled (Mark 14:49). Let God’s Word be true, even if it means a cross for me! Lenski (Matthew, 1055):

Here are the real forces at work in what is taking place this night: God is carrying out his prophetic plans, Jesus is thus voluntarily putting himself into his captors-’ hands. That and that alone is why this army is scoring such a huge victory against a single humble man!

The hand that moved events that night, was not that of evil men but the divine purpose of God. Plummer (Matthew, 375) asks:

Did this serene statement of His reason for submitting without resistance convey to the disciples, and in particular to Judas, any impression of Christ’s confidence that His cause would in the end be triumphant? Here may be the turning-point in the attitude of Judas from greed and resentment to remorse. He [i.e. Judas] had been absolutely successful; and, at the very moment of his success, his Victim claims, with unruffled assurance, to be fulfilling the prophecies respecting the Messiah.. It is certainly remarkable that Judas is nowhere said to have borne witness against Jesus at any of the trials before the Sanhedrin or Pilate or Herod. And he could have quoted utterances which would have told against Christ in a prejudiced court; e.g. His predictions of His coming again in glory, and of the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem.. What was it that withheld him from doing so? Some change apparently had begun.

However, if Judas were already hoping for Jesus-’ supernatural victory, whereby the betrayer manipulated God’s power for his own promotion, he would never desire to testify against Him, only for Him. Hence, Judas could believe in Jesus-’ victory as he himself understood it, but would not change until his own dream were crushed by Jesus-’ being sentenced to death (Matthew 27:3).

Then all the disciples left him, and fled. These courageous men had not fled. A word from their Commander would unleash their attack. But if they are not permitted to resist Jesus-’ arrest, they are strangely unneeded. Stunned by His order prohibiting all resistance, they stood paralyzed by His inexplicable inaction. They lost their will to resist because He apparently had none, blindly convinced that Scripture justified the arrest. Since the soldiers were uninterested in the disciples, the temptation to flee now became imperious.

The disciples-’ abandoning Him appears somewhat less cowardly in light of Jesus-’ request of the authorities that the disciples should be permitted to go (John 18:8). Further, their flight was less culpable than it was providential, because of what might have happened, had some of them been caught and tried either with Jesus or separately. Stunned more deeply than Simon Peter, they might not have stopped with denying Jesus. They might also have been shocked so irreparably that nothing could have saved them. Like the remorseful Judas, they might not have lived to see the resurrection nor be transformed by its victory. By opening the door for His disciples to leavewhether by precipitate flight or by prudently and quietly fading back into the protective cover of surrounding darknessJesus lovingly shielded them. This is one sense in which Jesus-’ prayer found fuller realization: Of those whom you gave me, I lost not one (John 18:9; John 17:12).

However, He was abandoned by human friends, God’s Lamb in the hands of the wolves. The scandal they had earlier repudiated as unthinkable had just taken place, and they abandoned Him. They dismissed His promise to meet them in Galilee, unaware that it guaranteed their preservation and victory as much as His. As faithfully as he would record any triumph, Matthew records his own dishonorable failure in faith with absolute honesty. He too ran.. What may be learned about ourselves in this section? How shortlived is human stedfastness, even when bolstered by earnest promises! How self-deceptive is the intention to promote one’s own happiness while making loud protestation of loyalty to Christ! Religious noises do not equal costly submission to God’s will. Of what inconceivable wickedness are even godly men capable! What may be learned about Jesus? Gone is the spiritual turmoil of His earlier agonizing over the cross. He is possessed by the peace of God that passes understanding. There is not even a hint of rage or contempt in His demeanor. Fully Master of Himself, He reigns as Lord of the situation. He responds to Judas with marvelous mildness. Peter’s wild onslaught is halted with remarkable decision. With reasonableness and effectiveness, without bitterness and spite, He exposed this night attack by the authorities as cowardly. Despite every attempt to humiliate Him, His every move reflects the majesty of God and the authority of Scripture in His life. Just as at His baptism, His every move says, Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness. God’s will is the only thing that counts. Barclay (Matthew, II, 388): … the man who would not fight is enthroned for ever in the hearts of men.

FACT QUESTIONS

State in detail what happened at the arrest of Jesus giving the correct order of the events.

How was the arresting force composed? Were Romans involved in it?

How did Judas act during the arrest?

What was Jesus-’ reaction to Judas? Explain the meaning of Friend.

In what other ways should we translate Do that for which thou art come? Why?

How successful was Peter’s attack? What did Jesus do about Peter’s results?

What is the meaning of Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword?

To what Scripture(s) did Jesus allude which were fulfilled by His enemies-’ ungodly attack on God’s Messiah?

With what words did Jesus rebuke the arresting party? What did He mean?

Matthew 26:57-68

SECTION 69 JESUS IS TRIED BEFORE CAIAPHAS

(Parallels: Mark 14:55-65; Luke 22:63-65; John 18:24)

TEXT: 26:57-68

57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. 58 But Peter followed him afar off, unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end. 59 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death; 60 and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. But afterward came two, 61 and said, This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and build it in three days. 62 And the high priest stood up, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy: 66 what think ye? They answered and said, He is worthy of death. 67 Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands, 68 saying. Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why were so many of the Jewish leaders available to meet in the middle of the night?

Do you see any indication in the Gospels that the Jews considered what they were doing in any sense a formal trial?

If everyone is so sure Jesus must be put to death, why could no unimpeachable witnesses be found to testify against Him? What does this tell you about (1) the Sanhedrin and priesthood of Israel? (2) about Jesus?

Was it really the authorities-’ true purpose to find false witness? Did they seek no true witnesses at all?

Is there any sense in which the following testimony is true? This fellow said, -I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.-’ What part is true and what is false?

Do you think the Sanhedrin would really crucify Jesus for predicting the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem? Should not they simply wait out the fulfillment before acting against Him? How could this charge ever become a lever powerful enough to move Pilate to crucify Him?

Why did the high priest challenge Jesus to speak in His own defense? Was he interested in hearing Jesus-’ position?

Why did Jesus remain silent during the attacks against Him? Did He not have anything to say? Is not His silence evidence of guilt?

Do you think Caiaphas understood what his own question meant? What do you think he meant by Christ and Son of God? j, Did Jesus admit to being the Christ, the Son of God? What did He mean by saying, You have said so? Is not this ambiguous? Why not just come out and say yes or no?

Why did not Jesus work a mighty miracle there in the presence of the Sanhedrin to substantiate His claim to divine Messiahship? Would not this have avoided the charge of blasphemy? Or would the Sanhedrin have accepted this God-given testimony to His true identity and authority?

Jesus asserted that the Sanhedrin would see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven. How would this (a) reveal His true identity and right to speak for God? (b) warn those elders of the judgment of God upon them?

How did Jesus-’ affirmations constitute a basis for their judgment of blasphemy? What was there about His statement that in their mind justified this conclusion?

Why did they not need to seek any witnesses after His confession to being the Christ, the Son of God?

How did their judgment that He was guilty of blasphemy justify their verdict of death?

How does the demand that Jesus prophesy reveal the beliefs of those who struck Him? Who were they? What were their beliefs?

What does this section teach us about the violent energy of prejudice and party spirit?

Why bother to study the illegal trials of Jesus? Has not the resurrection turned all this into a bad episode that is better forgotten? If so, then, why did the Gospel writers dedicate so much space to Jesus-’ Passion that someone could describe all the Gospels as a Passion account preceded by an extremely long introduction?

What does Jesus-’ conduct before the Sanhedrin tell you about Him?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Then those who seized Jesus led Him away to the residence of the high priest, first to Annas, because he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it was in their interest that one man be sacrificed to save the people.

[At this point John records Jesus-’ preliminary hearing before Annas (John 18:19-23). Luke teaches that Peter’s denials, recorded by the other Synoptics after Jesus-’ arraignment before the high priests, were taking place simultaneous with it.]

Annas then sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. All the Jewish clergy, the scholars and ruling elders were assembled there. Now the chief priest and the whole Sanhedrin began trying to find evidence against Jesus, however false it might be, on which a death sentence could be based. However, they were not finding any. Even though many witnesses volunteered, their statements did not agree. Finally, two came forward to submit this deposition against Him, declaring, We heard this guy say, -I can tear down this manmade temple and build another in three days that is not made by man.-’ Yet even so, their testimony was conflicting. So the high priest stood up in his place among the other members of the council and questioned Jesus, Are you not going to answer? What is this evidence these men bring against you? But Jesus remained silent and offered no answer. Then the high priest demanded point-blank, I am ordering you on your oath by the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of our Blessed God! That’s right: it’s just as you say, Jesus replied, I am! Nevertheless, I can assure you that, in the future, you will all see me, the -Son of man seated at the right hand-’ of Almighty God and -coming on the clouds of heaven.-’ At this point the high priest tore his robes and cried, He has blasphemed! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, you are all witnesses to His blasphemy! What is your verdict? They unanimously condemned Him, He deserves death! Now some of the men who were holding Jesus began to make sport of Him, spitting in His face and beating Him with their fists. Some slapped Him. They also blindfolded Him and teased, Show us you are a prophet, you -Christ!-’ Guess who hit you! Even the guards who took charge of Him, beat Him and made many more insulting remarks against Him.

SUMMARY

After His capture, Jesus was arraigned before Annas and Caiaphas for questioning. They hoped to establish His guilt upon objective evidence, but despaired of finding any, Caiaphas put Jesus on oath to confess His position. Unequivocably Jesus announced His divine Messiahship before the highest court in the nation. His announcement, however, became the accusation upon which they sentenced Him to death for blasphemy. His captors then began to mistreat their prisoner.

NOTES

Why study the Passion stories? Has not the resurrection turned them into a bad episode to forget? However, the Gospel writers do not relegate these facts into second place, because the resurrection actually drives us to re-evaluate the Lord’s suffering. As we pour over these facts, incredulous, we exclaim: Jesus loved us this much! Further, if in the death of Christ the love of God is made manifest, then our grasp of His magnificence is affected by our grasp of these Chapter s. It affects the way we think about God. Further, the scandal of the cross affects our self-consciousness as the Church and as individual believers. How do we participate appropriately in the suffering of Christ? (1 Peter 2:21 ff; 1 Peter 4:13 ff.; Philippians 3:10; 2 Corinthians 1:5 ff.; Colossians 1:24), unless Christ’s way of living and dying becomes our way?

1. THE HEARING BEFORE CAIAPHAS BEGINS

Matthew 26:57 And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the house of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. Many note a number of technical violations of Jewish jurisprudence surrounding these hearings (cf. Mishna, Sanh. 4.1), illegalities which point to a deliberate intention to deny Jesus basic justice. Sadly, on the basis of these judicial anomalies the accuracy of the Gospels has been questioned on the assumption that our authors deliberately create a story critical to the Jews, since the Sanhedrin must be supposed to have acted in full consciousness of its high duty according to its laws. However, the Synoptics, writing while that high tribunal was yet functioning in Israel, presuppose the notoriety of the facts they recount. Hence theirs is the duty of recounting those details that affect our understanding of Jesus, yet without declaring inexactitudes easily refuted by the well-informed. Again, because opposition to Him did not begin that terrible night, no objection to the historicity of the Gospels can be raised that is not ultimately resolved in harmony with the well-known purpose of Jesus-’ enemies. (See Farrar’s masterful expression, Life, 588f.) Again, what may be known of their existing laws comes from later times that may describe the ideal more than the real, what should have been more than what was (Edersheim, Life, II, 553f.). So, if the Gospels are not to be impugned, should this mockery of justice be dignified with the title of official trials? What did these elders of Israel themselves think they were doing? Two positions are possible:

THERE NEVER WAS AN OFFICIAL JEWISH TRIAL. It might be argued that because the Romans had, with one notable exception (Wars, VI, 2, 4), deprived the Sanhedrin of the power to execute the death sentence (John 18:31; cf. Wars, II, 8, 1; Ant. XX, 9, 1; Y. Sanhedrin I, 18a.34; 7, 24b, 41), it is therefore more probable that in capital cases this court practically functioned as would a grand jury. They could examine accusations against Jesus, and if the evidence warranted, bring formal charges on which He could be tried by the Roman judicial system. Accordingly, this Supreme Council was not intending to try Jesus according to their judiciary procedures. Hence, the judicial injustices that are usually mentioned in connection with Jesus-’ hearings before the Sanhedrin are simply irrelevant. However, the Jews-’ argument that Pilate’s insistence that they try Jesus is pointless (John 18:31), is not merely a demurring on the ground that they are not competent to try capital cases. It implies, rather, that in some sense they had already officially judged Jesus and that He must be executed on their findings, hence Pilate’s authorization is the only requirement lacking before the already decided execution can occur.

Perhaps the reason they do not stone Jesus outright, as in the case of Stephen (Acts 7) or murder Him as the 40 conspirators planned to do with Paul (Acts 23)all without Roman blessingis Jesus-’ far greater popular support which could touch off riots, if they dared suppress Him with violence.

THERE WAS A JEWISH TRIAL OF SORTS but what occurred that night is not its main deliberation, but its culmination. In every segment of the national leadership a groundswell consensus against Jesus had been growing for months. When an objective voice of protest had been raised in the Senate against this railroading, it was ruthlessly stilled (John 7:51). Accordingly, what took place this night was but a final hearing to create a case whereby Jewish responsibility for Jesus-’ death could be placed on Pilate’s shoulders, exonerating the Sanhedrin and priesthood of blame before the people. Witnesses were called, evidence heard and a vote taken to legitimize the proceedings, but no effort was made to follow strict procedure to protect Jesus-’ rights, since His execution was already a settled matter. However, did the Hebrew legislation have no appropriate procedure for conducting these hearings? Finally, the special morning session for the final sentencing is damning evidence of their intention to legitimize their act (Matthew 27:1 = Mark 15:1 = Luke 22:66 to Luke 23:1). Whatever may be said about their procedure, the Jewish leaders themselves treated their own acts as official, legitimized by certain apparently indispensable formalities (witnesses, testimony, voting). Even if they are not acting as the Sanhedrin in regular session or even a quorum thereof, it is certainly not as private citizens. So, before Pilate, they argue as representatives of the Jewish people who have already properly investigated, judged and condemned Jesus (John 19:7; cf. John 18:30 f.).

Therefore, rather than assault the Evangelists-’ accounts as inaccurate, we should treat these sessions as a religious heresy trial masked as a preliminary investigation with reference to the Roman trials. It really counted.

What does it matter, if no legal procedure is respected, when the avowed purpose of its perpetrators is not strict adherence to rules of evidence but to eliminate Jesus? Men who instigate a judicial murder are not models of consistency nor quibble over technicalities when they sense victory within their grasp. (Cf. the procedure at Naboth’s crooked trial. 1 Kings 21:7-14). Was it that they scrupulously avoided calling it a trial according to the rules, but, by a twisted concession to justice, observed some of the forms to absolve themselves before the nation, if that ever became necessary? By what canon may it be determined that the Sanhedrin under no condition would violate its own judiciary procedure, if a sufficient number of its members considered the eliminating of a dangerous, false Messiah, to be politically more crucial than strict adherence to its own legal conventions?

So, if Jesus-’ judicial murder were already decided (John 11:45-52), why need a trial? Because they must yet formulate some official justification that would satisfy the people and secure the indispensable cooperation of Pilate. To justify to the Jewish people the arraignment of a Hebrew before a Roman court, they must first judge and excommunicate him as a transgressor of Jewish law.

Caiaphas and the other authorities were not the first to question Jesus, since John clearly names Annas, the political boss and deposed high priest (cf. Ant. XX, 9, 2), as the man before whom the first preliminary hearing took place (Matthew 18:13 ff.; cf. Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6 calls Annas high priest). Perhaps this semi-private, unofficial hearing aimed at uncovering some line of accusation or juridical pretext that would sway the Sanhedrin. Further, this examination gained time to assemble both the witnesses and jurors. Without getting much satisfaction, Annas then sent Him bound to his son-in-law, Caiaphas the high priest (John 18:24). Apparently this palace complex was constructed around a central courtyard open to the sky, surrounded by the various apartments on different floors (cf. aulé, Matthew 26:58; Matthew 26:69; Luke 22:55). If Annas and Caiaphas lived in separate apartments in the same building, this move could be easily accomplished without going out into the street of the City. Peter and the others remained in the same courtyard for the second hearing (Matthew 26:58; John 18:15 f., John 18:28).

Caiaphas the high priest … the scribes and the elders were gathered together. (See notes on Matthew 26:3.) Even if the language might admit of a few exceptions (were Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea summoned?), this constitutes the whole council (tò sunédrìon hòlon, Matthew 26:59). For this closed session they are not met in regular court session in their official council chamber, as they would next day (Luke 22:66), but in the capacity of Sanhedrin members acting as a more or less official caucus (Matthew 26:59). Matthew and Mark report the substance of this main session, without repeating it during the official ratification next day in the regular meeting-place of the Sanhedrin (Matthew 27:1 = Mark 15:1 = Luke 22:66).

Does the whole council stand for an official quorum of 23? (Bemidb. R.1, cited by Edersheim, Life, II, 555.) Although the Sanhedrin was composed of 71 members, to decide a death sentence, the presence of 23 judges was sufficient. Some would exonerate the gentler Pharisees from the injustices perpetrated. Flusser (Jesus, 159, citing Mishna Sanh. 4, 1; cf. Josephus, Ant. XX, 9, 1) argued that a Sadducee-packed quorum could have sentenced Jesus to death whereas the more equitable Pharisees would have brought about the dismissal of the high priest, Annas, claiming that this Sanhedrin session was illegal, having been called without the governor’s consent. This bypasses the following considerations:

In his case cited it appears that Flusser overstates his case by giving Pharisees this honor, but. granted his conclusion, it would not prove Pharisean favor to Christ, because the case cited served purely political interests of the Pharisees by putting the Sadducees in disfavor with Rome and proved themselves better subjects of Caesar than the high priest.

The arresting party was also sent by the Pharisees (John 18:3). The Pharisees were alarmed about a supposed faked resurrection plot (Matthew 27:62). Did they abandon their cause during the hearings?

Luke calls the morning session the assembly of the elders of the people gathererd together with the chief priests and scribes (sunéchthe tò presbutérion toû laoû, archiereîs te kaì grammateîs). Cf. Luke’s use of sunédrion, Acts 4:15; Acts 5:21; Acts 5:27; Acts 5:34; Acts 5:41; Acts 6:12; Acts 6:15; Acts 22:30; Acts 23:1; Acts 23:6; Acts 23:15; Acts 23:20; Acts 23:28; Acts 24:20, as a general expression for the Supreme Sanhedrin of Israel. Mark has: the chief priests and the elders and scribes and [kaì = even?] the whole council. By what logic would Pharisees have been excluded from this?

Nor can it be concluded that absence of all reference to the Pharisees in the trial of Jesus meant that they were too small a minority to have an effective role in the courts, least of all in the Great Sanhedrin. (So Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees, 42.) Does not this completely underestimate the influence of the great Gamallel (Acts 5:34 ff.)? Further, if the Sadducees must follow the traditions of the Pharisees, then were not these latter a highly influential part of that body that must decide on points of law and tradition? Mishna Yom. 1.8 [= Bab. Talm. Yoma 19b; = Pal. Talm. Yoma 1.5] Acts 23:6-10) The Pharisees dominated the national leadership from early times. (Ant. XIII, 15, 5-16, 2 [= Wars I, 5, 1-3] = 78 B.C.; XVII, 2, 4 = befoRevelation 4 B.C.; XVIII, 1, 4 = idem.) The bitter hatred of the Pharisees induced them to cooperate with their natural enemies, the Sadducees and the Herodians, to eliminate Jesus (cf. Mark 3:6; John 7:32; John 7:47 ff.; John 11:57).

That the wiser, more conscientious elders on this high tribunal should have been present and sentenced Jesus to death without raising a single dissenting voice, thus perpetrating this gross violation of justice, is not incredible. The consideration that His elimination in the name of national peace was the less of two evils may have anesthetized the conscience of stricter observers of the Law or of any friends Jesus may have had in the council (John 11:50).

Gathered: awaiting the arrival of Jesus after His arrest. That there were so many people available to meet all night long, if necessary to crucify Jesus, should come as no surprise.

These men listed are assembled in the crucial session that must conclude the final, authoritative judgment on the Nazarene. Because the ring-leaders are determined to sentence Him to death, they will stop at nothing until their goal is reached. The others recognize the national emergency involved (John 11:45 ff.).

But that many others, not directly connected with the hierarchy, could be convoked at will, was possible, because every night of the year 240 Levites and 30 priests were on guard duty in the Temple (Edersheim, Temple, 148-151). Caiaphas could have tapped any one of these for special duties, should the need arise for false witnesses or mob scenes in this judiciary farce. Edersheim (ibid.) wrote,

Perhaps it was on this ground that, on the morning of the Passover, they who led Jesus from Caiaphas thronged so -early-’ -the judgment-hall of Pilate.-’ Thus, while some of them would be preparing the Temple to offer the morning sacrifice, others were at the same moment unwittingly fulfilling the meaning of that very type, when He on whom was -laid the iniquity of us all-’ was -brought as a lamb to the slaughter. -

2. PETER ENTERS THE COURTYARD TO OBSERVE

Matthew 26:58 This verse will be treated in connection with the next section because it relates directly to Peter’s denials.

3. THEY SEEK VAINLY FOR WITNESSES

Matthew 26:59 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death. Because divisions among the Jewish parties in the Sanhedrin made confusion in technical procedure inevitable, a clear-cut and unified legal definition of Jesus-’ guilt was not simple. Consequently, they must cast about to obtain a sufficient consensus on a commonly acceptable charge.

They sought false witness? Some suggest that they consciencelessly coached paid witnesses to falsify the evidence. If they paid Judas, why not also others? But was this predicable of the whole council? From their own point of view, were they not, rather, seeking evidence that appeared plausible enough to stand up in court? However, because their purpose is to secure a death sentence, regardless of the facts, they must seek evidence however flimsy to sustain it. They already had their conclusion: that they might put him to death. But, because there was public opinion and a Roman procurator to content, they were now seeking a procedural foundation on which to establish it. This, says Matthew, is tantamount to seeking false witness. That they sought any witness points to their attempt to give an appearance of legality, hence points to a trial, even if it bypasses almost every rule of their jurisprudence.

The unanimous verdict reached by this session is suspect because no sincere effort was expended to investigate objectively. (Cf. Deuteronomy 19:18.) Why did not they have at least one defender to serve as Devil’s Advocate to question the majority opinion and speak on behalf of the accused? But this is the injustice of prejudice.

Matthew 26:60 and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. But afterward came two. The Law required at least two consistent witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15). That the critical minds of these theological lawyers found it not, though many false witnesses came, is a marvel, because Jesus had been such a prominent, public figure constantly exposed to the careful scrutiny of thousands. They were slightly unsuccessful for several reasons:

Consistent false witnesses did not exist. His opposition simply could not uncover two men who could testify to a single fault worthy of the death sentence, This becomes striking presumptive evidence of His innocence. Jesus-’ challenge to Annas was not helpless flailing but logical and extremely appropriate:

I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing secretly. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them. They know what I said (John 18:19-23).

But, because the closed-minded authorities are interested not in truth but in a legal smokescreen that assures the cross for the Nazarene, none of the multitudes would be called to testify. Only those witnesses whose loyalty to the Sanhedrin remained unquestioned could be permitted to testify.

They found it not, because they must construct a doubly solid case not only according to Jewish jurisprudence to satisfy Jewish public opinion, but that would also stand up in court and convince the Roman governor. It was this kind of false testimony that they could not find, even though many would-be witnesses came forward.

Further, the conflict in the witnesses may testify to their own deep uncertainty as to what kind of charge to bring against Him and whether He could be proven to be a rebel against the central authority, despite the authorities-’ own seriously divided conflicts of interpretation, This uncertainty would lead to the kind of exploratory debate and conflict that kept the witnesses from agreeing, leading to a serious difficulty in obtaining a consensus.

On what basis can they objectively avoid condemnation for a blatant violation of ancient law because they do not punish these who witness falsely against Jesus (Deuteronomy 19:16-21)?

One witness whom they could have called, but who did not offer his own testimony against Christ, was still lurking in the shadows to see how this trial would end. Were there anything compromising in Jesus-’ doctrine or character that could be alleged against Him as proof that He was nothing but an imposter, Judas Iscariot could have furnished that evidence. But this man who knew Him so well and even turned Him over to His enemies, could not and would not accuse Him of anything wrong, even though his testimony would have vindicated his betrayal. Judas-’ silence is no proof of Jesus-’ innocence, because Iscariot’s motives undermine his testimony. He could support a magical Messiah who, despite character defects and doctrinal irregularities, enriched him. (Cf. notes on Matthew 26:14; Matthew 26:25; Matthew 26:48-50.) However, his silence indicates that his motives had not been revenge, As far as Judas is concerned, his participation in this crisis has ended. However tardy, he testified to Jesus-’ innocence (Matthew 27:3 f.).

But afterward came two, the legal minimum. Were these two priests who had challenged Jesus-’ first purification of the Temple (John 2:18 f.)?

Matthew 26:61 and said, This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and build it in three days. Many see this deposition as (1) deliberately twisted to make Jesus-’ true statement appear dangerous, or (2) a different version based on their misunderstanding. Paradoxically, however, Jesus could actually have said this, without meaning, naturally, what these two witnesses thought He meant. In fact, this is a free paraphrase of His declaration at the first Temple cleansing (John 2:19). But as on that occasion the Jews thought that He meant the Herodian Temple still under construction, even so now these false witnesses assume He meant that same structure. In fact, Mark’s version more clearly reflects their understanding: We heard him say, -I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands (Mark 14:58). However, His predictions of Jerusalem’s fall and the destruction of the temple could also cause the two strains of Temple-prophecy to be blended in men’s minds, whereas Jesus referred to two separate objects: the destruction of the Temple and His own death and resurrection (Luke 19:41-44; Matthew 22:7; Matthew 23:36-39). Their witness is still false because of their added inferences, even if not intentionally wrong as to form.

The great irony of their accusations is that they were substantially correct, even if misunderstood and perhaps somewhat garbled. For if, by the temple of God, Jesus intended God’s dwelling on earth in its ideal, highest sense, He referred to His own body in which all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, (Colossians 2:9; Colossians 1:19; cf. John 2:21), then He conclusively proved that He was able to lay down His life (destroy this temple of God) and take it up again (rebuild it in three days) (John 10:17 f.). And, in His resurrection, not only did He build it in three days, but He made possible the construction of an indestructible temple of God, formed out of living stones for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:21 f., 1 Peter 2:5).

Thus, if Jesus really did say (as Mark quotes the false witnesses): temple made with hands. another not made with hands, He really did effect this as well. With His death and resurrection our Lord brought to an end the Old Covenant with its earthly temple under construction for already more than 46 years (John 2:20). It would be 40 years more before that building were demolished. Nevertheless, its relation to the program of God ended with the cross. The new, gloriously spiritual Temple, the Church, became an instant possibility when Jesus conquered death (John 2:21 f.). Because God dwelt in Him, the new Temple was erected instantly and permanently. Now, in the Church, which was born shortly thereafter, God dwells in all who are in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:26 f.; Ephesians 2:19 ff.; Romans 8:1; Colossians 2:10). This Church is made without hands, just as He is reported to have predicted! (Cf. Daniel 2:34 f., Daniel 2:44 f.)

The accusation of hostility to the Temple made sense, because, if it could be established that Jesus repudiated the centrality of the Temple and, by implication, its authority, He could be tried as a rebel. Further, the Romans had an interest in assuring the protection of holy places in the Empire as a guarantee of the stability of law and order among the peoples who worshiped thereat. From the political standpoint, therefore, if this accusation proved well-founded, Caiaphas would have a telling capital accusation with which to consign Jesus over to the Roman procurator. Had not Jesus openly attacked the Temple monopoly twice (John 2:13 ff.; Matthew 21:12 ff.)? If proven, the quoted threat was potentially plausible ground for a capital case with the Romans.

Then, too, His absurd claim to be able to rebuild the Temple in three days smacked of an assertion to possess superhuman power, which, in turn, borders on sacrilege. This consideration may have suggested to Caiaphas another approach to try, the claim of deity, as a more likely accusation with which to eliminate Him (Matthew 26:63).

4. THE HIGH PRIEST QUESTIONS JESUS UNDER OATH

Matthew 26:62 And the high priest stood up, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? The agitated pontiff leaped to his feet because he realized that these unprovable and judicially unpunishable declarations are the worst that can be alleged against the Nazarene.

The foregoing evidence was so insufficient, distorted and contradictory that no solid conclusion could be based on it. The case could not rest on such flimsy testimony. If the judges themselves remained unconvinced, how could they persuade Pilate?!

Jesus-’ so-called threat to destroy the Temple was a reckless boast at worst and certainly not yet fact, i.e. still in the realm of prophecy, hence could not yet serve as a basis of final incrimination. Further, His zeal for the purity of God’s Temple, recently expressed in its purification, undermined any supposed intention on His part to destroy it (Matthew 21:12 f.). Again, His promise to rebuild the Temple, while absurd if He could not do it, could be thought to testify against His reputed repudiation of it as a permanent institution.

The normal, instinctive reaction of an undefended accused person would be self-defense.

Perhaps the Nazarene could be induced to give the damning evidence inadvertently Himself. The priest’s baited question means: Are you going to give no justification or explanation for these pretentious words attributed to you? Does not this accumulation of testimony deserve a reply? But this pretense of fairness in offering an opportunity for self-defense against apparently ruinous, unshakable testimony is an ill-disguised trap leading Jesus to self-incrimination. Caiaphas is not simply presiding now but manipulating the session to achieve his own declared purpose (John 11:45-53).

All of the malice of His enemies could not bring forward any sin against Him. Their best effort was a misunderstood repetition of a figurative statement. He must die, if at all, for His most majestic claim, which, proven true by His resurrection, vindicated His life and authorized His teaching.

Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus held his peace: Although Jesus may have been able to ignore the more absurd accusations, surely the temptation to respond to and correct misunderstandings of His teachings would have been sorely felt. Here is impressive proof of Jesus-’ total self-mastery. (Cf. Hebrews 12:3; Isaiah 53:7.) Though He had the right to answer His accusers, He declined to exercise that right. The key to our Lord’s majestic, disciplined silence here may be the combination of various factors:

His keen awareness that the real issue is not whether or not He had said this or that. The real question is His identity and His consequent right to say anything that God wants said.

His confidence that the Father, in time and history, would interpret His teaching correctly and prove His claims well-founded. Rather than demand His rights through violent self-assertion, He would achieve His victory through meek self-denial.

His certainty that a fair trial was not to be expected. The purpose of this trial is not to clear the innocent and punish the guilty, but to punish the innocent and save the guilty. To correct their willed misconceptions is hopelessly useless.

His accusers were actually self-defeated, hopelessly entangling themselves in their own unbased accusations and consequently refuting each other’s testimony.

I adjure thee by the living God: I put you on your oath by the living God. Jesus does not quibble with the fuming pontiff about the rightness of swearing in court before the national tribunal. Rather, He tacitly accepts the formulation and proceeds to speak as under oath before God and these witnesses. He does this without any mental reservation about swearing, because He always spoke everything He ever said in the full awareness that His Father is ever present and hears all. His example, then, is proof that swearing is not evil in all circumstances. (See notes on Matthew 5:33-37.)

Further, in obedience to God, He must give testimony in court even if it is self-incriminating. (Cf. Leviticus 5:1; see Joshua’s application of this: Joshua 7:19.) This does not violate the rule that one witness is no witness (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15), because, as Caiaphas observes, by His utterance He made them all witnesses. If there were a juridical principle in Mosaic legislation whereby the accused must not be compelled to incriminate Himself, Jesus waived His privilege and chose to testify.

Tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of Gad. Caiaphas knew that Jesus-’ offence lay, so far as jurisdiction was concerned, in His approach to authority, because in numerous ways He claimed direct authority and power from God. His debates turned on whether He were God’s Son and authorized representative or not (John 5:17 f., John 5:21-28; John 6:29-59; John 8:24; John 8:46 f., John 8:51; John 8:58; John 10:30-38; John 12:44 ff.). Caiaphas could also guess that, whatever Pilate thought of Jesus-’ concept of Messiahship, the governor would recognize that, to let Him continue a proclamation which so radically challenged fundamental concepts of the Jewish system, meant that He could disrupt the delicate balance among the holders of political and religious power in Israel. Hence, Pilate could sense a political threat. So, if the Galilean could be induced to repeat His claims in court, He could be crucified for sacrilege and rebellion.

That Caiaphas had to resort to this blunt procedure establishes several things all favorable to Jesus:

It proves how desperate he was to find some telling evidence on which to establish the death sentence. The clumsy prosecution has failed, and Caiaphas knows it.

It measured how completely Jesus-’ imperturbable calm nettled the cunning priest. There was really nothing to criticize in His dignified behavior under fire, even though it thwarted their purpose and plotting.

It suggests how well-established and thoroughly embarrassing to them were His majestic miracles. Each miracle inevitably brought only glory to God and blessing to men or was connected with some grand Messianic declaration or claim to Deity and established His right to make those declarations. So, to bring up any of His claims was a tremendous risk for Caiaphas, because to do so would inevitably bring up also the unquestionably supernatural proof of their validity.

The Christ, the Son of God. Old Testament passages revealed the divinity of the Christ (Psalms 2:7; Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6; Zechariah 12:10; Zechariah 13:7; cf. Daniel 7:13 f.). So, if the charge of blasphemy is to be based on a human claim to equality with God with divine authority and rights, then the terms of Caiaphas-’ question must be somewhat equivalent, even if some Jews failed to equate them.

That Caiaphas, in this night session, formulated his question so that Christ and the Son of God refer to the same person, whereas in the formal morning trial these terms are separated into two distinct questions (Luke 22:67; Luke 22:70), does not prove we have two contradictory reports of one questioning. In the night trial Caiaphas is more succinct, combining the two potentially separate claims into one self-incriminating answer. In the morning the court proceeded successive steps to establish an unshakable conviction of Jesus-’ guilt.

To be the Son of God is tantamount to being equal with God (John 5:18). Were the Son of God merely a Jewish paraphrase for the Christ, they could not have accused Jesus of blasphemy. The claim to be the Messiah was, alone, not strictly punishable with death nor considered blasphemy per sè. This claim, even if proven groundless, did not sully the honor of God. But to claim to be Son of God meant deity, and, if untrue, was blasphemy. Jesus claimed it, they reject it and Jesus does not correct their understanding. They understood Him*,* and He them. Unquestionably, Caiaphas formulated this last-ditch challenge, knowing that Jesus made these claims (John 5:17 f; John 10:30-39; Matthew 21:37-46; Matthew 22:41-46). He thus forced Him to repeat them before the council to convince them of the charge that must unequivocally lead to His condemnation for blasphemy.

That Jesus will go on trial before Pilate for His confession to being the Son of God does not come out in the early stages of Pilate’s interrogations. Nonetheless, this claim was a key issue on which a later phase of the trial turned, because Pilate, upon hearing this claim, lost his nerve (John 19:7 f.). Unquestionably, the Jews did not unveil this issue in the original charges, because such a claim could bring only a laugh from the hardened Roman, not a death sentence. However, launched at the appropriate moment, it shook the governor. His claim to be the Christ offered a more volatile issue with politically dangerous overtones which would instantly carry substantially more weight with the Procurator.

5. JESUS CONFESSES HIS DEITY AND MESSIAHSHIP

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. The appropriate answer to unjust accusations and crumbling testimony had been silence earlier. Now, because the truth is at stake, silence would be a denial of His true identity on which everything else hinged. To affirm His deity with clarity and conviction would offer the testimony which these men needed to hear, not merely to convict Him, but to be told that truth, His Messianic self-consciousness, for which He was willing to die. During His public ministry, because of common misconceptions of Messiahship, He had maintained His Messianic reserve, often masking His true identity in public and avoiding publicity. Now, however, all reserve must give way to unhesitating affirmation before the competent authorities of His people. Of all His public declarations, this is the most decisive, emphatic affirmation.

His answer is a model of succinctness, because He could have argued His case, citing miracles without end. Instead, His statements are three, composed of His initial confession followed by two supporting statements:

Thou hast said (sùeîpas) expresses a sense of reservation about the affirmation: The words are yours. Blass-Debrunner (§441, 3) note the emphasis on the personal pronoun (sù):

You say it yourself, not I (§277, 1, for emphasis or other contrast) in which there is always something of an implication that the statement would not have been made had the question not been asked.. Cf. Matthew 27:11; Matthew 26:25; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3; in John 18:37 sù légeis, hòti (not -that,-’ but -because, for,-’. basileùs eimi, cf. Luke 22:70 *humeîs légete, hòti egò eimi).

With this Arndt-Gingrich (225) substantially agree: As an answer sù eîpas* sc. autò = you have said it = Yes. (Bl-D. §331, 3. Not a simple affirmative ans., but one that is forced: Const. Apost. 15, 14, 4 ouk eîpen hò kùrios -nai-’, all-‘hòti -su eîpas-’. However, what should be made of Mark’s version with its unequivocal answer, egò eimi? (See below.)

The you have said must not be misinterpreted to suggest that Jesus-’ confession of His own Messiahship was unclear and equivocable. Rather, because the concepts of Christhood and divine Sonship in the mind of the high priest and of the Sanhedrin were as unclear and equivocable as those held by so many others in the first century who were ignorant of God’s true planning, with respect to Caiaphas-’ formulation Jesus MUST formally demur. The content of the high priest’s wordsas the Sanhedrin understood themmay not precisely coincide with the content of Jesus-’ confession. Nevertheless, lest anyone conclude that He were not the Christ, the Son of God in any sense, He could not actually say no to Caiaphas-’ formulation. Hence, before saying, Yes, I am, He lodged a mild objection based on His own well-founded doubt about the acceptability of the formulation proposed. This He did in the well-known words, You have said. The words are yours, however, yes, in a sense that you have not understood and with reservations about what you think these terms mean, yes, I am the Christ, the Son of God.

To affirm that Thou hast said is an idiom for I am is not proved by Mark 14:62. Mark’s version simply eliminates the subtle reservation Jesus expressed, and gives His general meaning. For Mark’s presumably Gentile readership, the Messianic concept would be less garbled by Jewish nationalism than for Matthew’s Jewish audience for whom Jesus-’ mild taking exception would be especially edifying, hence reported verbatim.

Thou hast said, however, does not mean You yourself affirm what is true, as if Jesus saw an unconscious or unwilling tribute to His divine authority and identity in the words of the very man whose denial of it drove him relentlessly to crucify Jesus. Caiaphas fully understood what he meant by his own question and repudiated Jesus-’ claim to being anything near what Caiaphas thought his question meant.

Further, the violent reaction of the high priest (Matthew 26:65) and of the court is fully justified from their own view, only if we correctly understand Jesus-’ answer to be unequivocally positive because sustained by the comment that follows it. It is highly unlikely that the Jewish clergy would have cried Sacrilege! or Blasphemy! if their Prisoner’s total answer ultimately hid behind ambiguities.

Nevertheless continues His mild objection to mistaken connotations in the popular use of these terms. Rather than simply admit to being the Christ in any political revolutionary sense, Jesus proceeded to interpret His Messiahship in terms of God’s definitions. He knew quite clearly what He was doing, because in refining His answer, He went even further than the priest asked.

Henceforth ye shall see: from this moment at the beginning of His suffering they could discern His royal Lordship by His accession to the Throne. This glorification actually began with His betrayal (John 13:31). The manifestation of the triumph and Lordship of Jesus was even then becoming evident in the world, and needs not await some eschatological realization at the end of the world, for it had already begun with His Passion. Rather than defeat Him, His crucifixion, resurrection and ascension represent the very means of His accession to power and glory. His earthly humiliation is about over: the way of the cross leads home. Shortly, He would return to the Father, the Holy Spirit would be given, His Church would be started and the Jewish State would live to see the vindication of Jesus-’ daring claims!

Henceforth ye shall see: Jesus-’ sustaining argument, that demonstrates the truthfulness of His former claim, is composed of two unquestionably Messianic Scriptures. (For further notes, see my Vol. II, pp. 446-449: The Coming of the Son of Man. See notes on Matthew 24:29-31.)

the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power (Psalms 110:1). This masterful concept of a Man seated on God’s glorious throne as supreme King and Judge of all the world is the sort of self-consciousness one would expect of someone who considered Himself the Lord’s Elect, the Servant of Jahveh, His own unique Son who alone knows the Father. It is this very self-awareness of His own deity that gave Him the courage, when on trial for His life, to identify Himself unequivocally as the Messianic Son of man. The right hand of Power is an idiomatic Hebrew paraphrase for God’s almighty right hand.

the Son of man. coming on the clouds of heaven (Daniel 7:13 ff.). This refers to Jesus-’ ascension and incoronation. For this concept, see full notes on Matthew 24:29-31 esp. Matthew 24:30. That this has nothing to do with the Second Coming is established by Jesus-’ time-schedule: henceforth you shall see.. They would not have to wait in line two millennia to get a glimpse of it.

Because in Daniel the Son of man comes TO GOD to receive His Kingdom and He must rule, as David writes, until His triumph is absolute and total, Jesus prophesies His exaltation and triumph over His enemies.

Thus, just as before Pilate Jesus declared Himself to be the King of a Kingdom not of this world (John 19:36 f.), so also before the high priest He declared Himself to be the Son of man, God’s universal King of whom Daniel spoke. Jesus prophesied that they would live to see the fulfillment of these prophetic truths realized in Himself, Unless they repented, their roles would rapidly be reversed: He would be their King and Judge; they the judged. His heavenly glorification would eclipse them in every way, and His vindication exclude them from that glorious Kingdom which He coming must usher in. This dramatic vindication occurred just forty years later when He poured out terrible, punitive judgment on them, their City and their Temple.

With the crucifixion, they would suppose the Nazarene question closed. Instead, not four days later the religious clique discovered they had not heard the last of Jesus of Nazareth. Less than two months later, shaken by a flourishing spiritual movement that threatened their religious hegemony, they arraigned before their council a couple of ex-fisherman, saying to them, We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and are determined to make us guilty of this Man’s death (Acts 5:28). What is the significance of this complaint? The Sanhedrin and the priesthood were just beginning to reckon with Jesus the Christ ascended to the throne of the universe. Everything they attempted to stop His growing movement utterly failed. He had won. And His victory song went on. The Apostles hammered on this concept (Acts 2:33-36; Acts 3:13; Acts 5:31 f.; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 1:3 f., Hebrews 1:13; Hebrews 10:12 f.; 1 Peter 3:22). The Christians found their hope and power in it (Acts 4:24 ff; Acts 7:55). As they went through their trials, they looked up, not only for the coming of Christ, but to the Christ now reigning in heavenly majesty.

6. JESUS IS CONDEMNED TO DEATH FOR BLASPHEMY

Matthew 26:65 Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy. Jesus had neither yielded nor evaded, but His confession turned the course of the trial. Rent his garments: among Orientals this was the customary way of expressing extreme shock, dismay and indignation. This was accomplished by gripping the garment at the neck in front and tearing it a bit. May we not judge our own sense of God’s high holiness by how profoundly we are shocked by a blatant case of treating God with disrespect? (Cf. Isaiah 36:22 where men appropriately tore their clothes at hearing blasphemy; cf. 1Ma. 11:71; Josephus, Wars, II, 15, 4; Acts 14:14.) Rent his garments, i.e., not his official dress, which was worn during his official functions as high priest, but his personal clothes (pl. himàtia; chitônos, Mark 14:63) as president of the Council. Although a high priest was prohibited from expressing personal grief in this way (Leviticus 21:10), he protests in his official position against what he considers blasphemy (Sanhedrin 7, 5). According to Rabbinical rules the judges must be standing on their feet, rend their garments and not sew them up again (P.H.C., XXII, 587).

So, in theory, the high priest was expressing holy grief at this profanation of the honor and holiness of God. In reality, however, because Jesus-’ self-incrimination was more thorough than expected, Caiaphas was neither grieved nor shocked, but greatly relieved at surpassing so easily what had appeared an impossible obstacle. Inwardly he was fiercely jubilant. With imitation horror and hidden malice the cunning Caiaphas prejudiced the Council vote by his dramatic cry of *blasphemy!

What further need have we of witnesses?* The previous trouble with conflicting witnesses is now obviated. The whole council is now itself a witness to Jesus-’ assertions, hence all of them could now testify to the nation as to the crime for which the Nazarene would die. Paradoxically, they had found but one faithful Witness (Revelation 3:14). Although they repudiated His testimony, yet they intended to sentence Him on the basis of His word alone!

Blasphemy: For a man not to substantiate His claims to divinity when on trial for His life is to stand self-convicted. But they ignore how many hundreds of times Jesus had already validated His Messiahship and divine Sonship by incontestable supernatural proof during His ministry (John 7:31; John 10:38; John 12:37; John 14:10 f.). Since all previous evidence in favor of Jesus is excluded a priori, only what occurs at this trial counts. However, they suppose they must judge Him here and now on the sole basis of arguments in the trial. So, His present answer is treated as an assertion unsupported by immediately evident proof. Lacking this support, His judges must pronounce it blasphemy. So Jesus is defeated in the eyes of His enemies. By claiming to be, in some sense, divine, He appeared to attack the basic tenet of Israel: monotheism, for how could there be but one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), if He were somehow God too? This realization would strike the unthinking unbeliever with tremendous impact.

However, the issue is clear: either Jesus was divine or He was not. If He was not, He spoke blasphemy and deserved to be condemned. If He spoke the truth, He was God’s Son and they deserve death who condemned Him. If He lied, it was the greatest folly ever committed because done in full awareness that this deception would send Him to the cross. If false, we could perhaps excuse His claim as that of a deluded fanatic. However, if His claim to be divine is true, do we worship Him?

Matthew 26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is worthy of death. The triumphant Caiaphas charged the obsequious jury to do its duty. Ramming through a quick voice vote, he finally obtained his consensus of action in this unanimous verdict (Mark 14:64). Since death was the normal penalty for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:15 f.), for being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 18:20), a seducer (Deuteronomy 13) or a rebel (Deuteronomy 17:12), Jesus had no chance and could be considered worthy of death, indicted on whatever count His enemies found pragmatically successful. Formal sentencing would follow early the next morning (Matthew 27:1 = Luke 22:66 ff.). That later trial simply marks this one as informal and exploratory in character and its test vote the expression of a legal opinion. Even if not the formal de jure determination of the Sanhedrin met in regular session, Jesus-’ condemnation and death were the de facto product of its members. They expressed the decision and aims of a significant cross section of Israel’s leadership and its supreme tribunal. (See on Matthew 26:3.)

Their superficial judgment is totally incomprehensible, if we suppose that they condemned Jesus for claiming to be a Messiah on the strictly political level, for there were later, openly political messiahs in abundance whom the Sanhedrin did not bring to trial as they did Jesus. (See on Matthew 24:4 f., Matthew 24:11, Matthew 24:23-26. Was that only because those political messiahs were so often halted by Roman might, hence the Sanhedrin did not have to deal with them?) On the contrary, Jesus-’ claim to Messiahship consisted in supernatural identity, His claim to be the Son of God. In this He was a threat to them.

**FRENZIED DISPLAY OF HATRED

Matthew 26:67 Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands.** Since their Prisoner had not defended Himself by a devastating display of supernatural might, they viewed Him as innocuous and their courage returned. Before covering His face, they spit in his face. To the legal injustice they add insult and shame. (Cf. Numbers 12:14; Deuteronomy 25:9; Job 30:10.)

Who really abused Jesus? They points to the Sanhedrists, whereas Luke 22:63 mentions the guards. But the latter did not have Jesus yet, because they received him with blows after the Councilors themselves had begun the mocking (Mark 14:65). However, it matters little, because the shameless brutality of their lackeys proved they had the full approval of their masters. These savagely attack their defenseless Victim. This inhumanity shames those who showed it, not Him who tolerated it.

Matthew 26:68 saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee? Without a piece of information from Luke’s Gospel (Luke 22:64), some unfriendly critics might judge this sentence a piece of absurdity, since if the smiter were then standing before Jesus, what purpose could he have had in taunting Jesus by challenging: Tell us who struck you! Luke, however, reports that they had blindfolded Jesus to keep Him from seeing who His attackers were. McGarvey (Evidences of Christianity, 92) wrote:

If Matthew had been making up his story, he would probably have been on his guard against such omissions; but as he was conscious of writing only the truth, he left his statement to take care of itself.

Did the Jews cover their Prisoner’s face to symbolize the death sentence? (Cf. Mark 14:65; Esther 7:8.) If so, this would rationalize the blindfolding by His tormentors, This man had claimed to be a prophet. Let him prove it. Because He could not see who hit Him, any faked prophecy would be impossible, if He were no real prophet. Thou Christ sneers at His Messianic claims in much the same way the Romans insulted Jesus by allusion to His supposedly political position (Matthew 27:27-29).

Jesus chose to ignore these challenges, not because He could not prophesy, but because this was not the time for proof and answers but for death and reconciliation. He tolerated far more than these insulting gestures and painful blows. As Edersheim (Life, II, 562) put it:

… these insults, taunts, and blows which fell upon that lonely Sufferer, not defenseless, but undefending, not vanquished, but uncontending, not helpless, but majestic in voluntary self-submission for the highest purpose of lovehave not only exhibited the curse of humanity, but also removed it by letting it descend on Him, the Perfect Man, the Christ, the Son of God.

But, ironically, to accept this suffering is not the mere exercise of moral grandeur that dwarfed those who thus abused Him. In a world gone awry where the purest of the race is mocked, for Him to suffer is to triumph, because God’s plan, salvation made possible by His death as an atonement for sins, is progressing right on schedule. Again, He took this cruel mockery not merely because it too was foreseen in prophecy (Psalms 22:6 f.; Isaiah 50:6; Isaiah 52:14; Isaiah 53:3). Unjustly accused, unfairly tried and unkindly insulted, Jesus bore the unjust accusations, the unfair trial and the unkindly insults patiently, because He was committed to US. It was because He was committed to do God’s will that He loved us so. This same divine toughness can be ours, to the degree to which we turn ourselves over to God in the same way He did: Not my will, but yours be done.

FACT QUESTIONS

According to what logical procedure would it be normal for Jesus to be taken first to Annas, as John says, rather than to Caiaphas, as the Synoptics report? What prior right(s) did Annas possess?

What was the difference between this session before Caiaphas and the one before Annas recorded by John (John 18:19-23)? How does it differ from that of Luke (Luke 22:66 f.)?

Who constituted this jury that judged Jesus-’ case? What reasons justified each man’s or group’s opposition to Jesus?

State briefly what was charged against Jesus at this stage of His trial. What is the fundamental accusation back of all the Sanhedrin’s deliberations that justifies their resistance to Jesus?

Were the witnesses against Jesus at His trials few or many? What was the character of the witnesses who came forward?

On what occasion(s) did Jesus affirm what they report?

In what way does this Synoptic’s report of the false testimony about the destruction of the temple corroborate the testimony of John?

Did Jesus answer any of their accusations? If so, which and how?

Was there anything illegal about the high priest’s putting Jesus on oath to speak: -I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God? Prove your answer.

What was Jesus-’ reply? What is the source and meaning of the language He used?

What is meant by Caiaphas-’ tearing his clothes?

Define blasphemy as this is used by the Sanhedrin to describe Jesus-’ crime. Then, show why Jesus was not guilty as charged.

What was the Mosaic punishment for blasphemy and for being a false prophet? Where are these laws stated? (book and chapter)

What sentiment is expressed by spitting in Jesus-’ face? Who did it?

On the basis of what specific law did the rulers decide Jesus must die?

List every evidence of Jesus-’ moral stature as His trial before Caiaphas reveals this.

Matthew 26:58-75

SECTION 70 JESUS IS DENIED BY PETER

(Parallels: Mark 14:54; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18; John 18:25-27)

TEXT: 26:58, 69-75

58 But Peter followed him afar off, unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end. 69 Now Peter was sitting without in the court: and a maid came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean. 70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. 71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and saith unto them that were there, This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. 72 And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man 73 And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also are one of them; for thy speech maketh thee known. 74 Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man. And straightway the cock crew. 75 And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Peter was introduced into the courtyard because another disciple was known to the high priest (John 18:15 f.). Which disciple do you think could really be an acquaintance of Jesus-’ archenemy and gain entrance for himself and Peter too without arousing suspicion?

How could Peter be inside the palace of the high priest and yet be sitting outside, as Matthew affirms?

On what principles may the supposed contradictions between the four Gospels-’ accounts of Peter’s denials be resolved?

Would you say that Peter was on trial as much as Jesus? What similarities between the two trials do you see? What differences?

Do you think Peter really had to answer everyone’s questions, when none of them were authorized to quiz him so? On what principle? Should he not simply have kept people at their distance, held his tongue or brushed past them as if he had not heard?

(1) How did Peter’s speech expose him as a disciple of Jesus?

(2) How did his many denials actually expose him too?

Why did Peter now go out and weep bitterly?

How would Jesus-’ exhortation to watch and pray that you enter not into temptation have helped Peter avoid this debacle?

Have you ever denied the Lord or your relationship to Him when people were trying to press you for a commitment? Did you ever do it by silence?

Are there common things like the crow of a cock in our lives today that recall us to our duty?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Following Jesus at a safe distance, Simon Peter got as far as the courtyard of the high priest’s residence, and so did another disciple. However, because this latter was known to the high priest, he went on into the courtyard along with Jesus, while Peter halted outside at the door. So the disciple known to the high priest stepped out and spoke to the maid on duty at the door, and brought Peter right into the courtyard too. Now the servants and other subordinates had kindled a charcoal fire in the center of the courtyard, because it was cold. They were standing round it, warming themselves. Peter too was standing with them, keeping himself warm. They sat down around it, so Peter, to see how it would end for Jesus, crouched down among them, warming himself at the fire. While Peter was sitting downstairs in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priestthe maidservant who kept the doorcame by and saw Peter warming himself as he sat turned toward the firelight. She came up close to him and, looking at him closely, declared, You are not another of this man’s disciples too, are you? You too were with that Jesus, the Galilean from Nazareth! But he denied it before them all, I am not. Lady, I do not know Him. I neither know nor understand what you are talking about! He arose and went out into the gateway, [and a cock crowed]. There another girl saw him and began telling the bystanders, This fellow is one of them. He was with Jesus of Nazareth. A little later someone else saw him standing there warming himself and challenged him, You are too one of his disciples! He continued to deny it a second time, adding an oath, Man, I am not! I do not know the man! About an hour later the bystanders went up to Peter and insisted, Unquestionably, you are too one of them, because you are a Galilean: your accent gives you away! One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of Malchus whose ear Peter had sliced off, spoke up, Did I not see you in the garden with Him? Again Peter denied it, Man, I do not know what you are talking about! He began to call down curses on himself and to swear, I do not know this man you are talking about. He had no sooner said this when the rooster crowed a second time. The Lord turned and looked searchingly at Peter. Then Peter remembered the prediction the Lord had made to him, Before the rooster crows twice today, you will disown me three times. He then went outside and broke down, weeping bitterly.

SUMMARY

Peter and John followed the arresting party as far as the high priest’s residence. John, because of his acquaintance with the high priest, gained admittance for himself and Peter too. Peter, however, because of his brogue, was recognized as a disciple of the Man now on trial, and so drew attention to himself. Various people tried to get him to admit his belonging to Jesus-’ following, but he stedfastly denied all connection. At last, Peter heard the cock that Jesus had predicted. A heart-searching gaze from Jesus brought Peter to his senses, sending him out, shaken and penitent, to weep the bitter tears of the guilty.

NOTES

Many note discrepancies among the versions of this incident our Gospels furnish. However, Alford (I, 282ff.) rightly argued that simple differences are not a threat to faith but positive support for it, in that these

furnish one of the clearest instances of the entire independency of the four Gospels of one another. (1) supposing the four accounts to be entirely independent of one another, we are not bound to require accordance, nor would there in all probability be any such accordance, in the recognitions of Peter by different persons. These may have been many on each occasion of denial, and independent narrators may have fixed on different ones among them. (2) No reader. will require that the actual words spoken by Peter should in each case be identically reported. the substantive fact of a denial remains the same whether ouk oîda tì légeis, ouk oîda autòn, or ouk eimì are reported to have been Peter’s answer. (3) I do not see that we are obliged to limit the narrative to three sentences from Peter’s mouth, each expressing a denial, and no more. On three occasions during the night he was recognized,on three occasions he was a denier of his Lord: such a statement may well embrace reiterated expressions of recognition, and reiterated and importunate denials, on each occasion.. In narratives which have sprung from such truthful independent accounts, they [the readers] must be prepared sometimes (as e.g. in the details of the day of the Resurrection) for discrepancies which, at our distance, we cannot satisfactorily arrange: now and then we may, as in this instance, be able to do so with something like verisimilitude:in some cases, not at all. But whether we can thus arrange them or not, being thoroughly persuaded of the holy truthfulness of the Evangelists, and of the divine guidance under which they wrote, our faith is in no way shaken by such discrepancies. We value them rather, as testimonies to independence: and are sure, that if for one moment we could be put in complete possession of all the details as they happened, each account would find its justification, and the reasons of all the variations would appear.

The accusations and Peter’s negations are the sort of conversation that is real: not calm, neat and orderly, but ragged, repeated and bunched into successive rounds or groups of attacks and denials. Each probably said what our Gospels report, without the Evangelists-’ believing that any one said neither more nor less than the brief phrases cited. The Evangelist that quotes more includes the report of him who cites less, while he who quotes less does not deny the fuller report. Some are talking about Peter, while others accuse him directly. Sometimes he answers the one; sometimes the others, each group of denials being considered one total event.

THE DOWNWARD, PROGRESSIVE ROAD OF SIN: PETER IN THE LIONS-’ DEN

For a believer who unquestionably loves the Lord, Peter’s denials furnish us a New Testament case history of an unexcelled opportunity: to stand up for Christ in an unsympathetic environment. But it is highly instructive, being also the narration of what can go wrong for anyone. His strangeness to that environment turned everyone’s attention on him, thus giving him an audience. Could he not simply identify himself as one who sincerely loved Jesus, even though completely stunned that He had not fulfilled his expectations? Surely these palace servants could understand this and, at worst, scorn Peter’s folly, imprison him for a few days or, at best, even commiserate him who frankly admitted this. Then what went wrong?

THE BOLD IMPRUDENCE OF FERVENT LOVE

Matthew 26:58 But Peter followed him afar off, unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end. The PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY summarizes the sequence of events. (Cf. parallel Gospel texts.) The court of the high priest, see on Matthew 26:57; Matthew 26:69. In following afar off Peter shows a mixture of love for Jesus and fearfulness of being implicated too. So far from an informed, holy boldness, this attitude reflects his unbelief in Jesus-’ doctrine of the cross and his perplexity at seeing Jesus defeated. The officers are the Temple police, not Roman soldiers who, no longer needed, would have returned to their quarters in the Castle Antonia. (See on Matthew 26:47.) When the other disciples forsook Jesus and fled, they kept going, Peter, at the risk of his personal safety, followed.

Why was Peter there? Earlier, Peter had shown the spirit of a fighter, capable of plotting a daring rescue. Meanwhile, however, he had been stunned to witness Jesus willingly led away as a lamb to the slaughter, strictly forbidding him to use the sword. All this notwithstanding, Peter was absolutely unwilling to desert Him. A less docile Judas could hope for divine intervention or some violent escape, but it is at least doubtful that Peter saw himself as a spy who must prudently retain his identity secret at all costs to reconnoiter and renew the struggle later. His stated purpose for being there was *to see the end.

To see the end* means that Peter’s denials occurred contemporaneously with Jesus-’ hearings before Annas and Caiaphas. Sadly, while Jesus was courageously facing hate-filled accusations with masterful poise, Peter was shamefully cracking under hostile pressure. To see the end is not idle curiosity but ardent love for his dear friend Jesus and intense anxiety to learn the outcome of his trials. All the enemies-’ challenges were unable to drive him out or break down his bold front and make him confess. At all costs he was determined to stay inside that palace and learn the trial’s outcome.

SATAN’S SIFTING OF SIMON

Matthew 26:69 Now Peter was sitting without in the court: and a maid came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean. The court in question is not the hearing chamber where Jesus was being tried, but an open courtyard. Thus, Peter was sitting without in the court, because the high priest’s palace itself surrounded this central, open-air courtyard. So, he was both within the palace but also outside, i.e., not in one of its rooms. In reporting that Peter was below in the courtyard, (Mark 14:66) suggests that the courtyard in the heart of the palace was on a lower level than the chamber where Jesus-’ hearings were taking place. Because it was early morning in Jerusalem’s higher elevation in early spring, these rugged men felt the chill of the night air in the stone courtyard open to the sky and kindled a cheering fire while they waited the hearings-’ outcome. While John calls it a charcoal fire (John 18:18), during the process of burning more highly combustible material to ignite the charcoal, more light was given off by the fire. (Cf. Luke 22:56, tò phôs.) That John pictured Peter as standing while the Synoptics record his sitting only more graphically depicts Peter as moving gradually into place, first standing then sitting near the fire.

Sitting means more than near the warmth of the fire. For Peter’s deliberately sitting among them implies the nonchalance of a man who, like them, is against the Nazarene and on the side of the high priest. Sitting also betrays his sense of false security. Unquestionably, concern for Jesus drew him here, but he was seriously blind to the high risk of being in this company so spiritually unprepared.

That a maid who kept the door (John 18:17) and other servants were on duty in the high priest’s palace so late that night indicates the extraordinary events that were occurring. The girls would not only be involved in serving food but even keeping the door. (Cf. Josephus, Ant. VI, 2, 1; Acts 12:13.) The portress apparently did not ask Peter her embarrassing question immediately as he entered, but later when she too left the door area and approached the fire where she could see Peter’s face more clearly in the firelight (Mark 14:66 f.; Luke 22:56). That a person known to be a disciple (John 18:15) recommended Peter’s entrance may have suggested Peter’s connections to her. Lenski (Matthew, 1070) suggests that she was moved by self-importance, wanting these men to realize that she knew something they did not know. Here they were talking about Jesus and about what had just taken place and yet did not know that right in their own midst sat one of Jesus-’ own disciples.

Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean. Because it was a known disciple who got Peter in, Thou also links Peter with discipleship. She insinuates a conclusion: You are not one of this man’s disciples too, are you? (John 18:17). For Peter, this maid’s inquisition is mitigated only in form, since her words expected a negative answer, a factor that facilitated his denial. However, she motivates her inquisitiveness by an incriminating, if yet unproven, observation: You too were with Jesus. Even so, there is yet no criticism implied in her oblique allusion to John’s discipleship. So, why should Peter be so anxious to deny his own? Hendriksen (John, 393) sees her as maliciously ironic, because in her heart she already knew the answer to her question. Whether malicious or not, beneath her words lurked a terrible threat to Peter’s security and he must answer.

1. VAGUE NEGATION

Matthew 26:70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest, stammering, I am not. Lady, I do not know Him. I neither know nor understand what you are talking about (Mark 14:68; Luke 22:57; John 18:17)! Her unexpected disclosure, made in the presence of people (émprosthen pànton) among whom Peter considered himself relatively safe, caught him by surprise. In his panic his first impulse is self-preservation. He timidly denied even knowing Jesus, much less a follower. After faking complete ignorance and neutrality on the question, he eased away from the fire and walked to the forecourt or gateway, as if he had other business that required his presence elsewhere (Mark 14:68).

Mark reports the crow of a cock here (Mark 14:68). Although there are some manuscripts that do not contain this nor its later reference (Mark 14:72, see A Textual Commentary, 115f.), however, if it really crowed at this point, it would seem that Peter did not hear it, else he would have been conscience-struck sooner. Mark is not merely indicating the time, but the fulfillment of Jesus-’ word as he reported it (Mark 14:30). See note on Matthew 26:74.

Matthew 26:71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and saith unto them that were there, This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. About an hour before the third denial (Luke 22:59), or about two o-‘clock, Peter went out into the porch (tòn pulôna; cf. tò proaùlion, Mark 14:68), the gateway or arched passageway leading from the central courtyard to the street. Peter has no time to shake the fear brought on by the first challenge. Another maid: Matthew and Mark describe the second accuser as a girl, whereas Luke unquestionably mentions a different man (Luke 22:58; héteras. ànthrope). This apparent discrepancy may be resolved by seeing the crowd at Caiaphas-’ palace as large. There are now at least two girls, the original portress (Mark has the article: he paidìske, the girl mentioned before, Mark 14:66) and one other (Matthew: àlle). It is not clear whether the second denials occurred at the porch leading to the gate or at the fire. Perhaps the pressure began at the porch when the doormaid initiated this second attack by exposing Peter to another girl and a man standing around in the entranceway (Mark 14:69). Peter, to avoid it, retreated back to the fire only to find himself the center of attention at the fire where the others took up the chase (John 18:25). Thus, his return to the fire was not the dogged courage of love but the risky solution of the desperate.

This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. Peter could not ignore the girl’s approach, because her accusations continued to splatter around among men. It is noteworthy that neither Matthew nor Mark affirm that Peter answered the maid directly, but merely report that he denied to the bystanders, and only Luke quotes Peter as addressing the man, without denying that the maid had instigated this second exposure. While several people accuse him, this second denial is made all at the same general time as the result of this psychological build-up of pressure from various points. Would not hasty departure in this uneasy situation now confirm their suspicions? Again, he must answer.

2. CLEAR DENIAL SUPPORTED BY A FALSE OATH

Matthew 26:72 And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man. (Note Mark’s imperfect tense: erneîto; Luke 22:58; John 18:25.) He kept denying, evidence of a number of phrases not recorded. The tragedy when he lied (cf. Matthew 16:16; John 6:68 f.) was worsened when he backed it up with an oath. This is perjury. Deeply shaken, Peter unnecessarily exaggerates, because many of Jesus-’ enemies knew Him all too well, yet were not His disciples. How could anyone, so obviously Galilean as this Peter, live in Galilee, without at least knowing the man?! The man protests overmuch, if he is really indifferent to the Nazarene or about his own reputation. Further, what was Peter doing among the high priest’s servants, if he could not admit to them his reason for being there? His very denials give him away.

Matthew 26:73 And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art one of them; for thy speech maketh thee known. Luke (Luke 22:59) notes the passage of time as about an hour later, a fact that gives more reality to this scene:

It indicates how long it was taking the authorities to find an adequate basis upon which to establish a basis for the death sentence for Jesus. (See John 18:19 ff.; John 26:59ff.)

It lulled Peter into a false security that feared no more inquisitions.

It gave bystanders time to mull over Peter’s strange nervousness and his regional dialect and uncover further proof of his falseness.

Just when Peter thought his ordeal over, some men who had been discussing Peter, confront him directly, Of a truth thou art one of them. Peter’s lying had not accomplished anything. Rather, now firmer than ever, this conviction of his true loyalties had a twofold basis:

His dialectical pronunciation was typically Galilean, as opposed to the linguistic refinement of the cultured in the capital: Your accent gives you away! (Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59). Alford, (I, 285, citing Westein) noted that the Galileans could not pronounce the gutteral sounds properly and made other changes in Hebrew words.

His face was virtually recognized by a relative of Malchus, the man whose ear Peter had sliced off: Did I not see you in the garden with Him? (John 18:26). Not just embarrassing, this almost positive recognition is really dangerous.

3. LYING UNDER OATH AND SELF-CURSING

Matthew 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man. And straightway the cock crew. Unable to escape the damning evidence of his own dialectthe more he said, the more he proved their point, and pressured by this dangerous witness to his sword-swinging in the garden, Peter felt he must now employ the most serious device conceivable to convince these unfriendly, suspicious hearers. In his frustration and desperation, he began vehemently to curse and to swear. Simon Peter was no profane man. His sense of the sacred must not be sullied by misconception on our part. He began to curse, i.e. to call God’s wrath down upon himself, if what he was saying were untrue; and to swear, i.e. invoke God as witness of the truthfulness of his affirmations. His sin lay not in the act of cursing or swearing, because as proven before (see notes on Matthew 26:63), neither is sin and both may be absolutely right and necessary. Hendriksen (Matthew, 936) rightly contrasts Christ’s oath (Matthew 26:63 F.) and Peter’s (Matthew 26:72; Matthew 26:74): the former confirms the truth; the latter sanctions the lie! So, his loss of the sacred, his sin, consisted in *invoking God’s approval upon what he knew was not true.

I know not the man.* Paradoxically, this is his first true statement. Had Peter truly known Jesus, he would not have worried about Jesus-’ final destiny, because he would have believed His every prediction of victory as the unshakable word of God. Instead, in his frantic self-defense he has almost completely forgotten the Lord whose honor he would defend.

And straightway the cock crew about three o-‘clock Friday morning. Jesus-’ hearings continued through the night from his arrest apparently until this moment (Luke 22:61).

WHOSE CHICKEN WAS THIS?

If it be objected that the Jews did not keep roosters in the city, let it be answered that this particular rooster belonged to foreigners over whom the Jewish rules could not claim obedience. Nor would Sadducees feel bound by unwritten traditions that, without Mosaic sanction, forbid such fowls in the City, Were not Annas and Caiaphas chiefest among the Sadducees (Acts 5:17)?

Further, the two cock-crowings cannot be explained as the sound of the Roman buccina sounding the changing of the guard, because, whereas the 3 a.m. blast of the trumpet might be called gallicinium or cock-crow, would the midnight trumpet also be termed thus? The two cock-crowings mentioned by Mark are only an hour or so apart (cf. Mark 14:48; Mark 14:72 with Luke 22:58-60), hence not the sounding of the gallicinium which only occurred every three hours, i.e. at midnight and at 3 a.m. Peter heard a real rooster.

The Lord’s power over Peter

Matthew 26:75 And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. (See notes on Matthew 26:34.) That cock crowing meant nothing to anyone but Peter. His mind’s eye vividly saw the earlier scene with his forgotten, rash promises and Jesus-’ sad, strenuously discarded predictions. Did he also remember Jesus-’ other word: He who denies me before men, him will I deny before my Father who is in heaven (Matthew 10:33)? He broke down not only because of the cockcrowing, but, just as significantly, because, at that moment, the Lord turned and looked straight at Peter (Luke 22:61). Many see this moment as a transfer of Jesus from one chamber in the high priest’s palace to another where He would be held until the morning session. Therefore, while Peter’s attention was diverted by this new movement, Jesus could pause, turn and look meaningfully and understandably straight into his heart. Tolbert (Good News From Matthew, 231): This is the moment when grace can begin its workwhen a man is stripped of his arrogance and stands before God naked in his need.

Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said. Memory, that gift of God, pierced his self-deception, mistaken shame and terror, convincing and condemning him. It reminded him of Jesus-’ love and broke his heart, leaving him ashamed, self-condemned and agonizing over his dishonoring the lord he loved. Here is the point of the Scriptures and the Lord’s Supper: to save us by vivid God-given reminders that can pierce our soul and bring us to repentance. (Cf. 2 Peter 1:12-15; 2 Peter 3:1.)

And he went out, and wept bitterly. While the others moved to their duties in the changed situation and Sanhedrinists went home for the night, Peter, blinded by tears, could stumble out the front gate together with them, hardly noticed. He went out, and wept bitterly, because he could no longer face himself. Unworthy even to be near Jesus, the perjured disciple has no further justification for being there. Where all the hostility of others could not tear him from his determination, one unspoken word, the eloquent, anguished look from the injured Master, broke him down completely. He is ashamed, because it has now dawned on him that he has just done that of which he believed himself completely incapable. He, Jesus-’ privileged apostle and dear friend, had really done this to Him! (Cf. Psalms 55:12 ff.)

So why did Peter deny his relation to Jesus? Peter’s failure is not merely the product of a unique combination of elements in his character and temperament which exposed him to be tempted in precisely this way, as if these temptations were meaningful only to Peter or those of a personality like his. Rather, are not these elements characteristic of all of us at one time or another?

Physically exhausted and shivering in the early-morning chill, Peter’s thoughts ran to creature comforts (cf. Mark 14:54; John 18:18), rather than to the nearness of temptation and the spiritual battle to be fought. (Cf. Matthew 26:41.) His resistance and presence of mind to meet challenges were worn down by the emotional drain of excitement and sorrow of the preceding day. So far from spiritual preparedness, he was hardly ready physically for this battle.

Unjustified self-confidence: he presumptuously ignored warnings of this peril. A synonym of self-trust is faithlessness. He did not believe Christ’s predictions either of his own failure or of Christ’s victory without his own ill-conceived help. This amounts to rejection to Christ’s revelations whereinsofar they clashed with Peter’s views. Further, to arm himself against all trials he trusted his own emotional enthusiasm for Jesus, rather than an intelligent determination to do God’s revealed will at all costs.

Rashness: he was deliberately sitting among Jesus-’ enemies, self-exposed to the very temptation against which he had been warned. He certainly was not thinking of denying Christ, yet like us in an unguarded moment, he was simply not thinking, but plunged into ill-considered activity.

The temptation’s unexpectedness: he was distracted because his gaze was directed toward the trials and Jesus. He was neither watching nor praying to avoid temptation when he was suddenly confronted with the challenge.

Initial timidity that feared men rather than a holy boldness based on the fear of the Lord and a firm, correct knowledge of God’s will. He feared reprisals and cost to himself. His confidence, that when God decides a thing victory is guaranteed, was severely shattered when he saw Christ arrested like a common criminal without defending Himself. His earlier boldness was now replaced by a wary, instinctive self-protectiveness which tempts a person to resort to any means, even falsehood as a way of avoiding trouble.

His sense of purpose and direction is damaged, for what could he actually do for Jesus here that would not be judged out of order by the Lord Himself? He wrongly assumed that serious temptations could be courageously met with swords, ignoring the subtler, more deadly trials of a servant-girl’s question. 7. Evil companions may also be a factor. Granted, they were unsympathetic to Christ’s cause, and their pressuring hurried him to sin. But the least they could have done was laugh at him in their unbelief or arrest him for a day or so; the most, let him keep his promise to die for Jesus. But they were the least significant element, because, looked at from the Lord’s point of view, these servants were only trying to get Peter to say what he really and deeply believed.

What Peter did after this moral break-down, the Gospel writers omit. Their last words leave him a humbled, brokenhearted man who must struggle with his lostness, overwhelmed with shame and grief, until thrilled by the stirring news of the resurrection morning, The Lord is risen! What is our lesson? Without the grace of Christ, how strong is the bravest man? Peter’s humiliated self-confidence challenges the best of disciples among us: who would dare trust himself to believe that he could not do the most abominable deed (1 Corinthians 10:11-13)? Further, the gravest threat may not always come from a Christian’s weak points, but from what he considers his strength. This Satan succeeds in twisting against the Christian himself. On the other hand, how great is the spiritual power of God’s grace and forgiveness in believers! Consider Peter’s restoration to become the great pillar of the Church. Peter’s grief had led to life through repentance, because he listened to the appeals of his own smitten conscience (2 Corinthians 7:10). Judas-’ fall, on the other hand, was a deliberate choice matured in harmony with his mentality. Peter’s was the accidental fall of a good man, a real disciple, truly touched by his sense of sin and of the Lord’s rightness. This explains his rapid rehabilitation as opposed to Judas-’ suicide.

That Jesus could so accurately foresee the various forces that would produce Peter’s breakdown and even the timing proves even more remarkably His divine knowledge. That He foresaw it and let it happen anyway, points to the deep respect God has for the human will. He let this sincere but rash believer go wrong to reveal his weakness to him, break his overconfidence and teach him dependence on Himself. But He never ceased to intercede for Peter. The same Jesus who forewarned Peter and interceded before God for him, whose look restored Peter’s sense of guilt, later freely forgave and re-established him, offers us mercy and pleads our case before God, however deep our sin (John 6:37; Revelation 22:17; Hebrews 7:25). Should not this exalted concept of His graciousness stir our hearts to grateful worship?

We easily identify with the sins of the great Bible characters, such as David and Peter, but can we repent with them? With loyal hearts and deep devotion do we abhor sin and weep over it before God like they? Oh God, when I have debased your Name, played the fool and denied my discipleship, send me a Nathan, a rooster, anything, to call my wandering heart back to you! May I hear all the voices in Creation and in your Word that call me to repentance (Psalms 19: Romans 1:20)!

FACT QUESTIONS

What elements led to Peter’s denials?

Explain how Peter gained entrance to the courtyard of the high priest.

Mark states that Peter was beneath in the palace, whereas Matthew affirms without in the palace. Harmonize these expressions.

What was Peter’s motive(s) for being there?

Why did Peter join the men seated there at the fire lit in the high priest’s courtyard? What time of year was it? Would it have been cold enough for a fire?

Who first accused Peter?

Who accused him the second time?

How much time elapsed during Jesus-’ trials and, consequently, Peter’S? About what time of night did the third denial occur?

What clues demolished Peter’s anonymity in the eyes of the bystanders?

What method(s) did Peter use to defend his assertions?

Explain the proposition: Peter was not a profane man, just lying. In what sense did he curse and swear?

How many cocks crowed that night? Prove your answer.

What did Peter remember when he heard the cock crow?

What elements do the Gospels furnish that permit us to discern time connections between the denials of Peter and the trials of Christ?

Old Green Commentaries

The College Press Bible Study Textbook Series — 59 volumes by 25 authors, published between 1961 and 1992 and affectionately known as the 'old green' commentaries for their green hardback bindings. Each volume is a commentary, workbook and teaching manual in one, written by Restoration Movement …

View all chapters →

Old Testament

GEN EXO LEV NUM DEU JOS JDG RUT 1SA 2SA 1KI 2KI 1CH 2CH EZR NEH EST JOB PSA PRO ECC SOS ISA JER LAM EZK DAN HOS JOL AMO OBA JON MIC NAH HAB ZEP HAG ZEC MAL

New Testament

MAT MRK LUK JHN ACT ROM 1CO 2CO GAL EPH PHP COL 1TH 2TH 1TI 2TI TIT PHM HEB JAS 1PE 2PE 1JN 2JN 3JN JUD REV

‹ Chapter 25 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 27 ›