Matthew 26:1

Ch. Mat_26:1-5. Wednesday, Nisan 12. The Approach of the Passover. Jesus again Foretells His Death. The Sanhedrin meet

Mar_14:1-2; Luk_22:1-2.

Cp. Joh_11:55-57, where we read that “the chief priests and Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.”

That Jesus should be able for so many days to “speak openly in the Temple” and shew Himself to the people without fear of capture is a proof of the deep hold He had taken on the enthusiasm and affection of His fellow-countrymen. The words of St John (quoted above) imply a combination of the priestly and aristocratic party—the Sadducees—with the democratic Pharisees, against the despised Galilæan, and yet it requires treachery of the deepest dye and a deed of darkness to secure Him.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_26:1-5

That they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill Him.

Craft and cruelty coupled in the Churchs adversaries

Neither of them wants their mate, as the Scripture says of those birds of prey and desolation (Isa_34:16). These priests and elders were so bitterly bent against Christ, that nothing would satisfy them but His blood. All plants and other creatures have their growth and increase to a period, and then their declination and decay, except only the crocodile, who, grows bigger and bigger, even till death. So have all passions and perturbations in mans mind their intentions and remissions, except only malicious revenge. This dies not, many times, but with the man (if that), as nothing can quench the combustible slime in Samosaris, nor the burning flame of the hill Chimaera, but only earth. St. Peter tells us (1Pe_2:23), that our Saviour, being reviled, did not only commit His cause to God, but Himself to God: as expecting the increase of His enemies opposition till they had put Him to death. (John Trapp.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 26:1-2. When Jesus had finished all these sayings — The sayings or discourses which he began to deliver on his leaving the temple, (Mat 24:1,) and continued, till he had declared all that is contained in the two preceding chapters; He said unto his disciples, Ye know, &c. — When he sat down on the mount of Olives, he was so far on his way to Bethany, and before he rose up to depart, he thought fit to add a word or two concerning his own death. For, as the greatest trial that his disciples were ever to meet with was now approaching, in their Master’s humiliation and sufferings; therefore, to prepare them for this scene, he foretold those sufferings, together with the particular time and manner of them; and thus proved, that he perfectly knew whatever was to befall him, and that his sufferings were all voluntary and necessary. After two days is the passover — The manner wherein this was celebrated gives much light to several circumstances that follow. The master of the family began the feast with a cup of wine, which, having solemnly blessed, he divided among the guests, (Luk 22:17.) Then the supper began with the unleavened bread and bitter herbs; which when they had all tasted, one of the young persons present, (according to Exo 12:26,) asked the reason of the solemnity. This introduced the showing forth, or declaration of it: in allusion to which we read of showing forth the Lord’s death, (1Co 11:26.) Then the master rose up and took another cup, before the lamb was tasted. After supper, he took a thin loaf or cake, which he broke and divided to all at the table, and likewise the cup, usually called the cup of thanksgiving, of which he drank first, and then all the guests. It was this bread and this cup, which our Lord consecrated to be a standing memorial of his death.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Tuesday of Passion Week.

§ 120. REMAINING TRANSACTIONS OF TUESDAY PRECEDING THE CRUCIFIXION, Mat_26:1-14.

1. Came to pass — Our Lord’s public ministry has terminated, and the evangelist proceeds to the closing events — the crucifixion and ascension.

It is at the great feast of the passover that the last act commences. In this chapter Matthew first states our Lord’s announcement of that fatal passover, 1-2; next the secret conspiracy of the Jews, 3-4; then he describes a certain supper at Bethany, at which he was perfumed with the precious ointment, 6-16; and then narrates the preparing of their paschal supper and its ominous events, 17-29. From the supper he traces the Saviour over Mount Olivet, 30-35; and thence to Gethsemane, where he is arrested, 35-56. His appearance before Caiaphas and denial by Peter are the remaining scenes of that sad night which Matthew details, 57-75.

1. When Jesus had finished all these sayings — All the sayings of the preceding chapter. From the scenes of glory and judgment which he had described in that discourse, he now turns, in sad contrast, to the scenes of his humiliation. All these sayings, therefore, concluded all the public ministry of the Saviour. His enemies could have no power over him until he had delivered his whole message. So it has been said that “a true minister is immortal until his work is done.” His whole work as a prophet at last being performed, his work as a priest in the sacrifice of himself now commences.

He said unto his disciples — He has finished now with the world, and he turns to the inner circle of his chosen ones.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat_26:2. The feast of the Passover commemorated the deliverance of Israel from the Egyptian bondage. The ordinances of the first Passover are narrated Exo_12:1-14, but some of those were modified in later times. The regular celebration of the Passover was part of the religious revival after the return from captivity (Carr).

Mat_26:3. The chief priests, etc.—The meeting now assembled may have been either a formal session of the Sanhedrin or an informal conference of its chief members, prior to the regular meeting. The former seems, on the whole, the more probable (Plumptre). Scribes.—Wanting in the most important MSS. and omitted in the R.V. “It is certain, nevertheless, that the scribes would be present. See Mar_14:1; Luk_22:2” (Morison). Palace.—Court (R.V.). The word properly means the open court which constituted the centre of an Oriental house of repectable dimensions, and around which the respective apartments of the dwelling were built (ibid.). Caiaphas.—Joseph Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, was appointed high priest by the Procurator Valerius Gratus A.D. 26, and was deposed A.D. 38. The high priesthood had long ceased to be held for life and to descend from father to son; appointments were made at the caprice of the Roman government. Annas, Who had been high priest, was still regarded as such by popular opinion, which did not recognise his deposition. St. Luke says, “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests” (Mat_3:2) (Carr).

Mat_26:5. Not on the feast day.—Not daring the feast (R.V.). Including the seven days of unleavened bread. Neander, Ewald, Pressensé, and others, suppose that they resolved to arrest Him before the feast. But there is force in Dr. Morison’s objection to this: “The whole city and suburbs were already swarming with the multitudes who were anticipating the feast. Caravans were hourly arriving, increasing the throng. All was excitement. Great, too, was the interest attaching to the wonderful Nazarene.” Chrysostom, Calvin, Lange, Meyer, Wordsworth, and many besides assume that the Sanhedrin intended to crucify Him after the feast, when the crowds of strangers should have left. The unexpected treachery of Judas seems to have hastened the crisis. Lest there be an uproar.—As in connection with other Passovers (Josephus, Antiq., XVII. ix. 3; XX. Mat_26:3. See also XVII. x. 2).

Mat_26:6. When Jesus was in Bethany.—The narrative is given out of its proper order, on account of its connection (as indicated in St. John’s record) with the act of the traitor. St. John fixes it (Mat_12:1) at six days before the Passover, i.e. on the evening that preceded the entry into Jerusalem (Plumptre). Simon the leper.—Probably not an actual leper, but one who had been so; perhaps one who had been healed by our Lord. From Joh_12:2 it has been conjectured that Simon was the husband of Martha, who appears to have acted as mistress of the house. Another conjecture is that Simon was the father of the family, who was now dead, though the house was still Called by his name (Mansel).

Mat_26:7. Alabaster.—A beautiful calcareous spar, softer than marble, and therefore easily scooped or fashioned into ornamental boxes, bottles, vases, and jars (Morison). Box.—Cruse (R.V.) There is no word corresponding to “box” in the original. The expression is simply and unspecifically “an alabaster”; and the reference would be, not to an alabaster box or casket, such as the Roman ladies kept on their toilet-tables for holding their cosmetics, but to some kind of small and elegantly-shaped alabaster bottle or cruet (ibid.). Very precious ointment.—Spikenard (Mar_14:3). The ointment of nard was highly esteemed in antiquity as a precious aromatic and a costly luxury. It was brought chiefly from Asia Minor in alabaster flasks; and the best were to be had in Tarsus (Winer).

Mat_26:10. A good work.—The word translated “good” has prominent in it the thought of beauty (Gibson).

Mat_26:12. For My burial.—To prepare Me for burial (R.V.). See 2Ch_16:14. Not that she consciously intended it as equivalent to an embalmment of the body. But Jesus interpreted her act according to His own anticipation of the solemn event that was at hand (Morison).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_26:1-13

The eve of betrayal.—From speaking of His own coming in glory and of things very far off, the Saviour proceeds to speak here of things very near: “Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified” (Mat_26:2). We are come, in fact, to the very eve of the Passion of Christ. And what we read of here is of the doings of unbelief, on the one hand, and of the doings of faith, on the other, during that eve.

I. The doings of unbelief.—In what condition do we find the chief representatives of unbelief in Christ at this time? We find them, first, assembled in force. All classes of them, with their usual president over them, are met in his house (Mat_26:3). Nothing is wanting to make plain how much they are stirred. It is plain, also, in the next place, that they are assembled in malice. They are not there to debate as to the object which they shall undertake to pursue. Neither are they there to resolve only on preventive measures; or on merely half-measures of hatred. On these points, and all like them, their minds are made up. They do not mean to stop a step short of putting Jesus to death (Mat_26:4). In the third place, these unbelieving ones are also assembled in craft. They are fully aware of the difficulties which lie in their way; difficulties arising from the high esteem in which the Saviour is held, as also from the fact of such vast multitudes being then gathered at Jerusalem. But these considerations do not affect either their consciences or their wills. They only lead them to think how they can do safely what they are thinking of doing; how, in a word, they can take Christ’s life without risking their own (Mat_26:4-5). If nothing, therefore, is more prudent, nothing is more unscrupulous than their conduct. The thing they are resolved on is to put Jesus to death. We may consider the holding of this “council,” therefore, His first actual contact with the shadow of death. Before, He has been in danger. Now, He is doomed.

II. The doings of faith.—For such we believe, with many authorities, that we see in the incident which comes next. We believe the “woman” spoken of here to have been Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus; and the action ascribed to her to be the same as that spoken of in Joh_12:1-9, in connection with the “supper” made for Jesus at the house of Lazarus, probably some days after His coming there, as described in the first verse of that chapter. And believing this, we think we see here, on the one hand, what she thought then of the Saviour Himself. The exceeding costliness of the gift given (Mat_26:7) shows this to begin. Nothing, in her eyes, was too precious for Him. The indignation thus aroused, and the consequent computation of the numbers that might have been benefited by it if used in a different way, tell in much the same line. No others whatever—no number of others—were equal to Him in her eyes. So also does the extraordinary lavishment with which she expended her gift—breaking the box so as to keep back nothing of its precious contents, and pouring these over the whole person of the Saviour Himself (cf. Mat_26:7 with Joh_12:3). Nor was less spoken, or spoken less openly, by the marked publicity of her gift, given to Jesus, as it was, as He “sat at meat” at such a special “supper,” and with His disciples around Him, and evidently “taken” (Joh_12:3) from elsewhere, and brought to (Mat_26:7) Jesus with much deliberation of purpose and determination of manner. She wished all present to know by this “fragrance” what she thought of her Lord. As it were, she wished the “whole house” to be filled with her thoughts. Possibly—the idea is permissible when we note carefully the significant manner of her testimony—with her thoughts of Him as the CHRIST! Also, we think we see here, on the other hand, what this woman thought and knew of the approaching fate of the Saviour. Sitting constantly and almost irremovably at His feet to hear His word (Luk_10:39-40), we can well believe that she had taken in more of the true meaning of His language than His other disciples, and so had begun to realise that, as a matter of fact, He was a dying man at that time. Certainly the pathos of this knowledge would account exactly for the remarkable courage and determination of her conduct. “Now or never must this thing be done.” So she would be led by it to say in her heart. Certainly also the light of this knowledge would account exactly for the direction of her effort. What she would do by Jesus should be just that which others did by their dead. And this, indeed, was exactly the interpretation which the Saviour Himself put on her deed. He recognised and defended it as an exceptional thing, fitting, therefore, all the better that exceptional juncture and case (Mat_26:10-11). He recognised it, also, as being done in connection with the close approach of His death (Mat_26:12). And He described it, further, being thus done in faith, as a work that was “good” (Mat_26:10); and even such as should in time be proclaimed everywhere, as an example to all (Mat_26:13). An example of the “faith” which cometh by “hearing”! An example of the way in which one disciple, at least, knew what was then coming on Christ.

Note, therefore, in conclusion, how we see the Saviour Himself at this moment, when the lip of the cup to be drunk by Him, as it were, first touches His lips.

1. How full of consideration for others!—His leading enemies have now resolved on His death. The most enlightened and attached of His disciples has reminded Him, in the most vivid manner, both of its certainty and nearness; has treated it, in fact, as in one way begun. Even so He will not allow her to be unjustly reproached. Whatever is coming on Him, that shall not come upon her. Instead of that, He will cover her with honour and thanks. With honour then, and thereafter as well. With honour there, and everywhere else. See what it is to confess Him before others. It is to be confessed by Him before all. Confessed by Him even when entering into the shadow of death!

2. How full of confidence in His work.—The prediction of Mat_26:13 was remarkable in itself. It was still more so in connection with the time at which it was uttered. Although Himself about to die, nothing of that kind was contemplated by Jesus in regard to His “gospel.” That, rather, was to become the more widely known and believed in and honoured by means of His death; so much so as thereby to bring special honour upon this anticipation of that death. This saying was almost more than the prediction of a prophet. It was the decree of a King! The decree of a King, also, who knew Himself at that moment to be under sentence of death!

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_26:3-4. A wicked council.—

I. A council without counsel, devoted to subtilty (Mat_26:5).

II. A shameless council, devoted to lying and calumniation (Mat_27:1).

III. A profligate council, devoted to hypocrisy (Mat_27:7).

IV. A blind council, devoted to bribery (Mat_28:12).—J. P. Lange, D.D.

Mat_26:6-7. Jesus in the house of Simon the leper.—

1. In little Bethany, as well as in great Jerusalem, God hath His own.

2. The man who is sensible of his cleansing by Christ will love Him all his life long after. Simon the leper here receiveth and entertaineth Christ and His disciples.

3. When our by-past infirmities may glorify Christ, it is no shame to bear the memorials thereof. Here the Evangelist calleth Simon “the leper,” though now whole.

4. Love spares no cost; where love is hot, there nothing is dear.—David Dickson.

Mat_26:8. The “wastefulness” of Christian love.—Consider the objection:—

I. In relation to economy.—Christ teaches us that—

1. Love transcends economy.—Thrift which forbids the demonstrations of love, which forbids the observance of holidays, birthdays, etc., which denies leisure either to love or to express it, is a bane, not a boon. Keep love alive at every cost, is Christ’s teaching.

2. Religion transcends economy.—Religion should be the last cause on which to practise economy, yet often the first.

II. In relation to the poor.—Some say, “We do not object to generosity, but deem it better shown to the poor than to the church, to Christ’s body, to religion.” So some disciples and others. Both plausible and popular. But mark:—

1. These are not the best friends to the poor.—See Joh_12:6. Judas the spokesman. He was not a friend to the poor. This objection made in their own interest, not that of the poor. He who begrudges to the church generally begrudges also to the poor. History proves that the best friends of the poor have ever been the religious. They still are. Non-religious philanthropy a small and feeble thing.

2. Religion transcends philanthropy.—Christ knows their hearts, but meets their objection. His boldness. “The poor with you always.”

(1) Not a condemnation of social Christianity. Some would make Christ’s saying equivalent to “poverty is permanent,” and would quote it against every effort to abolish poverty. Reference purely personal and local. “Poor with you when I am not.” This quite true. Not that we are to have always with us the hideous injustice of modern poverty! Words really teaching—

(2) That spiritual Christianity transcends social Christianity. Mary lives on a higher plane of being than Martha or the disciples. We must not permit social questions to secularise us, or drive God from our thoughts.

III. In relation to Christ.—

1. It is sanctioned by Christ’s express approval.

2. It is sanctioned by Christ’s great example.—Mary’s action really akin to Christ’s great “waste of love” about to be consummated on the cross. Application:

1. Let us lavish our love on Christ, in emotional and in concrete ways remembering His waste of love to us.

2. Let us lavish it upon others. Emulate Christ—“waste” your love on the unworthy and the unlovely.—S. E. Keeble.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

*[All omitted in the Edinb. trsl.—P. S.]

FIRST SECTION

THE CERTITUDE OF CHRIST, AND THE INCERTITUDE OF HIS ENEMIES. THE DIVINE COUNSEL: AT THE FEAST OF THE PASSOVER

26:1–5

(Mar_14:1-2; Luk_22:1-2)

1And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples, 2Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover [comes the passover, τάπάσχα γίνεται], 3and the Son of man is betrayed [delivered up]12 to be crucified. Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes,13 and the elders of the people, unto 4the palace [in the court, αὺλή]14 of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted [together, συ νεβουλεύσαντο] that they might take Jesus by subtilty [craft, δόλω], and kill him [put him to death]. 5But they said, Not on the feast day [at the feast, ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ],15 lest there be an uproar [tumult, θόρυβος] among the people.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat_26:1. Had ended all these sayings.—With these savings [ch. 14 and 25] the Lord completed His historical prophetic office. He now foreannounces the fulfilment of His priestly office. He has marked out the figure of His future, the Son of Man in His majesty and glory. This assurance is the basis on which He stands at the commencement of His sufferings and deepest humiliation, and the basis on which He seeks to place His disciples.

Mat_26:2. After two days.—[Day after to-mor-row, on Thursday.] See the introductory remarks on the chronology of the history of the Passion.

The Passover.—פֶּסַח, Aram. פַּסְחָא; according to Exo_12:13, from פִּסַח, to pass over, to spare, with allusion to the sparing of the first-born of Israel when the first-born of Egypt were slain by the destroying angel: thus, the passing over (of the destroying angel).16 This passing over has a threefold meaning: 1. The deliverance of the people out of Egypt through the judgment upon the Egyptians—the typical redemption; 2. the spiritual offering up of the Israelite first-born with the Egyptian, expressed by the blood of the lamb sprinkled on the doorposts—the typical death of Christ; 3. the actual sparing of the Israelite first-born in connection with that sacrifice—the raising up of the new life of Christ out of the sacrificial death. Accordingly, the Passover is a feast of thank-offering, a peace-offering, a sacrifice of salvation, which rests upon the basis of a sacrifice devoted to curse (the death of the Egyptian first-born), and of a propitiatory sacrifice (the sacrifice of the Israelite first-born in the blood of the lamb). The feast of deliverance is the seal and sacrament of salvation, the festival of new life and redemption, won out of the judgment of death. The type has thus its threefold relation to Christ. As Christ in His life was the true burnt-offering, so in His death He was: 1. The sacrifice of curse cherem (Gal_3:13), through the blindness of the world and the judgment of God, in order to the awakening and spiritual judgment of the world; 2. the sin-offering, chattah (2Co_5:21), for the reconciliation of the world; 3. the thank-offering in the new life, in the infinite fulness of life which He obtained in death. In all these senses He was the true and real Passover (1Co_5:7); and Easter, but especially the holy Supper, is the New Testament paschal foast, the feast of salvation, grounded upon propitiation through the condemnation of sin. And, inasmuch as with the deliverance from Egypt was connected separation from the leaven of Egyptian idolatry, and disciplinary wandering through the desert, the Passover is at the same time the feast of unleavened bread (הַג הִמִּצּדת). This view of the feast has two main points: 1. Separation from the leaven, the spiritual fellowship of Egypt (Mat_16:6; 1Co_5:7); 2. wandering through all the tests and discipline of privation in the wilderness (Deu_16:3). With this twofold religious significance of the feast, there was, in process of time, connected the festival of spring-time and the beginning of harvest, or the first-fruits. (Some modern archæologists have without cause reversed the order, and made the natural feast the basis of the churchly or spiritual. Compare Winer, sub Pascha.) The Passover was the first of the three great feasts of Israel, and was celebrated in the first month of the year, Abib or Nisan, about the time of full moon—from the 14th to the 21st of Nisan—and in the central sanctuary. Concerning its rites, see below.

And the Son of Man is delivered up to be crucified.—The predictions of the crucifixion generally are here taken for granted: the prophecy here specifically lies in the definition of the date.

Mat_26:3. Then assembled together.—To the clear prospect and certitude of the Lord concerning the period of His death, is characteristically opposed the perfect uncertainty of the Sanhedrin concerning it, and the decree, which circumstances soon rendered vain, “not on the feast-day.”

In the court [in der Halle],—Not the palace of the high-priest itself, but the atrium, or court enclosed by its buildings. The common place of meeting for the Sanhedrin was called Gazith, and joined, according to the Talmud, the south side of the temple. Lightfoot, p. 459.17

Who was called Caiaphas.—“Probably equivalent to בַּיְפָּא, depressio.” This was a standing surname, which passed into a proper name. He was originally called Joseph (Joseph. Antiq. xviii:2, 2). [Some ancient fathers confounded him with Josephus the Jewish historian, and supposed that he was secretly converted to Christianity.—P. S.] Caiaphas was one of those high-priests who marked the desecration of the institution by party spirit and the influence of foreign power. The Procurator Valerius Gratus bad given him the office, and he lost its dignity through Vitellius (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 2, 2; 4, 3). He was the son-in-law of Annas. The evangelical history paints his character in his deeds.

Mat_26:4. By craft, δόλω.—The impression which the spiritual victories gained over them in the temple by Jesus had made upon the people, and also upon themselves, is here very plainly marked.

Not at the feast.—The people were, in their congregation at the feast (often to the amount of two millions), generally inclined to insurrection (Joseph. Antiq. xvii. 9, 3; 20:5, 3); and a tumult on behalf of Jesus was all the more to be provided against, because He had so many dependents among the people, especially among the bold and quarrelsome mountaineers from Galilee. The decree was presently invalidated—not through the first offer of Judas (Meyer), which had already been made, and had led them to settle the form of betrayal and His sudden surprise—but through the later appearance of the traitor, when he came from the supper in the night, and announced to them the favorable opportunity of seizing Christ in the garden. Bengel: Sic consilium divinum successit. Their counsel was fulfilled only so far as the taking the Lord by craft. It was a vain imagination that such a person as Jesus was, could be surreptitiously and without noise removed out of the way.

[Comp. Wordsworth: “Observe Christ’s power over His enemies in His death. Oftentimes when they endeavored to take Him, He escaped from them (Joh_10:39). But at the time when they had desired not to take Him, viz., at the Passover (comp. Luk_22:6), then He willed to be taken, and they, though unwilling, took Him; and so they fulfilled the prophecies in killing Him who is the true Passover, and in proving Him to be the Christ. (Comp. Leo, Serm. 58; Theophylact in Marc. 14:2.)” Dr. Lange, Meyer, Wordsworth, and others, assume that the priests intended to crucify the Lord after the feast of the Passover, when the crowds of strangers, sometimes amounting to two millions, should have left, but were frustrated in their design by the favorable opportunity soon offered. Ewald, on the contrary (Geschichte Christus’, p. 410), supposes that they intended to crucify Him before the feast, and actually did so, viz., on the 14th of Nisan. There is no doubt that the words μὴἐντῇἑορτῇ, not at the feast! admit of both views. But in the latter case we would involve the Synoptists in self-contradiction; and then the time was already so far advanced, that the people, whose tumult they feared, must have already been at Jerusalem when the Sanhedrin resolved to crucify Christ. In any case their words in Mat_26:5 imply that they had no religious scruples against a public execution on the feast, but were restrained only by motives of policy and expediency. Probably such executions did take place sometimes on high festivals—as religious acts, and as a warning to the people. The law nowhere expressly prohibits them. Hegesippus relates in Euseb. Hist. Ecc_2:23, that James the Just, the brother of the Lord, was stoned and killed on the day of the Passover. See above, p. 456. Consequently this verse cannot be pressed as an argument against the view that Christ died on the 15th of Nisan, as is done by Bleek and others who advocate the 14th as the day of the crucifixion.—P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Jesus in divine assurance ready for death, familiar with the time of His death; while His murderers themselves know not whither they are proceeding.

2. Jesus the real Passover, or Paschal Lamb. See above.

3. The Sanhedrin, in its decree: “Not on the feast” is the type of the policy of a sinful world, which is violently moved by the powers of hell, and urged whither they will more impetuously than itself desires.

4. In the way of obedience, Jesus came to the feast of the Passover. He was separated from the temple, but not from His people and His religious obligations and customs. As an Israelite, He must keep the feast in Jerusalem; although this feast should result in His own death. And this very fact makes it an untenable notion, that Jesus kept the Passover a day earlier than was the custom. He would then have arbitrarily altered and belied at the end the legal propriety of His whole life. His submission to the law brought Him to His death. Concerning the high-priestly office of Christ, compare dogmatical treatises.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Christ, in the full anticipation of His judicial glory, is prepared for His death: 1. He is notwithstanding ready for death; 2. He is on that account ready for death.—The divine assurance of the Lord, in contrast with the perfect and helpless uncertainty of His enemies: 1. The fact itself: (a) He as the sacrifice knows the day of His death, which the murderers themselves do not yet know; (b) He marks out a definite day, which they by their decree in council reject. 2. The explanation of the fact: (a) Christ is perfectly familiar with the spirit of Scripture (the meaning of the ancient Passover)—with the government of His Father (He knows the machinations of the powers of evil to which His enemies are given over); (b) His enemies suppose in their despotic counsels that they are above events, while they have become the helpless instruments of hell, (c) hell itself knows not all things, and knows wrongly all that it knows; it is decreed by God that it shall be now condemned.—What is it that the Lord lays most stress upon when He announces His passion? 1. Not that He should be nailed to the cross; but, 2. that He should be betrayed.—Perfect faithfulness mourning over consummate treachery in the deepest grief.—The sufferings of Christ the consummation of all Joseph’s sufferings: to be betrayed and sold by His brethren.—The uncounselled confusion of the High Council—The mixing up of politics with the Church must ruin both.—The last sittings of the Jewish ruling Council in the Church, according to Matthew 1. A council without counsel18 devoted to subtilty (Mat_26:5); 2. a shameless council, devoted to lying and calumniation (Mat_27:1); 3. a profligate council, devoted to hypocrisy (Mat_26:7); 4. a blind council, devoted to bribery (Mat_28:12).—The greatest of all insurrections (against the Lord’s Anointed) must always be in dread of the phantom of insurrection: 1. They lift themselves up against the Lord; and, 2. brand the possible uprising for His defence as rebellion.—The shallow farce of hierarchical pride condemned: 1. They think they can triumphantly trifle,—(a) with circumstances; (b) with men; (c) with sin. 2. They become a spectacle of judgment,—(a) through unforeseen accident; (b) through the spirits of hell (working in the soul of Judas); (c) through the sacred supervision of God.—The counsel of the wicked set at nought: 1. It half succeeds (they take the Lord with subtilty); 2. it seemed to have succeeded beyond expectation (the people made an insurrection in their favor at the feast); 3. but it was absolutely put to shame (the crucifixion of Christ at this feast was the end of all their feasts).—The warning thought, that the obduracy of the Jews reached its climax precisely at the feasts, when Jesus came to them—The question, whether Christ should die at the feast? The enemies say: “Not at the feast;” the Lord says: “On the feast-day, and no other.”19 The corruption of the Jewish feasts, out of which the great Christian feasts have sprung: Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Whitsuntide.—The counsel of God, that Christ should die at the feast of the PassoMatthew 26:1. The appointment: (a) in the holiest place of the earth; (b) at the highest feast; (c) in the midst of an assembly which represented the whole of mankind; (d) thus with perfect publicity. 2. The reason: (a) for the realization of all the symbols, especially the Passover; (b) to establish that the feast of the typical deliverance was changed into the feast of the real redemption; (c) for a manifestation of the judgment of the world, and of the reconciliation of the world, in the greatest assembly of Jews and Gentiles.—God can make sacrifices of His own, but He does not give them up to secret murder.—They might crucify Him openly before all the world; but secretly do away with Him they could not.—The blood of the saints does not sink silently into the ground; it publicly flows, and preaches aloud.

Starke:—Christ’s words inseparable from His sufferings.—Happy he who, when his death comes, can speak and hear about it with satisfaction.—Christ would suffer and die at the Passover: 1. Because the paschal lamb was a type of Himself, 1Co_5:1; 1 Corinthians 2. that His sufferings and death might the sooner be everywhere known.—Zeisius:—In the first Passover, the Israelites were brought out of the literal slavery of Egypt; in the last Passover, Christ has delivered us by His death from spiritual slavery. Tit_2:14-15.—Christ delighted to speak of His sufferings; let us delight in hearing of them, especially during Lent.—The great mass of the High Council are spoken of (Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and some others, were excepted): happy those who do not make themselves partakers of the sins committed in the fraternity of their colleagues.—Bibl. Würt.:—The worst wickedness is practised at the most holy times: men never play and debauch themselves, and rage more in iniquity, than on the feast-days; but what on other days is simple sin, on such days is ten fold.—Canstein:—The visible Church of Christ may reach such a point, that its most eminent and greatest members may not only not tolerate Christ and His truth, but even seek to destroy them.—Quesnel:—The human schemes, Gen_50:20.—Canstein:—The ancient hypocritical serpent-subtilty (Mat_26:4, by subtilty), Gen_3:16.—Zeisius:—The world can bear with Jews, Gentiles, Turks, Epicureans, but not with the honest witnesses of truth.—The Messiah was to suffer and die in the midst of a great multitude of people.—Cramer:—The counsel of the ungodly passes away, but the decree of God shall stand.—Unpriestly priests,20 who, instead of attending to devotion, are dealing in political and ofttimes diabolical schemes.

Heubner:—All these sayings (Mat_26:1). He had told His people and His disciples all that was needful for salvation, and had confirmed all by works and miracles: nothing now was left but to die.—He spoke of His sufferings, that His disciples might see how little chance had to do with them, but that all was after the will of His heavenly Father.—A pattern to us, that we should accustom ourselves to think and speak without fear of our final sufferings.—They thought not that He well knew all that was passing in their council.—The higher a man rises in influence and authority, the greater is his temptation to ambition, pride, love of power, and envy.—Those who are mighty in this world, its great men and rulers, are mostly indisposed to any new and better ordinance.—Fear of the people: vigor and openness are peculiar to the righteous cause.—“Not at the feast:” the feast was the wrong time, not because of any fear of God, but because of their fear of man. The decree must have cost them after all some pangs of conscience.

Footnotes:

[12]Mat_26:2.—[So Lange renders παραδίδοται here. Comp. Mat_5:25; Mat_15:5; Mat_18:34; Mat_27:18; Mat_27:26; Mar_15:1 Luk_20:20; Rom_8:32 But παραδιδόναι is used sometimes, like προδιδόναι and the Lat. prodere, with the collat eral notion of treachery, as in Mat_10:4.—P. S.]

[13]Mat_26:3.—Καὶ οι γραμματεῖς (and the scribes) must be omitted according to Codd. A., B., D., L., etc. Probably inserted from Mar_14:1; Luk_22:2. [The words are also wanting in Cod. Sinait. and in the critical editions.)

[14]Mat_26:3.—[Dr. Lange: Halle. Αὐλή means usually, and so here, not the palace, but the atrium, the inner court or enclosed square around which the house was built, and which was used also for business. This is evident from Mat_26:69 Πέτρος ἐκάθητω ἔξω έν τῇ αὐλῃ, sat without in the court (not: without in the palace, which involves a contradiction in terms), and from Luk_22:55, where it is said that they kindled a fire ἐν μέσῳ τῆς αυλῆς, in midst of the court. Comp. Meyer and Conant in loc., and Lange’s Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]

[15]Mat_26:5.—[The word feast here means the whole period of seven days during which the passover lasted. Meyer: Sie meinen die gunze siebentägige Festzeit.—P. S.]

[16][The word πάσχα (originally transitus, ὑπέρβασις, פֶּסח) is used in a threefold sense in the N. T. (1) Agnus paschalis, the paschal lamb; hence the phrase to kill the passover, Mar_14:12; Luk_22:7. (2) The sacrificial lamb and the supper, Mat_26:17; Mar_14:14; Luk_22:11. (3) The whole feast of unleavened bread, ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζόμων or τὰ ἄζυασ, which lasted seven days. Mat_26:2; Luk_22:1, and so generally in Joh_2:13; Joh_6:4; Joh_11:15; Joh_12:1; Joh_13:1, etc. Some of the Greek and Latin fathers connected the passover with the Greek verb πάσχα, to suffer, and with the death of Christ which was typified by the sacrifice of the paschal lamb Dr. Wordsworth finds a deep mystic meaning in his.—a mistake, which evidently arose from the ignorance of Hebrew, a language known to very few of the fathers and schoolmen down to the period of the Reformation. He also sees a providential paronomasia in Luk_22:15 between τουτο τὸ παʼσχα φαγεῖν and πρὸ τοῦ με παθειν.—P. S.]

[17][Comp. Crit.Note, No. 8, above, p.459—P. S.]

[18][Ein rathloser Rath—ein schamloser Rath—ein ruchloser Rath—ein sinnloser Rath.—]

[19][This theme, of course, implies the chronological view held by Lange, Tholuck, Wieseler, and Hengstenberg, who fix upon the 15th Nisan as the day of crucifixion: but it is of no avail if Christ died on the 14th Nisan or before the regular Jewish Passover, according to Seyffarth, Ebrard, Bleek, and others.—P. S.]

[20][This comes nearer the original: Geistlose Geistlche, than the Edinb. trsl.: Unspiritual clerics.—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 26:1-16.

Our Lord’s Death Approaching. The Supper At Bethany

Found also in Mar 14:1-11 Luk 22:1-6 Joh 12:2-8.

Here begins what is commonly called the history of our Lord’s Passion. This is narrated by all four Evangelists, but the matter given in the Fourth Gospel is for the most part distinct from that given in the others. In Mat 26:1-46 everything is preparation. Jesus prepares the disciples for the speedy coming of the long predicted end (Mat 26:1 f.); the rulers lay their plans (Mat 26:3 f.); the anointing prepares Jesus for burial (Mat 26:6-13); Judas arranges to deliver him up Mat 26:14-16; Jesus further prepares the disciples, warns the betrayer, and institutes a memorial of himself for the future (Mat 26:17-30); he then warns them of the approaching trial to their own fidelity (Mat 26:31-35); and finally he prepares himself by solitary prayer for all that awaits him. (Mat 26:36-46.)

Our Lord has now ended his teaching in the temple, and his great eschatological discourse on the Mount of Olives, and goes on to Bethany (Mat 26:6) to spend the night as usual. He reached there probably late on Tuesday afternoon, or if it was after sunset, then in the first hour of Wednesday. We have here his final announcement to the disciples of his approaching death, with some account of the plans of the Jewish rulers for killing him, Mat 26:1-5; then an account of the supper at Bethany, Mat 26:6-13; and finally of Judas’ arrangement to deliver Jesus for money, Mat 26:14-16.

I. Mat 26:1-5. Our Lord’s Death Approaching

Mar 14:1 f.; Luk 22:1 f. Had finished all these sayings, meaning the discourse of Matthew 24 and Matthew 25, and perhaps also including the previous teaching on that day, from Mat 21:23 onward. He said unto his disciples, probably all the Twelve, compare on Mat 24:3. The three preceding recorded predictions of his death are in Mat 16:21; (compare Mat 17:9) Mat 17:22 f.; Mat 20:18 f. The passover, see on "Mat 26:19". Is, cometh, occurs, the word explained see on "Mat 1:22", and very often used; the present tense signifies that the passover so occurs according to the custom and the law, as the disciples know. After two days (so Mar 14:1) must mean less than forty-eight hours, or it would have been called three days (compare on Mat 27:63); the festival began on Thursday afternoon with the slaying of the lamb. The words may be naturally regarded as uttered after sunset on what we should call Tuesday, but according to the Jewish reckoning, the beginning of Wednesday. (See above.) The Son of man, the Messiah, see on "Mat 8:20". Is betrayed, strictly, delivered up (see on "Mat 10:4"; see on "Mat 17:22"), stated in the present tense because it is near and sure to occur. His enemies are planning it, and he is preparing for it. Accordingly, the Latin versions translate by the future, and so did all English versions before K. James. This would from the construction of the sentence be more naturally understood as a part of what the disciples ’know,’ but may be simply appended to it. They knew that he was to be crucified, and at Jerusalem, (Mat 20:18 f.) but we are not informed of their knowing that it would be at the Passover. To be crucified, see on "Mat 27:35". He does not in this case add that he will be raised again, as he did in all the previous announcements of his death. Was it because his death would correspond to the paschal offering, (1Co 5:7) or because the shadow of the cross was now on him, and his thoughts went no further?

Mat 26:3-5. Then naturally, though not necessarily (see on "Mat 3:13"), means at the precise time of what precedes. The night following his great series of discourses in the temple (Mat 21:23 to Mat 23:30), which so defeated and silenced the Jewish teachers, would have been the natural time for this plotting; see Mat 21:45 f The chief priests and the elders were two of the classes[1] constituting the Sanhedrin, see on "Mat 26:57"; also as to the high priest who was called Caiaphas. There is doubt whether we should translate the palace, or the court, i. e., the inner court of the high priest’s official residence, as in Mat 26:69, Rev. Ver., or whether it means in general the residence, palace, as rendered in this place by Grimm, Keim, Weiss, and so in Mat 26:58, and as often used in later Greek. It is perhaps better, with Rev. Ver., to use ’court’ in all three passages, there being no substantial difference. And consulted, took counsel together, (compare Psa 2:2 Act 4:24 ff.) apparently not in an official meeting, but only an informal consultation. They had wished to apprehend him that morning in the temple court, but "feared the multitudes"; (Mat 21:46, Rev. Ver.) they had sent officers to seize him at the feast of Tabernacles, six months before, but the officers were awed by his teaching. (Joh 7:32, Joh 7:45 ff.) Now they propose to take Jesus by subtilty. Com. Ver. renders the Greek word by "guile" in Joh 1:47, and by a still different word "craft" in the parallel passage of Mar 14:1. Weiss: "Thus the rulers were obliged to resort to secrecy. It is not likely that they ever thought of assassination, for Jesus was so constantly surrounded by his disciples that such a deed must have been discovered, and the odium of it would have clung to the supreme Council. The respect entertained for him by his followers could only receive a fatal blow by a public and shameful execution carried through with all the forms of justice; and if he were once safely in confinement, ways and means for the execution would soon be found." Not during the feast, which lasted seven days. The rendering of Com. Ver., on the feast-day, is a mistake. The rulers say nothing as to the sacredness of the occasion, butare only concerned lest there be an uproar among the people. Of this there was always special danger when vast crowds were assembled for a great festival; (compare Mar 12:12) and Pilate had taught them that a popular tumult could become with him the occasion of savage cruelties. The subsequent proposition of Judas (Mat 26:15) led them to change their plan, and take the risk; and so the Saviour’s death came at least a week earlier than they had calculated, and at the time he predicted. (Mat 26:2.)

[1] The Com. text inserts also the ’scribes,’ but this term is wanting in the earliest MSS. and versions, and was evidently interpolated by copyists from Mark and Luke.

II. Mat 26:6-13. The Supper At Bethany

Mar 14:3-9 Joh 12:2-8. Bethany, see on "Mat 21:17". As to the time, no one of the three accounts gives any decisive statement. Mark agrees with Matt. in mentioning the supper immediately after the consultation of the authorities as to seizing Jesus; and Mark’s narrative runs on without any break, so that it would be very difficult to remove his paragraph about the supper to an earlier chronological position. Luke does not speak of the supper, perhaps because he had described a somewhat similar anointing in Galilee, (Luk 7:36-50) but he gives immediately after the consultation the proposition made to the authorities by Judas, which in Matt. and Mark follows in the same order, with the supper between. On the other hand, John mentions the supper just after telling of our Lord’s arrival at Bethany before the triumphal entry, which would place it three or four days earlier. Either John, or Matt. and Mark, must be supposed to have given the event out of its chronological position. Several considerations support the opinion that it occurred where Matt. and Mark mention it. (a) The rebuke of Jesus to a suggestion about the poor which really came from Judas (Joh 12:4) would be the natural occasion of his deciding to carry out the design which may have been previously meditated, viz., to deliver the Master to the authorities; and this agrees with the order of Matt., Mark, and Luke. (b) The outspoken indication that our Lord’s death is at hand (Mat 26:12), agrees greatly better with a time following his intimations in Mat 21:38 f. and Mat 23:39, his eschatological discourse in Matthew 24 and Matthew 25, and his definite prediction here in Mat 26:2, than with a time preceding the triumphal entry. (c) This also better accounts for the idea that the devout woman was preparing him beforehand for burial. (d) We can see a reason for John’s mentioning the supper by anticipation, viz., because he has just spoken of Bethany, and he will speak of it no more. On the other hand, Mark at least has mentioned Bethany before the triumphal entry, (Mar 11:1) and we see no reason why he should have dislocated the supper. John is in general more chronological than Matt., as some have here urged, but not more so than Mark; here Matt. and Mark exactly agree, and to a certain extent Luke also. John’s expressions, Joh 12:2, Joh 12:12, would naturally suggest that the supper occurred at the point of time at which he speaks of it, but they do not at all require that view. The great majority of recent writers follow John’s order, usually without giving reasons. On the other side are Robinson, (but Riddle otherwise), Hackett, G. W. Clark, McClellan, Geikie, and others. It is impossible to settle the question, but the event seems to fit much better into the situation presented by Matt. and Mark. The notion of Origen and Chrys. that there were two different feasts of Bethany, with a similar anointing and conversation, only three or four days apart, is out of the question. The assumption of many that the anointing in Galilee described by Luk 7:36-50 was the same as this, will not bear investigation. The only points of resemblance are (a) anointing by a woman, (b) at a feast, (c) in the house of Simon. But Luke is closely chronological in ch. 5 to 9, if not throughout, and he places his anointing at a much earlier time, and not at Jerusalem, but in Galilee. There the woman was "a sinner," here there is no such intimation, and in John’s account it is the beloved Mary of Bethany. There the host scorned the woman, here (John) her brother is one of the guests, and her sister assisting the family. There we find nothing whatever answering to the complaint of the disciples and the Saviour’s rebuke, justification, and wonderful promise; and on the other hand we find there the parable of the two debtors, and a very different assurance to the woman. The distinct allusion to his death is possible only here, and there is nothing to account for Luke’s removing the story so far away in time and place. An anointing might certainly take place more than once, being a very natural way, according to their customs, of exhibiting reverential affection. (Luk 7:46) The Talmud of Bab. reports it (Wün.) as a custom in Babylon at a wedding for women to pour fragrant oil upon the heads of the rabbis present. A feast where the guests reclined on couches, was a very natural occasion for anointing the feet. The name Simon was very common. Thus the differences between the two cases are many and serious, while the few points of resemblance are easily accounted for. This question is important; for to suppose that Luke had transported this story to Galilee, and so long before, would cut us off from all reliance upon his chronological order, and to suppose that the other Gospels have transformed the event in Galilee into the so different occurrence they here describe, would make the whole history unreliable. As to the occurrence of similar events in various cases, compare above on Mat 13:54, Mat 15:38, Mat 21:12.

In the house of Simon the leper, (so also Mark), who is not otherwise known. Doubtless his leprosy had been healed (compare on Mat 8:2), either by natural causes or by the Saviour’s supernatural work, and he merely retained a distinctive name he had long borne; compare Matthew the publican, Simon the zealot. It would have been a violation of the law of Moses for Jesus and his disciples to recline at table with an unhealed leper. A woman. Matt. and Mark give no name. John states that the woman who anointed was Mary, that Lazarus was one of the guests, and Martha "served,"i. e., took part with the women of the household in preparing and presenting the food. It seems clearly not true, as even Meyer holds, that John represents the supper as given by the well-known family; for in that case the expressions used in regard to Lazarus and Martha would be quite unsuitable. The notion that Simon was the deceased father of this family is idle. The sisters here present the same difference of character as when Luke first mentions them, (Luk 10:38-42) and at the raising of Lazarus (John 11), the one showing love by bustling activity, the other delighting in unpractical and delicate manifestations of affection. True Christian piety does not alter one’s fundamental type of character, but brings out its distinctive excellencies. It has been conjectured that the silence of Luke about Lazarus, and of Matt. and Mark about the whole family, was caused by the jealous hatred of the Jewish rulers, who might have revived their desire to put Lazarus to death, (Joh 12:10) if the family had been brought to their notice in the oral and written accounts given by the apostles; but when the family had all passed away, and the Jewish State had been destroyed, John could speak of them without reserve. Compare on Mat 26:51. An alabaster box or cruse. Some kinds of alabaster are of delicate and richly varied hues, and are extremely beautiful and costly.[1] The Jews, like all the other civilized ancient peoples, made much use of fragrant ointment, often rare and of great price; and the flasks which contained it were of great variety as to material and shape. John says this flask contained ’a pound,’ viz., of twelve ounces. It was, with its contents, a tasteful and costly object, such as a woman would delight in possessing. Very precious ointment. Mark and John tell the kind of ointment, using the same terms. But one of the terms is of uncertain meaning, as stated in margin Rev. Ver. of Mar 14:3, "Gr. pistic nard," pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take it to mean genuine; others, liquid. Yet this uncertainty does not affect the substantial meaning; it was ointment of extraordinary value. Pliny ("Nat. Hist." XII. 26) tells of many kinds of precious nard. And poured it on his head. Mark says, (Rev. Ver.) ’she brake the cruse and poured it.’ The flask, or cruse, probably had a long neck and a small mouth, to prevent evaporation, and the precious ointment was ordinarily extracted in small quantities. Being a thick, viscid mass, it could not be made to flow freely through the opening, and so in her eagerness she ’thoroughly crushed’ the cruse, and poured its contents lavishly upon one so honoured and loved. A thin flask of delicate alabaster could be crushed by the pressure of the hands. As he sat at meat, lit. as he reclined, see on "Mat 8:11". John (Joh 12:2) describes it as a special entertainment in the Saviour’s honour: "So they made him a supper there." John makes the apparently conflicting statement that she "anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped off his feet with her hair." To anoint the head (Matt. and Mark) was the more common service of friendship or honour, but Mary went further and anointed even his feet. It is plain from the Saviour’s expressions about the similar anointing in Galilee, (Luk 7:44-46) that to anoint the feet was an act of greater humility and profound respect. Observe (Morison) that Matt. and Mark simply say ’poured upon his head,’ without inserting ’it’; so there is no difficulty in supposing that she used a part of the contents otherwise, and even that much still remained in the crushed flask (see below on Mat 26:10). John adds "and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment."—Upon this scene, see Tennyson, "In Memoriam," xxxi., xxxii.

[1] Suidas defines alabastron "an oil-vessel having no handles." Some think (Humphry) that the word meant primarily a flask without handles (labe) and was afterwards used to denote the material from which such flasks were often made. Hence the rendering a ’flask’ in margin Rev. Ver.

Mat 26:8 f. Complaint as to such waste. His disciples. Mark says simply ’some.’ John tells us that Judas Iscariot said, "Why was not this ointment sold," etc. It is easy to suppose that Judas first said this, and others of the Twelve approved and so repeated the saying (Mark), which was plausible, and might seem to them proper enough, though Judas himself had suggested the idea through very unworthy motives (Joh 12:6) Dickson (Morison): "One murmurer may infect a whole company." Pliny remarks that indulgence in costly perfumes is more luxurious than in gems and garments, because the former perish in the moment of using. Most of the apostles had little familiarity with such costly luxuries, and the waste might seem to them frightful. The word ’ointment’ is not present in the correct Greek text of Mat 26:9, but is naturally suggested. Might have been sold for much. John: ’for three hundred denaties’; Mark: ’for above three hundred denaries.’ The Roman denary, about seventeen cents (see on "Mat 18:28"), was the common price of a day’s labour. (See on "Mat 20:1".) So the ointment was worth more than three hundred days’ labour, and omitting Sabbath and feast-days, this would be a year of labour. Pliny (XIII, 4), says that some unguents cost more than four hundred denaries a pound. We see at once that the sisters must have been wealthy. A poor young woman could not have possessed a flask of perfumery worth a man’s labour for a whole year; or if by inheritance or extraordinary gift possessing it, she would have had no right to expend so large a sum in an utterly unpractical expression of affection. The inference that they were rich is supported by the fact that many of the Jews came out from Jerusalem to this suburban village to comfort the sisters after their brother’s death; (Joh 11:19) and it explains the propriety of Mary’s leaving Martha "to serve alone", (Luk 10:40) which would have been wrong if they had been poor and unable to secure domestic helpers. The Talmud shows (Edersh.) that wealthy Jewish women often spent large sums for perfumery. And given to the poor, without article (in correct text) to poor people. It has the article in Mat 26:11. Jerusalem abounded in poor people, and many others doubtless came to the passover, as they come now to Jerusalem at Easter, who were needy and dependent on assistance. Within two miles of the supper-table were thousands of the really poor.

Mat 26:10-12. Jesus rebukes the censurers, and vindicates the loving act. When Jesus understood it, or, perceiving it, exactly as in Mat 16:8, Rev. Ver. The complaints had doubtless circulated in a low tone. The Com. Ver. has given an unfortunate rendering, for It would suggest that a considerable time intervened, and the Greek does not. Why trouble ye the woman? The Greek expression is quite strong; see in Mark also, and in Luk 11:7 Gal 6:17. She hath wrought a good work upon me, is presently explained by saying, she did it, etc., (as in Rev. Ver.) did it to prepare me for burial. So Mark, Rev. Ver. "She hath anointed my body aforehand for the burying." John, (Joh 12:7) Rev. Ver., according to the correct text and most natural translation, has, ’Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying,’ which may mean that she had been interrupted, and much of the costly ointment still remained in the broken flask. See another possible translation in margin of Rev. Ver. of John. Ye have the poor always with you. And Mark adds, ’and whensoever ye will ye may do them good.’ (Compare Deu 15:11) But me ye have not always, i. e., in bodily presence; he would be with his people spiritually. (Mat 28:20 Joh 14:21-23) Extraordinary occasions may justify extraordinary expenditures. We may suppose (Keim) that at an earlier period he would have declined the proposed service, and directed attention to the poor. But openings for ministry to the poor would never cease; while their opportunity for personal services to him would soon be at an end. And this apparently useless and wasteful service possessed in fact a special significance and timeliness in connection with that foreseen death which was now so near. (Mat 26:2.) It was an interesting, gratifying, comforting token of affection, as a sort of anticipation (Mark) of the usual anointing when preparing a body for interment; compare the large quantity of costly spices brought by Nicodemus for the actual interment. (Joh 19:39) To receive this loving preparation might help the Saviour to look forward with less pain to the suffering and shame which awaited him. It is not necessary to conclude that Mary so designed her action; but it is very natural to suppose she did, as they were all thinking much of his intimations that he would soon die; at any rate, he so accepted it, and that must have been an unspeakable joy to her. "She hath done what she could"; (Mar 14:8) and she finds that she had really done something extremely grateful to the Master. She could not prevent his approaching death, but she could manifest devoted love for him. Feminine intuitions, kindled by intense affection, might pierce through all preconceptions and accept it as a fearful reality that the Messiah was to be literally killed. This came as a new and startling announcement to her, without time for the mystical interpretations which the disciples appear to have placed upon it. (See on "Mat 16:21".) Whatever fitly manifests, and by reaction strengthens, devout affection—true religious sentiment—is in itself acceptable to Christ and useful to us; for these sentiments are a necessary part of developed and symmetrical Christian character. Nor should they be hastily condemned as unpractical, for they stimulate to corresponding action. This unpractical gift, and the Saviours commendation of it, have themselves caused richer gifts to the poor in all ages than the whole wealth of Jerusalem would have equalled. Twice did Mary incur human censure, and yet, for the same act, received divine commendation. (Luk 10:40) Poured, in Gal 6:12, is not the ordinary word of Gal 6:7, but means threw, cast, flung, a profuse and lavish pouring.

Mat 26:13. This gospel, the good news of the Messianic reign, as in Mat 24:14; and compare Mat 11:5. In the whole world. He here anticipates the universal spread of his teachings and influence. (Compare Mat 28:19) This very remarkable promise concerning the woman was already in process of fulfilment when John wrote his Gospel, probably sixty years afterwards; for he distinguishes this Bethany from the one beyond Jordan (Joh 1:28) by calling it (Joh 11:1 f.) the village of Mary (placed first) and her sister Martha; and then makes all definite and clear by adding, "it was that Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment," etc. He has not yet in his Gospel told the story of the anointing, but he assumes that it is familiar to all Christian readers. Chrys.: "For lo! what he said is come to pass, and to whatever part of the earth thou mayest go, thou wilt see her celebrated." Alexander: "One of the most glorious distinctions ever conferred upon a mortal, a distinction which instead of fading with the lapse of time, grows daily brighter, and to which, as one has well said, even unfriendly critics and interpreters contribute, as it were, against their will and in the very act of doubt or censure."

III. Mat 26:14-16. Judas Proposes To Deliver Jesus To The Chief Priests,

Mar 14:10 f.; Luk 22:3-6. Then does not necessarily (see on "Mat 3:13"), but does naturally indicate that what follows in the narrative occurred immediately after what precedes. Mark and Luke have simply said ’and,’ but place the matter in the same connection as Matthew. The rebuke Judas had received (see on "Mat 26:6"), may have brought to a crisis those wrong feelings towards the Master which he had more or less consciously entertained for a long time. (Joh 6:70 f.) Even after this, when he had made the bargain, and was awaiting an opportunity, Satan took still stronger possession of him upon its becoming manifest that Jesus understood him. (Joh 13:27) Judas Iscariot, see on "Mat 10:3"and see on "Mat 27:3". One of the twelve is a phrase given by all four Evangelists, doubtless because this fact showed how peculiar was his wickedness. The chief priests, see on "Mat 2:4". What will you, etc. What are you willing to give me, is the exact translation. This was expressed in old English by ’what will you give me,’ but that is now understood as a mere future tense, as in the following words. And I will deliver him, the Greek making the ’I’ emphatic. He knows they wish to get Jesus in their hands, and he will gratify them if they are willing to give enough. ’Deliver’ is here correctly translated in Com. Ver. (see on "Mat 10:3"; see on "Mat 17:22"), but in Mat 2:16, and in Mark and Luke, they translated it ’betray,’ with that passion for variety in rendering which marks the early English versions. Compare on Mat 25:46. They covenanted with him. Rev. Ver., weighed unto him. The word means literally placed (in the balance), and is used for weighing money in the classics and the Septuagint, e. g., Zec 11:12, "So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver." The word in Matt. might be translated, ’appointed unto him,’ or ’covenanted with him,’ and these were preferred by the early English versions because Mark says they ’promised,’ Luke ’covenanted,’ to give him money. But Mark and Luke use other terms, and there can be little doubt that Matthew is referring to Zechariah. Coins had certainly been in use from the time of Simon the Maccabee, B. C. 140; (1Ma 15:6) but it may have been still not uncommon to weigh the coins, being of variable value, and this especially on the part of religious functionaries, who usually retain old customs. Matthew’s expression does not require us to understand that they paid it at the moment of his proposition, but that they paid it in advance. Some have plausibly suggested that this sum was only earnest money, and more was to follow. A traitor is seldom trusted with his entire reward in advance. The thirty pieces of silver were probably shekels, Worth in our Lord’s time something over sixty cents, compare on Mat 17:24. Thirty shekels was appointed by the law as damages for the killing of a slave by an ox. (Exo 21:32) He sought opportunity. Luke adds "without a throng." This plan Judas skilfully carried out, finding him at night, and without the city. Jerome : "Unhappy Judas! the loss he thought he had incurred by the pouring out of the ointment, he wishes to make up by selling his Master."

Homiletical And Practical

Mat 26:1. Henry: "So Christ’s witnesses die not till they have finished their testimony."

Mat 26:8-9. Edersheim: "It is ever the light which throws the shadows of objects—and this deed of faith and love now east the features of Judas in gigantic dark outlines against the scene. He knew the nearness of Christ’s betrayal, and hated the more; she knew of the nearness of his precious death, and loved the more." Henry: "It is no new thing forbad affections to shelter themselves under specious covers; for people to shift off works of piety under colour of works of charity."

Mat 26:10."Why trouble ye the woman?" (1) A woman’s love will sometimes be wiser than a man’s judgment. (2) A devout heart will often build better than it knew. (3) An act plausibly censured at the moment may be destined to everlasting honour. Henry: "It is a great trouble to good people to have their good works censured and misconstrued; and it is a thing that Jesus Christ takes very ill."—A good work. (1) A good work, though due to the unaided promptings of a loving heart. (2) A good work, though severely censured by some good men. (3) A good work, though wholly unpractical. (4) A good work, though under ordinary circumstances it would have been wasteful and wrong. (5) A good work, which gained the Saviour’s approval, and will be honoured for evermore.—It has been remarked that the only two persons Jesus is recorded as commending for their gifts were women, one poor, the other rich.

Mat 26:11. Jesus and the poor. (1) By helping the poor we may always honour Jesus. (2) By honouring Jesus we do always help the poor.—Charity to the poor. (1) Charity is not our only duty. (2) Charity must not be made an excuse for neglecting other duties. (3) Charity is greatly promoted by loving devotion to Jesus.

Mat 26:14-16. Chrys.: "Hearken, all ye covetous: and beware of the calamity. For if he that was with Christ, and wrought signs, and had the benefit of so much instruction, because he was not freed from this disease, was sunk into such a gulf; how much more shall ye, who do not so much as listen to the Scriptures, who are constantly riveted to the things present, become an easy prey to this calamity, unless ye have the advantage of constant care."

Mat 26:15. Bishop Hall: "If Judas were Christ’s domestic, yet he was Mammon’s servant; he could not but hate the Master whom he formerly professed to serve, while he really served that master which he professed to hate." Henry: "The greater profession men make of religion, and the more they are employed in the study and service of it, the greater opportunity they have of doing mischief, if their hearts be not right with God."

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13. The Passion of the King.

Chapters 26-27.

CHAPTER 26

1. His Death Planned. (Mat 26:1-5.)

2. Mary of Bethany Anointing the King.(Mat 26:6-13.)

3. The Betrayal. (Mat 26:14-16.)

4. The Last Passover.(Mat 26:17-25.)

5. The Lord’s Supper Instituted.(Mat 26:26-29.)

6. Peter’s Denial Announced and the Scattered Sheep.(Mat 26:30-35.)

7. In Gethsemane. (Mat 26:36-46.)

8. Judas and His Deed. The Arrest of the King. (Mat 26:47-56.)

9. Before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. (Mat 26:57-68.)

10. Peter’s Denial. (Mat 26:69-75.)

The great last discourse of the King being ended there remains now nothing else to record than the story of His passion, His suffering, death and resurrection. This is the record of the remaining three chapters of the first Gospel. Two of these are the longest in the whole book. He had foretold in His great prophecy in the Olivet discourse the future of the Jews, the Christian profession and the future of the nations. Now He is to go and fulfill all the predictions concerning His sufferings and death, as written in Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. The twenty-sixth chapter, which we shall follow briefly, is one of contrasts. Here we behold Him in all His wonderful perfection again. With what calmness and dignity He enters upon that great work, which the Father gave Him to do. On the other hand we see wickedness and Satanic powers revealed which now cast themselves in all their fury upon the holy One. What a wonderful story it is which we have followed in this first Gospel. How marvelous the events and how perfect and divine the entire arrangement! Man could never have written such an account.

This chapter tells us of seven events, which we hope to follow in their order. These are the following:

1. -- The last prediction of His suffering and death (Mat 26:1-5).

2. -- His anointing in the house of Simon, the leper, in Bethany (Mat 26:6-13).

3. -- Judas betrays Him for thirty pieces of silver (Mat 26:14-16).

4. -- The account of the passover meal and the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Mat 26:17-35).

5. -- The agony in the garden of Gethsemane (Mat 26:36-46).

6. -- His capture and the accusations and sufferings before Caiaphas, the high priest (Mat 26:47-68).

7. -- The denial of Peter (Mat 26:69-75).

“And it came to pass when Jesus had finished all these sayings, He said to His disciples, Ye know that after two days the Passover takes place and the Son of Man is delivered up to be crucified. Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together to the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and took counsel together, in order that they might seize Jesus by subtlety and kill Him; but they said, Not in the feast, that there be not a tumult among the people” (Mat 26:1-5).

We notice first of all the last prediction of His death. This is the fourth time He predicts His death in this Gospel. He not only predicts the manner of His death, but now also the time; He is to be crucified at the time of the Passover. All this manifests His Deity. He knew all beforehand. Let none think that all that which was before Him dawned upon Him gradually; He knew every one of the sufferings and all that which was now to come upon His holy head. But what calmness breathes in these words, in which He predicted His coming crucifixion! There is no anxiety, no concern about anything, but to do the will of Him that sent Him and to give Himself as the true passover Lamb.

No sooner is this announcement made and heard from His lips than the enemy becomes also busy. He would hinder this divine purpose that the great sacrifice should be brought at the predicted time. If he could not keep Him from going to the cross, he would attempt, at least, to mar the fullest meaning of that death. The chief priests and the elders are now together in counsel. The men who have appeared so often upon the scene of this Gospel appear once more, and through them the enemy utters his advice “not in the feast.” But this much is decided, the King, the Prince of Life, is to be killed. They must get rid of Him, and so wicked hands are getting ready to crucify and to slay Him, as later the Holy Spirit declared “Him ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” All the wickedness, hatred of man and the sinfulness of sin, as well as Satanic power, is now to be revealed in the sufferings of Christ. And here He is the perfect One in perfect love and obedience, to do the Father’s will, who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.

And now the second scene. It takes place in the house of Simon, the leper, most likely called by that name because he had been afflicted with leprosy. The beautiful incident, full of precious lessons, is followed by the murmuring of the disciples, especially from the side of Judas, as we learn from the Gospel of John.

“But Jesus being in Bethany, in Simon, the leper’s house, a woman having an alabaster flask of very precious ointment, came to Him and poured it out upon His head as he lay at table. But the disciples seeing it became indignant, saying, To what end was this waste? for this might have been sold for much and been given to the poor. But Jesus knowing it said to them, Why do ye trouble the woman? for she has wrought a good work toward me. For ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always. For in pouring out this ointment on my body, she has done it for my burial. Verily I say to you, Wheresoever these glad tidings may be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her” (Mat 26:6-13).

The woman who did this blessed work for the Lord is not named here. From the Gospel of John we learn that it was none other than Mary, the sister of Martha. To fully understand the scene here the account in the Gospel of John must be taken in consideration (Chapter 12). There we read the details of the feast which was made for Him in the house and that Lazarus was also present. How devoted Mary was to her Lord. We first see her at His feet listening to His words. “One thing is needful, and Mary hath chosen that good part,” He had said then. She had acknowledged Him in His office as Prophet. In Joh 11:1-57 we see her again at His feet. There she is weeping on account of the death of Lazarus; a little while later He weeps with her. She knew Him as the sympathizing One, as He is now our Priest. And here she anoints Him, and does it for His burying. In faith she realizes the near approach of that death, of which He had spoken. She believed He, the Lamb of God, would soon die; she understood more of that death than all the other disciples. Perhaps when she sat at His feet He had spoken to her about His coming death and burial and resurrection. But some readers of the Bible have a difficulty. Here in our Gospel she anoints His head, but in the Gospel of John she is at His feet and anoints them, wiping His feet with her hair. Critics and infidels who deny the inspiration of the Bible have pointed this out as one of the glaring contradictions, while others have thought of two different occasions when the anointing took place. There is, however, no difficulty here at all. She anointed both His feet and His head. The Holy Spirit reports the anointing of the head of the Lord in Matthew, because this is in harmony with the object of the Gospel. He is the King, and while He is the rejected King, her faith no doubt looked beyond death and burial. In John the Holy Spirit gives the anointing of the feet and leaves out the anointing of the head, because the King is the Son of God; as such he is described in the Gospel of John, and that attitude of Mary before His feet anointing them is in fullest harmony with the fourth Gospel.

It was an alabaster flask she brought full of ointment of spikenard, very costly. These flasks contained about a pound of this costly ointment; the probable value was 300 denarii, or about $50. It was a very large sum of money in that time, when we remember that a day laborer received only one dinar wages a day. Three hundred denarii was at that time as much as three hundred dollars to-day. How did she obtain so costly an alabaster flask with spikenard? Most likely it had been stored away from bye-gone days. It must have been the most costly she possessed. A heart filled with love and devotion prompted her to bring this costly ointment and pour it over the body of her Lord. To honor Him was her sole object, and that at a time when He was about to be rejected and forsaken by all. And let us not forget that she had learned this devotion and love to Him, manifested in the outpouring of the precious ointment, at His feet. Her heart occupation with the Lord, her anticipation in faith of what was before Him, led her on to do what she did. She had no eyes for what was around her, nor had she ears for the criticism of those who watched her deed. He and He alone was her object.

It should be so with us, and it will be so if we truly abide in Him. We, too, will bring our best to Him. May all we do, yea, the smallest act, be the result of the deepest appreciation of Himself, our wonderful Saviour and Lord.

And much more might be said by way of application of this most blessed incident. For instance from the Gospel of John we learn that the odor of the ointment filled the house. “Thy name is as ointment poured forth,” we read in Solomon’s song; well may we think of that precious ointment poured forth with its fragrant smell as a type of His death. In the same song we read “while the King sitteth at his table my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.” How it must have delighted and refreshed His heart when that ointment enveloped Him with its fragrance.

And now the murmuring. No doubt Judas was the leader of it, as we see in the Gospel of John. Some of the others were influenced by him. “Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor. This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag and bare what was put therein” (Joh 12:5-6). Why this waste, What a state of heart these few words reveal! How different from her, who ever must remain the highest type of Christian discipleship -- Mary. She gave him the very best she had. The others thought of it as waste, as if anything devoted to the Christ of God, the One altogether lovely, could be waste. These two classes among disciples are still present; but how few the Mary-type in heart devotion.

The words He spoke in appreciation of her service and her gift have come blessedly true. Her act will never be forgotten. Beautifully has a saint written on this occurrence: we quote a part of it:

“Reader, whoever you are, or however you are engaged, ponder this. See that you keep your eye directly upon the Lord in all you do. Make Jesus the immediate object of every little act of service, no matter what. Seek so to do your every work as that He may be able to say, ‘It is a good work upon me.’ Do not be occupied with the thoughts of men as to your path or as to your work. Do not mind their indignation or their misunderstanding, but pour your alabaster box of ointment upon the person of your Lord. See that your every act of service is the fruit of your heart’s appreciation of Him; and be assured He will appreciate your work and vindicate you before assembled myriads. Thus it was with the woman of whom we have been reading. She took her alabaster box, and made her way to the house of Simon the leper, with one object in her heart, namely, Jesus and what was before Him. She was absorbed in Him. She thought of none beside, but poured her precious ointment on His head. And note the blessed issue. Her act has come down to us, in the gospel record, coupled with His blessed Name. No one can read the gospel without reading also the memorial of her personal devotedness. Empires have risen, flourished, and passed away into the region of silence and oblivion. Monuments have been erected to commemorate human genius, greatness and philanthropy -- and these monuments have crumbled into dust; but the act of this woman still lives, and shall live for ever. The hand of the Master has erected a monument to her, which shall never, no never, perish. May we have grace to imitate her; and, in this day, when there is so much of human effort in the way of philanthropy, may our works, whatever they are, be the fruit of our heart’s appreciation of an absent, rejected, crucified Lord!”

Mary’s devotion was the cause of the failure of the plans of the enemies that the death of the Lord should not take place in the feast. It stirred up the traitor to action. This no doubt is the reason why the Holy Spirit gives the record of the anointing out of its chronological order. Judas’ dark deed we behold next. “Then one of the twelve, he was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver Him up to you? And they appointed to him thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought a good opportunity that he might deliver Him up” (Mat 26:14-16).

Who was Judas? His surname is given here. Iscariot is composed of two words “Ish” and “Kerioth;” translated “the man of Kerith.” He was the only Judean disciple among the twelve, the rest were all from Galilee. This is significant and shows the apostasy of Judah, this man of Kerioth being the heading up of it as ere long there will be another heading up, in the man of sin and the son of perdition, the personal antichrist, who will be a Jew. (We desire to caution our readers against a fanciful teaching, which lacks scriptural support, that Judas will be raised up during the great tribulation and will be that man of sin, the antichrist foretold in 2Th 2:1-17. Such teaching coming from otherwise reputable teachers of the Bible does much harm.) In Luke we have the information that Satan entered into him. That mighty enemy, who tempted our Lord and found nothing in Him, who took hold of Peter and used him as mouthpiece when he said, “Be it far from thee, Lord,” now takes actual possession of the one, who was indeed his own, for Judas had never believed in Christ. Peter may deny Him and the rest of the disciples forsake their Lord, yet Satan could never enter into them, for they were saved, had life and the power of God kept them. The Lord knew that wicked one among His disciples. “But there are some of you who believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would deliver Him up” (Joh 6:64). “He knew him that delivered Him up; on account of this He said, Ye are not all clean” (Joh 13:11. Furthermore, all this had been predicted in the Old Testament. See Zec 11:12; Psa 41:9; Psa 69:25; Psa 109:8. And the price for which Judas betrayed the King was the price of a servant, a slave, according to Exo 21:32.

And now the great event, the complete fulfillment of His own predictions concerning His sufferings and His death, draws nearer. He was not taken by surprise in anything. In the calmest dignity He moves on, knowing His Father’s will He had come to do and that the mighty work could never fail, but would be accomplished. He is ready to pay the purchase price, to give all, to die for the nation, to obtain the treasure and the field and the one pearl of great price likewise. And now we follow Him and the disciples to the feast.

“Now on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover? And He said, Go into the city unto such a one, and say to him, The Teacher says, My time is near, I will keep the passover with my disciples in thy house. And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the passover. And when the evening was come He lay down at table with the twelve. And as they were eating He said, Verily I say to you, that one of you shall deliver Me up. And being exceedingly grieved they began to say to Him, each of them, Is it I, Lord? But He answering said, He that dips his hand with Me in the dish, he it is that shall deliver Me up. The Son of Man goes indeed according as it is written concerning Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is delivered up; it were good for that man if he had not been born. And Judas, who delivered Him up, answering said, Is it I, Rabbi? He says to him, Thou hast said” (Mat 26:17-25).

Is it not the purpose of our exposition to compare the different Gospel records, and so we shall not refer to the different accounts, which certainly are not conflicting. The first day of the feast of the unleavened bread was the day on which the passover was to be killed (Luk 22:7). It is, therefore, clear that He and His disciples commemorated then the Jewish Paschal Supper. He Himself does the ordering and manifests Himself as Lord throughout. Once more He announces the nearness of His passion -- “My time is near.” What a moment that was! They had attempted before to take His life. That was impossible. The time is now near, His time, when the King was to lay down His life. Directly we see Him at the table with the twelve, and while they were eating He announces the fact of one of them being the traitor. What follows in that conversation may well be taken for a last warning to Judas. The Lord had seen him turning to the chief priests and knew of his bargaining with them. He read the whole dark story in that heart, which was before Him, the omniscient One, as an opened book. “Verily I say to you, that one of you shall deliver me up.” This must have been aimed at the conscience of Judas Iscariot. Did he also show surprise? Did his face turn red or into paleness as he saw the innermost thoughts of his heart revealed? Each of them, with the exception of Judas, asks the question, Is it I, Lord? Judas is silent. Under the power of that awful being, Satan, who held him in his grasp, he hardens his heart. But more than that the Lord speaks. “He that dips his hand with me in the dish, he it is who shall deliver me up.” The more detailed account of all this we find in the Gospel of John. While here we have only the fact stated of the betrayer dipping his hand into the dish, in John we read that the Lord gave him a sop. And Judas could take that morsel, a token of the love of the Lord whom he had rejected and was about to betray. It was a silent offer from the side of the Lord to give even to him, but he would not. He rejects that offer. Again we have the record for the second time that Satan entered into him (Joh 13:27). It was right after he had taken the morsel. The last offer was rejected, and now Satan gains a still firmer hold upon him and possesses him fully. At last these closed lips open. What awful, satanic hypocrisy he utters! “Is it I, Rabbi?” Such hypocrisy in the presence of Him who is the Truth can only be explained by the presence of that being in Judas, who is the father of lies. It is also a significant fact that Judas did not say “Lord” but he used the word “Rabbi” instead. This is evidence that he never had received Him as Lord and believed on Him as the Lord. He had power conferred on him to drive out the demons and to heal the sick -- messianic power, coming from the King, but he was nevertheless an unbeliever. “Rabbi” he said, because Satan had entered into him, and Satan refuses to call Him Lord. Yet the time will come when all knees, including Judas, must bow at (not in) the names of Jesus and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. For thus it is written: “Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, and granted Him a name, which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of heavenly and earthly and infernal beings and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to God the Father’s glory” (Php 2:9-11). From the lips of the Lord he hears the “Woe,” and, according to the Gospel of John, “he went out immediately and it was night.” He went out into a night without a morning, into eternal night, the blackness of darkness forever (Jud 1:13). And all who reject that Lord, who wilfully close their hearts against Him and refuse His authority, go into that night.

In connection with this solemn scene we find the description of another scene. We have now the record of the institution of that great and blessed memorial, generally called the Lord’s supper.

“And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken the bread and blessed, broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And having taken the cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that is shed for many for remission of sins. But I say to you that I will not at all drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father. And having sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives” (Mat 26:26-30).

What the passover feast of the Jews commemorated is so well known that it does not need further mention here. And now the true passover Lamb is about to be slain and He institutes another feast, a great and blessed memorial of His mighty work, of His sacrificial death upon the cross. “On that night the Jewish dispensation came to an end. The Passover, its great institution, had fulfilled its purpose; the Paschal Lamb it prepared for and prefigured was the next day to be slain. The same night saw the inauguration of a new feast which embodies the fundamental truth of Christianity, as the Passover embodied the fundamental truth of Judaism.” (Weston in the Genesis of the New Testament.)

How fearfully the words of our blessed Lord have been misused, what blasphemous doctrines have been built upon the simple language of the Lord and how this blessed memorial has become the occasion for strife, violence and even bloodshed, we do not care to follow in our exposition. It would take hundreds of pages to record all that. The Roman dogma of the transubstantiation is a downright blasphemy. Hundreds of saints have been tortured and killed for stating thus the lie of transubstantiation, and, if Rome could, she would do the same in the present day. This transubstantiation claims that the bread and wine are changed into the real body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. And then there is the consubstantiation, the doctrine that the body and blood of Christ coexists in and with the bread and wine, although they retain their nature as bread and wine. This is more or less the teaching of the Lutheran church.

But we refrain from following the different teachings concerning the Lord’s supper. What can be more evident than that the new feast He instituted is a memorial? The Passover feast was a feast of remembrance, and what He does here on that solemn night was a simple meal to commemorate the giving of His body and the shedding of His blood. The account given here of the institution of the Lord’s supper is in harmony with the character of this first Gospel. The Holy Spirit gives the record to show the blood of the new covenant, which the lamb of God shed for many, in contrast to the Jewish Passover, the old covenant which was exclusively only for the Jewish people. If we turn to the Gospel of Luke, which is wider in its scope than the Gospel of Matthew, we read the words, which give to the Lord’s supper decidedly the character of a memorial. “Do this in remembrance of Me.” It is then simply this to remember Him, not to receive anything, but to remember Him and His love. This is still more enforced by another record which we have of this great memorial. We find a record outside of the Gospels altogether. This record was given by revelation to the Apostle Paul: “For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you; this do in remembrance of Me. In like manner also the cup after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, this do, as often as ye shall drink it in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup ye announce the death of the Lord until He come” (1Co 11:23-26). And what better way could there be than the way He has shown in this request to remember Him, in this simple ceremony of breaking the bread and partaking of it and drinking from the cup? No doubt this request was fulfilled by the Saints of earliest date on every Lord’s day; Act 20:7 certainly gives one that impression; yet there is no law about it. The soul that is occupied with Him will ever long to fulfill that request He left in that night ere He was delivered up. “Till He comes” up to the time when we shall see Him face to face in the Father’s house. It ever keeps Him, His death for us and His coming again as a bright and blessed reality before the heart.

“See the feast of Love is spread, Drink the wine and break the bread; Sweet memorials -- till the Lord Call us around His heavenly board; Some from earth, from Glory some, Severed only till He come.”

But we return to the words of the Lord in this Gospel. Significant is the statement “But I say unto you, that I will not at all drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.” These words are characteristic to this Gospel. In Luke and Mark we read that He speaks of Himself as not drinking of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God has come. But here He speaks of that day when not only He will drink it anew but when He will drink it anew with His disciples in the kingdom of His Father. The words are beautifully in order in this Gospel, which, as we have learned, tells us so much of the kingdom. There is a day coming when that Kingdom will come in power and in Glory. It is the day of His return. Then His own will be associated with Him in heavenly Glory. For a deeper knowledge of that drinking anew with Him, the wine, the fullest joy in that mighty coming Manifestation, we have to wait till that day of Glory breaks. Dispensationally we see the King separated from His own people till the hour strikes when His Kingdom comes.

And now they leave the room after they had sung a hymn. This has been and is still the custom of the Jews in connection with the passover feast. Indeed it would be interesting and helpful to mention here the passover customs of the Jews; they are full of significant ceremonies. However this would lead us too far. Suffice it to say that the hymn they sang consisted of Psa 115:1-18; Psa 116:1-19; Psa 117:1-2; Psa 118:1-29. In the Jewish ritual they are called the great Hallel. With what emotion of soul He must have sung with His disciples! What encouragement it must have been for Him! These Psalms contain such blessed and full messianic predictions. “The stone, which the builders refused, is become the head of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing, it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. Save now, I beseech thee, send now prosperity. Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” These words come in at the close of that hymn they sung, and while the disciples sang them as they had done so often before as pious Jews, for Him it meant so much. A little while longer, just a few hours, and the builders would reject Him. A few days more and by resurrection from the dead He would be the head of the corner, the chief stone, and in that shout, “Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the Lord,” He saw in the distant future a welcome from the remnant of His people, at the time of His Second Coming. And so the blessed One even then saw the travail of His soul and was satisfied.

The last notes have died away and He speaks again. “Then said Jesus to them, All ye shall be offended in me during this night. For it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered abroad; but after that I shall be risen, I will go before you to Galilee. And Peter answering said to Him, If all shall be offended in Thee, I will never be offended. Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee, that during this night, before the cock shall crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter saith to Him, If I should need die with Thee, I will in nowise deny Thee. Likewise said all the disciples also” (Mat 26:31-35). He revealed thus what was before them. The Scripture to which He refers is found in Zechariah. They were His sheep and He the shepherd, as He speaks of Himself in the Gospel of John, the good shepherd, who gives His life for the sheep. But the smiting of the shepherd, the smiting of Him who is called in that prophecy of Zechariah the fellow of God (Zec 13:7), what was that to be? The cry of the forsaken One on the cross gives us the answer. He knew all that was before Him. (The teaching of the so-called critics, so strong today throughout the professing church, a school which claims that the Lord had no full knowledge of what the Scriptures contained, this teaching must be branded as wickedness.) And again we notice His calmness, His dignity through all this, which to a mere man would have been an almost unbearable ordeal. Then He announces His resurrection and that He would go before them to Galilee. Later we shall find the risen One there with His disciples, announcing the fact that He has all power in heaven and on earth. There is no mention made of His ascension. Peter now looms up. Once more poor Peter acts in self confidence in his own strength. The Lord had told Him before, “Where I go thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me after” (Joh 13:36). What significant words these were. They remind one of the third chapter of Joshua, of the record of the passing over Jordan. There was to be a space of two thousand cubits between the ark of the covenant and the people. The ark of the covenant of the Lord, typifying Christ, was alone by itself and had to make way for the people, and they followed after. So Peter would follow Him and die with Him, but he could not. Afterwards at the Lake of Tiberias the risen Christ tells him that he should indeed follow, revealing the time and the manner of his death, a death which the grace of God, the strength of the Lord made alone possible. Here he acts in the flesh, and in spite of the Lord’s warning, he maintains that attitude, the attitude of self-confidence. The Lord announces his soon coming denial, the record of which we find at the close of our chapter.

“Then Jesus comes with them to a place called Gethsemane, and says to the disciples, sit here until I go away and pray yonder. And taking with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, He began to be sorrowful and deeply depressed. Then He says to them, My soul is very sorrowful even unto death; remain here and watch with Me. And going forward a little He fell upon His face, praying and saying, My Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from Me; but not as I will, but as Thou wilt. And He comes to the disciples and finds them sleeping, and says to Peter, Thus ye have not been able to watch one hour with Me? Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak. Again going away a second time He prayed, saying, My Father, if this cannot pass from Me unless I drink it, Thy will be done. And coming He found them again sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. And leaving them He went away again and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. Then He comes to the disciples and says to them, Sleep on now and take your rest; behold the hour has drawn nigh, and the Son of man is delivered up into the hands of sinners. Arise, let us go; behold he that delivers me up has drawn nigh.” (Mat 26:36-46)

What a holy scene it is that is now before us! We are face to face with the most solemn event in the life of the Son of God, save that hour when He hung on the cross, forsaken by God. It is a Scripture which we approach with the greatest caution; the words are ringing in our ears, the words which Moses heard when he stood in divine presence “put off thy shoes from off thy feet for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” It is a scene which draws out the heart in worship and adoration for it was for us He passed through this deep agony, for us that He, the mighty Creator fell on His face, into the dust of earth, He had created.

Hark! what sounds of bitter weeping, From yon lonesome garden sweep? ‘Tis the Lord His vigil keeping, Whilst His followers sink in sleep. Ah, my soul, He loved thee, Yes, He gave Himself for me. He is speaking to His Father, Tasting deep that bitter cup, Yet He takes it, willing rather For our sakes to drink it up. Oh what love! He loved me! Gave Himself, my soul, for thee.

Even so, He loved me and gave Himself for me. Oh Thou blessed Lord, what agony Thou didst go through for the sake of having us poor, vile, miserable, lost sinners with Thee and share Thy presence and Glory throughout eternity. And how little we appreciate, honor and adore Thee! Much rather would we write in the strain of devotion and worship than to attempt by feeble human words a closer study of Gethsemane. Of an exposition of the events of that night we dare not speak. The suffering of our Lord in the garden is beyond the ken of any saint; no saint of God will ever be able to fathom the deep mystery of the sufferings of the holy One. If we could fully grasp His marvelous personality, how holy, how absolutely holy He was and absolutely perfect in Himself, we might be able to enter deeper into the agony of our Lord. Only the right estimate of His Person can give us, at least in part, a little of the meaning of His deep sorrow unto death.

But alas! just into this holy scene man with his reason and wrong conception has intruded and by attempting to solve the mystery of the suffering of the Lord has put dishonor upon His person. Different interpretations are about, which belittle and dishonor Him. We would rather pass these by, but it is expedient that we do not.

But recently, in a leading Christian magazine, the following appeared from the pen of a well known preacher:

“The second interpretation is, that He prayed literally to be delivered from death, then and there; that the severity of His agony was such that His physical nature was unable to bear it, and, unless sustained miraculously, life would have become extinct in the Garden of Gethsemane; that the conflict with Satan was so intense and prolonged that His human nature would have given way but for the Father’s help. In this aspect, this was the gravest crisis of His dependence and need, and the Father did support and sustain, so that, instead of dying in Gethsemane, He was enabled and strengthened to go on to the greater agony and crisis of Calvary. We confess that our own minds turn absolutely and instinctively to the latter of these interpretations as the more rational, scriptural, and satisfactory.”

We do not deny, that this interpretation is rational, but it is far from being scriptural. Indeed it has the elements of wicked doctrine in it. If it is true “that the conflict with Satan was so intense and prolonged that His human nature would have given way but for the Father’s help” then Satan must have had the power to slay the Prince of Life. The reader will see at once to what such a conception must lead us. This interpretation likewise speaks of the agony His physical nature was unable to bear unless sustained miraculously and the possibility of His life becoming extinct in the garden. He, instead of dying on the cross, dying in Gethsemane. All this dishonors our Lord. We cannot tolerate such a thought for a moment. His life could never become extinct in Gethsemane ; there was no such danger of His death. At no time was our blessed Lord in danger of death. His body was not mortal but immortal. Death is the result of sin; where there is no sin death has no claim. Our Lord could never die under the attacks of the enemy. On the cross where He, who knew no sin was made sin for us, He gave His life; then as our substitute He died. His death could never take place till that solemn moment had come, when He was made sin for us on the cross. Furthermore He said: “Therefore doth my Father love Me, because I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down myself, I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (Joh 10:17-18). Another view has recently been advanced. A brother wrote us about this as follows: “Have you seen anywhere that in Gethsemane, our Lord was delivered from death which he feared, according to Heb 5:1-14; and was strengthened to go on to the death on the cross, at which He aimed, and for which He came? His willingness to stop short of His finished work, and let all that He had accomplished thus far go if the Father so willed it, is the greatest instance of submission on record.” The first statement is not true, as He was not delivered from death and the second statement is inconceivable. How could He be willing to stop short of His finished work, when He entered into the world for that very purpose and all depended on that work? How could He be willing to stop short of it after His own Spirit in the prophets had spoken of His sufferings and the accomplishment of this work of atonement? Such a conception is highly fanciful and full of mysticism. We refrain from pointing out other difficulties connected with this theory of His sufferings in the garden. But did He perhaps shrink from the physical sufferings of the cross, as others have maintained? Assuredly not, for He had announced so often, as we have seen in this Gospel, His rejection, suffering and death. And if it was not all that which is suggested in these different interpretations of His agony, what was it then? What was that cup which He dreaded? What was that sorrow unto death? It was this very fact we stated before, that He the Holy, the Spotless One, the One who is the image of God, was soon to be made sin and to stand in the presence of God, no longer as the Beloved One, but in the sinner’s stead. God’s face upon which He had ever gazed which had ever smiled upon Him was soon to be hid. That eternal love He enjoyed was to be no longer upon Him, but in its place judgment and wrath of God. And what was it when at last He was made sin for us? That awful cry from the cross gives us the answer, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” But oh! what did that cry mean for that Holy One? Shall we ever know its depths and the awful suffering the Holy One, made sin for us, had to pass through, when thus He cried? From this His holy soul shrank. His holiness and perfection even made this shrinking necessary. He could do nothing else but shrink from it, and yet He bows in perfect submission and obedience to the Father’s will. Not my will but Thy will be done. This was before Him in the garden in that dark night of agony and sorrow. And here we would rest. But all praise and adoration to Thee our blessed Saviour and Lord for all Thine agony and sorrow and for Thine obedience unto the death of the cross!

Two Scriptures, one from the Old Testament, the other from the New, may be mentioned as giving further light on Gethsemane. The one hundred and second Psalm may be rightly termed “The Gethsemane Psalm.” Its superscription is, “A prayer of the afflicted, when he is overwhelmed, and poureth out his complaint before God.” It begins with the deepest distress and ends with the eternal Glory of the One who was in such sorrow. In the first part of this Psalm we find the great sorrow. Well may one think here of that pathetic outburst found elsewhere in the Word, “Behold and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow” (Lam 1:12). First we hear His cry, “Hide not Thy face from Me in the day when I am in trouble.” Then He speaks of His days being consumed; His bones burned, His heart smitten and withered like grass; He is alone in His weeping and crying. Then again we hear the voice of the sufferer. “He weakened my strength in the way; He shortened my days. I said oh my God, take me not away in the midst of my days...” The words which follow are not addressed by the agonizing sufferer to God, but God addresses them to the sufferer, who is prostrated before Him. No one could have ever had this conception if the Holy Spirit had not given us the key. In the first chapter of Hebrews the closing words of the Psalm are quoted and there they are given as addressed by God Himself to the Son. As in the twenty-second Psalm, the deepest humiliation and then the exaltation of the One who suffered so we find it in the Gethsemane Psalm. The last verses of the one hundred and second Psalm are God’s answer to the One who is bowed down in deepest sorrow.

The other passage we have in mind is the familiar one in the Epistle to the Hebrews. “Who in the days of His flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to Him who was able to save Him out of death, with strong crying and tears (and having been heard because of His piety); though He were Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered” (Heb 5:7-8). There is no doubt but these words refer us back to the Gethsemane scene. The supplications and entreaties with strong crying and tears took place in Gethsemane ; yea, even more than that, the sweat as if it were great drops of blood. But it does not say that He was saved “from” death. It is often assumed that He cried to be saved from death and upon this some of these Christ dishonoring conceptions are formed. He cried to Him who was able to save Him out of death. And He was heard. The answer came in His resurrection from the dead. But to return to the scene in the garden.

Where do we find His disciples? Three He had taken with Him and told them to remain there and watch with Him. Soon they were asleep. They were on the holy mountain with Him, eyewitnesses of His Glory. And did they sleep then? Luk 9:32 gives us the answer. “But Peter and they that were with Him were heavy with sleep; and when they were awake, they saw His Glory, and the two men that stood with Him.” This manifests what the flesh is, which is fully exhibited in the disciples. Their Lord in tender love, appearing almost as if He looked for their sympathy, had requested them to watch with Him. Instead they sleep. How could they have looked into His loving face, with the solemn feeling upon them of great events soon to come and then going to sleep! Did that show love for Him? And He had spoken to them about not falling into temptation. They did not realize their need and their danger. And what tenderness and grace He manifests toward His disciples, who had failed! Oh the Glory of Himself even in that dark hour; how it shines forth! After He had prayed the third time He said to them, “Sleep on now and take your rest; behold, the hour is nigh, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners.” Marvelous words of grace, calmness and dignity. The Shepherd is ready to give His life for the sheep, that they might have life and rest. The sword is soon to be unsheathed and fall upon the Shepherd, the man called by God “my fellow” (Zec 13:7). The Lamb of God is ready to take away the sin of the world, ready to go to the slaughter as a lamb and as a sheep dumb before her shearers. Yea, the Holy One, the adorable, blessed One is ready to be stricken and smitten of God. What a path was His! Humbling Himself, He became obedient even unto death, and that the death of the cross. The last part of that path is now before Him. What a theme it is! What food for our souls and what exercise of soul it brings to contemplate Him who for the joy set before Him endured the cross and despised the shame.

What other applications of this touching scene in Gethsemane might be made. How it teaches us submission and obedience and the highest prayer, the sweetest prayer as well to our Loving Father “Not my will but thy will be done.” We leave these meditations to our readers with the prayer that He Himself may speak to each heart. Oh Lord, our Lord, we cannot fathom Thy Being, we cannot fully understand what Thou wast, but we know Thy love for us! We praise and adore Thee. Make Thyself a greater reality to our hearts. Amen.

And what a story it is which we have before us, the story of the passion of the King. And who could be able to follow the Lamb of God and fathom the depths of His sorrow! What it must have been for Him, the Holy, spotless One, to be thus delivered into the hands of sinners! Again we say that it is quite impossible to write an exposition of all these solemn events connected with the suffering and death of our Lord. Much of what might be written by way of application we must leave unsaid; it would take volumes to do that.

It was while He was still speaking to His disciples that the enemies came to take hold of Him, to take the Beloved of the Father captive. “And while He was yet speaking, Behold Judas, one of the twelve came, and with him a great crowd with swords and sticks” (Mat 26:47). It seems that Judas made good use of his time since he left the room where the feast was kept. The Lord had said to him, knowing the thoughts of his dark heart, “What thou doest, do quickly.” Possessed by Satan, he had rushed forth into the dark night, and, in feverish haste, led on by the evil one, he had succeeded in all his plans. The officers and a detachment of Roman soldiers, most likely several hundred, were put at his disposal. These carried swords and other weapons, besides lanterns and torches. These were Gentiles; perhaps of different countries, such which Rome had conquered. But there were others, and they carried sticks. The temple guard had turned out in full force; these were the hirelings of the chief priests and elders. The rabble of the street no doubt was also represented, for it was a great crowd. What a scene! Gentiles and Jews come to lay their hands on the Prince of Life, the Lord of Glory, ready to commit the greatest sin. All the sinfulness of sin is now to be manifested. But why such a great multitude and such precaution to capture one man, who was “meek and lowly”? What a testimony after all to His power, which they feared and yet what blindness.

Judas appears first on the scene. Behold Judas! What a surprise it must have been for the disciples, aroused from sleep, to find him present who had withdrawn from them under such mysterious circumstances. From the Gospel of Luke we learn that he was not only the leader of the great crowd but he walked ahead of them. What a subtle plan he had laid, and in it the cunning of that same Serpent which was in that garden, in which the first Adam had been placed. How cunning and yet how blunt. All had been arranged so as to make His escape impossible. The traitor was to kiss Him so that the Lord might be known and likewise become detached from the disciples; then they were to press at once upon Him and capture Him. All was carefully premeditated. Judas by his action and his plan shows that he did not believe in the Lord as the Son of God; he knew His power. When he walked before them he may have cunningly aimed at the hiding of his satanic deed.

And now he reaches the side of Him whom he still calls “Rabbi.” The first word he utters was a word of joy. “Oh, the joy! Rabbi” -- thus it reads in literal translation. Then he kissed Him eagerly. The symbol of love, devotion and faithfulness so much used in the Orient is used by the traitor. What must the Holy One have suffered, when the one who had been in His loving company came up and had uttered that word, “Oh, the Joy”? What suffering must have passed through that loving heart when He felt the vile lips of that one upon His cheeks!

And to think that He who rebuked the sea and it obeyed His voice, whose omnipotent word had healed the sick and raised the dead, should thus be delivered up. Oh, what a story it is!

“But Jesus said to him, Friend, for what purpose art thou come?” What calm and gentle answer to the Satan-possessed Judas Iscariot. Should not this tender question have touched the conscience of the traitor? He was beyond hope. It is significant that the Lord addresses him with the word, Friend. Yet it is a different word which the Lord used in calling His disciples as recorded in Joh 15:1-27. The word He uses here signifies “companion.” Judas had been a companion of the Lord, He had beheld His mighty works, and had by Him messianic power to heal the sick conferred upon himself. This is the last word that wicked man ever heard addressed to himself by the Lord. The next time we behold him is when he is filled with remorse, casting the pieces of silver in the temple; then he went and hanged himself.

And now they laid hands upon the Lord and seized Him. The rough hands of the inhuman Roman soldiers, the cruel hands of the hating Jewish mob took hold of that sinless body of the Lamb of God. All were energized by Satan who stands behind all this and that which follows; it is the hour of darkness and the manifestation of the power of darkness upon Him, the willing sacrifice.

But far different is the description of His betrayal in the Gospel of John. Not a word is said in that Gospel of His agony in the garden. As Son of God, described in the fourth Gospel, no such record would be in order. And when they come to take Him, He meets them with a calm, “Whom seek ye?” His majestic answer “I am,” makes the whole multitude of Roman soldiers, temple guards and the mob fall down. “They went backward and fell to the ground.” All He needed to do was to walk away and disappear between the trees of the garden. There is, of course, no discrepancy here. The Gospel of John simply shows the divine side of that scene. He allowed Himself bound, and that with the condition “let these go away.” He surrenders Himself; His own are free. Blessed hint of that precious Gospel of the Son of God.

An incident is connected with this great event which is full of instruction. The hasty action of Peter, as we learn from the Gospel of John, almost marred the gracious scene, and only the Lord’s hand could overrule the serious consequences of that action and bring good out of it. The confusion of the disciples must have been great when their beloved Master was taken captive. To see how the meek One, whom they had followed, at whose feet they had sat, in whom they believed as the Christ of God, was taken by these rough men, was too much for them. They had between themselves two swords. The words of the Lord about “Selling his garment and buying a sword” had been taken literally by them. Simon Peter possessed one of these swords, and had he not said he would be willing to lay down his life for the Lord? Now the opportunity had come to show his willingness to redeem his promise and his loyalty to his Master. In fearful rashness he draws the sword and strikes the one next to him. He strikes with the intent to kill. The one hit is the servant of the High Priest by name of Malchus. The mercy of the Lord prevented the worst and Peter only takes off the ear of the servant. Surely it was courage in Peter to do this. To attack such a large body of people was fearlessness; loyalty to Christ was the cause of the action. And yet how it belittled the Lord! Did He who had said just the word “I am” and his enemies had fallen into the dust, need such a defense? Did He who willingly stretched out His hands, the willing captive, need Peter’s interference to make Him free? Upon the holy mount Peter had quite lost sight of the dignity of Him whom he called Lord and classed Him with Moses and Elias, and here he errs in the same manner. The Lord has to remind him of his mistake. “Return thy sword to its place; for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword. Or thinkest thou that I cannot now call upon my Father, and He will furnish me more than twelve legions of angels? How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be?” (Mat 26:52-54). If it were a case of self-help how easy it would have been for Him to summon the angels. Peter stood in all probability in the attitude of defiance, ready to strike again if he should be attacked in return. He is told to put up the sword. Though loyal to the Lord, he had dishonored Him and not manifested the graciousness and mind of Him, whom He tried to defend. Alas! how many of us have followed impulsive Peter in this action.

The Scriptures had to be fulfilled, and from now on we see indeed the fulfillment of Scripture. Elsewhere we read that the Lord touched the ear of the wounded servant and healed him. It was the last miracle of healing the Lord performed before He went to the cross, and that was done to an enemy. In the tumult and confusion of the hour the act of Peter passed unnoticed.

“In that hour said Jesus to the crowds, Are ye come out against a robber with swords and sticks to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple and ye did not seize me? But all this is come to pass that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left Him and fled” (Mat 26:55-56). The word He had spoken was now fulfilled, “All ye shall be offended because of Me this night; for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.” The Shepherd is left alone. We pass over the account found only in the Gospel of Mark about the young man who followed clad in a linen garment.

Alone and forsaken the blessed Lord is taken away captive. What a scene it must have been! The fleeing disciples disappearing in the darkness of the night, the mob leading Him hence; no doubt they buffeted Him with blasphemous curses dragging Him along and so soon Gethsemane, the place of that solemn drama, is enshrouded in the stillness of the night. But oh, what it was that took place there. The mighty Creator, the Son of God, the Holy One in His agony and sinful man laying hold of the Lord of Glory!

We will be obliged as we pass on in meditating on the passion of our Saviour to confine ourselves strictly to the Gospel, which we study. We do not write an exposition of the entire story of His suffering and what was done to the Man of Sorrows, but only as the Holy Spirit has recorded these events in the first Gospel. And in doing this, we shall point out only the leading features.

First we see Him before Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. They expected Him to be brought in. What triumph must there have been upon their faces, when at last in that memorable night, the One whom they hated and despised was brought securely bound into their presence, under arrest in the hands of the Gentiles.

He must appear before the ecclesiastical council first; He must be tried there. But what can they say against Him? What evil had He done? They had watched Him closely. Deputations, one after another, had tried to ensnare Him. Pharisees and Sadducees, as we have seen in our study of this Gospel, had come to tempt Him. They found nothing in Him. He had asked the question in one of His great discourses, which they had heard. Which of you convinces Me of sin? There was no answer. He was the sinless One, the perfect and holy One. But it is their hour and the power of darkness. Thus we read: “And the chief priests and the elders and the whole Sanhedrin sought false witness against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.” But did they succeed? “And they found none, though many false witnesses came forward.” They could find nothing. Therefore, He ought to be freed. “But at the last two false witnesses came forward and said, He said I am able to destroy the temple of God, and in three days build it.” But this was a wrong quotation of His words and a wrong application. Besides this, as we learn from the Gospel of Mark, the witnesses did not agree amongst themselves. It was impossible to convict Him on such a charge. He had not a word to say. They look upon Him with their awful hatred. The high priest attempts to get Him to answer. “Answereth Thou nothing?” “But Jesus was silent.” It is obvious they could not convict Him. The charge against Him was blasphemy. They had miserably failed in proving anything whatever against the Lord. But condemned to death, He must be. He must die.

There remained just one thing to be done, and that was to put a question to Him directly, a question, which He could not refuse to answer. Why did they not do this at once? He had first to be shown as the Holy One, the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish. The moment has come. Most likely the High priest in his excitement had arisen from his seat. The silent victim stands immediately before Him. They are face to face. The furious, heated face of Caiaphas looks into the loving tender eyes of the Lord. Did this high priest and his associates know that this lowly One, standing bound in their presence, is the Son of God, the promised Messiah? They knew that He had given the witness to that effect throughout His public ministry. He had not only given the self-witness, that He and the Father are one, that He is the Son of God, but His works had fully established His Deity. The last question the Lord put to the Pharisees concerning the Christ, whose son He is, (Chap, 22) had been answered by Him in a way they all understood. There was no doubt, they knew Him, even as the Lord had said in the parable, “He is the Heir; come let us kill Him”. The high priest knew he would succeed if he put that question concerning His Sonship to Him. But little he knew what he was doing; the blessed One could not be condemned by false witnesses. His own confession of who He was, the confession of the truth alone could bring about His condemnation. “And the high priest answering said to Him, I adjure Thee by the living God that Thou tell us if Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus says to Him, Thou hast said. Moreover, I say to you, From henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Mat 26:63-64.)

Under that oath He could not be silent. For this moment He was waiting to witness that good confession. He confesses Himself the Christ, the Son of God and witnesses to His future Glory at the right hand of power, and His visible manifestation at the time of His Coming again in the clouds of heaven. What a confirmation of the fact that He is the willing sacrifice of the Holy One, who will drink that bitter cup and fulfill the Scriptures. “They all heard it -- and, as the Law directed when blasphemy was spoken, the high priest rent both his outer and inner garment, with a rent that might never be repaired. But his object was attained. Christ would neither explain, modify, nor retract His claims. They all had heard it. What use was there of witnesses.” Behold now ye have heard the blasphemy. “Then turning to those assembled, he put to them the usual question which preceded the formal sentence of death. As given in the rabbinic original it is: ‘What think ye gentlemen? And they answered, If for life, “For Life.” If for death: “For death.”‘ But the formal sentence of death, which if it had been a regular meeting of the Sanhedrin, must now have been spoken by the president, was not pronounced.” (Edersheim)

“What think ye? And they answering said, He is liable to the penalty of death.” (Mat 26:66). What a justice! Satanic, fiendish injustice rather. But there He stands, the silent Lamb of God. What a picture! Oh that we might behold Him once more as He stood before this company of His enemies. What calmness. “Majestic in His silence, majestic in His speech; unmoved by threats to speak, unmoved by threats when He had spoken.”

And now affecting the scene, which follows. His confession set the powers of darkness loose and the undefending Christ, the Son of God is tasting a little of the cup He had to drink. Oh to think of it! They spit in His face! That face, which in loving tenderness had gazed with compassion upon the multitudes, yea, that face, the image of the invisible God, was covered with vile spittle of men. How He must have suffered! They buffeted Him, struck Him with the palms of their hands, mocked Him. And not a word, not a murmur came from His blessed lips. “When reviled, He reviled not again, when suffering, He threatened not.” And reader! it was all for such vile sinners as we are! He loved us and gave Himself for us. What a Saviour! How little we think of Him; how little that which He did for us is before our hearts and has a governing power over our lives. Oh Lord! Thou art worthy of all. And then to think that such a Saviour is rejected of those for whom He suffered thus, dishonored, His mighty work denied among those who profess His name.

The last paragraph of this solemn chapter concerns Peter. Peter had followed Him at a distance, even to the palace of the high priest and entering in, sat with the officers to see the end. Perhaps when they all had fled, he remembered his promise to the Lord and so at a distance he followed. Far better it would have been for Peter if he had not followed at all.

“Now Peter sat without in the court, and a maiden came unto him and said, Thou also wast with Jesus, the Galilean. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. And when he had gone out into the entrance, another saw him, and said unto those that were there, this man also was with Jesus, the Nazarene. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. But after a little while, they that stood by came and said unto Peter: Of a truth thou art also of them, for even thy speech discovereth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus that He had spoken, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And going out, he wept bitterly” (Mat 26:69-75).

Poor Peter has to learn the depths of his own self. In self assertion and self confidence, he had boasted to lay his life down for the Lord. His Lord knew him; he was a true believer, but did not know the weakness of himself. That weakness had to be uncovered, he had to be sifted as the Lord had told him. Far different was the case of Judas. He was not a believer at all, only a professing one, and the wickedness of the flesh is manifested in his case.

Peter, as a true believer, did not know what the flesh was, as alas so many believers are ignorant of the true nature of the flesh. There was no willingness in Peter to sin; he wanted to do that which he had told the Lord, but he was ignorant of his own weakness. Step by step he had approached this sad and sorrowful moment. He did not plunge suddenly into the out and out denial of the Lord; he never meant to say what he did say. Had any one told him, “Peter, you are going to curse and swear, declaring, I know not the man”, he would have shuddered in horror and vowed, he could never do such a thing. Gradually he had been drawn towards this awful denial. “Watch and pray” the Lord had said “that ye enter not into temptation.” Peter had slept; he had neglected prayer. He could not watch an hour with His Lord. Here the first step was made. Because he was ignorant of the real character of the flesh, that old nature, he did not pray. If he had known what the flesh is he would have cast himself upon the Lord and watched and prayed. And this is the cause of every denial of our blessed Lord; and how numerous these are!

What sad repetitions of Peter’s fall in the lives of God’s people. The absolute worthlessness of the flesh is learned and learned over and over again by many a sad experience. The consciousness of our utter weakness in ourselves must ever lead us into a closer fellowship in prayer with Himself. But over this sad scene of failure and denial was the gracious, loving praying Lord. Peter was His own; he could not go the way Judas went. He had foreseen all. Ere it happened He told Peter what he would do and how Satan’s power linked with the flesh would result in his denial. But more than that the Lord had prayed for him. “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” Where would have Peter been, if it had not been for that prayer of the Lord. And so His loving eye watched him, and when the sin was committed and the right moment came, there was not a word spoken to Peter, but the Lord looked upon Peter. Their eyes met. That was enough. What was in that look? An angry reminder what Peter had done? A frown which showed displeasure? Far from that. It must have been a tender, loving, sad look. It went home to Peter’s heart. He remembers now. The horror of his denial breaks upon him. Had he not been the Lord’s own, had he not known the Lord, Satan who had led him gradually on, would have rushed him into despair. But we see him rushing out and behold him in the night, the dawning morning in the East, convulsed with bitter weeping. What a weeping it was, the tears of repentance, self judgment flowed freely. Broken in heart and broken in spirit with that tender look burning in his soul, he weeps and weeps. Reader do you know anything of such tears? You do if you walk with the Lord. Another one rushes out too when that morning had come. He went out and -- hanged himself. Satan claims his own. Oh what a loving Saviour and Lord we have. How He dealt with Peter. How He has dealt with us and still cares for His own, prays for them and keeps them and restores them to service as He did with His denying Peter.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 22

CONSPIRACY AGAINST JESUS

Mar 14:1-2; Luk 20:1-2; Mat 26:1-5. “And it came to pass, when Jesus finished all these discourses, He said to His disciples, You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of man is delivered to be crucified.” It is now late Wednesday afternoon, after our Lord has preached constantly all day, beginning in the temple and bidding it adieu about noon; halting and preaching to the Greeks waiting for Him at the gate; and going on over to Mount Olivet, where He delivered that indescribable and inimitable sermon on the judgments. Though He now tells them, as He had so frequently and so positively done, that He is to be crucified, they do not understand it.

“Then the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people were assembled in the hall of the high priest, called Caiaphas. And they issued a verdict that they would take Him by stratagem, and kill Him. But they said, Not at the feast, lest there may be an uproar among the people.” Luke: “For they were afraid of the people.” This conspiracy of the rulers took place Wednesday evening, in the Sanhedrin hall on Mount Zion, in which they passed an edict for His arrest and execution. They were in a serious dilemma because of His popularity, fearing that the people would arise in an incorrigible mob and take Him out of their hands.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Subdivision 1. (Mat 26:1-56).

The Presentation of the Offering.

We have, first, the Lord delivering Himself up, - not in reality to man; for to man the offering was not, and his part in it was only the consummation of human guilt, - but to God, for the drinking of that cup which only the Father’s hand could give Him. Gethsemane is thus the central feature in what is before us here, although all the rest has the cross directly in view, with its consequences whether of trial or of blessing. Now, as we may say, the pledge given at the baptism of John is redeemed; the four days of the lamb being kept up are over; and He keeps the passover with His disciples, celebrating beforehand, in His own assured triumphant way, the fruits of a redemption of which the cost was all His own.

1. (1) He turns from the contemplation of His coming Kingdom to what is immediately before Him now, and for which He has been all through preparing and fortifying the hearts of His disciples: "Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified." He sees clearly before Him, and announces the exact time of His suffering, which is not in His enemies, hands, but in His own. And immediately we are told of their coming together, as if His word had given them liberty to act. Yet they act blindly, as blind they are, determining not to take Him at the feast, the very time He has marked out as that of His betrayal. He is to suffer at the passover, as the true Passover, - the Substance replacing the shadow; as the resurrection was on the day of the first-fruit sheaf, and the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost.

(2) Next we have, in the strongest and sharpest contrast the love that pours out its precious ointment upon the Lord, and the murmuring of the disciples, prompted, as we are elsewhere told, by one who could sell the Lord Himself for the price of a slave. The last finds its occasion; also, in the first, love rousing and developing its awful opposite in the soul of this unhappy man, whom the defeat of his earthly ambitions and carnal hopes has already set in antagonism. He had begun to compensate himself, as best he could, with the contents of the common bag which carried all the means of subsistence of the little company. That pitiful compensation was coming to an end. Clearer sighted in his unbelief than his companions in their faith, he could understand the intimations, constantly now coming, of his Master’s death. The enmity of the leaders of the people was too plain, to need much other prophecy of what was to be. It might not come to that: at the end we find him possessed with the hope that in fact it would not. Still he needed to make his escape from this ruined cause, and carry with him also what he could secure. The price of this ointment might well be coveted by one in such a position; and he breaks out openly with his complaint: "To what purpose is this waste?"

She, too, who has come there with her ointment, has realized as those around Him have not yet, the death that is now drawn so near Him. But the effect is only, if possible, to make Him more absorbingly the object for her heart, and whatever is precious for her goes into death with Him. Her use of the ointment testifies of this, as well as of the fragrance of the death itself, which will abide with us for eternity, and in which we too abide, and shall abide - in the sweet savor of this wonderful obedience.

Even true disciples are caught by the cry of utilitarianism that that which is spent upon Christ alone is "waste," and taken from the poor; and such pleas become for many effectual arguments against what true devotedness to Him demands. Those who would understand and appreciate the laying down of life for His sake, can often not understand the sacrifice of usefulness on His account, even though the demand come in the way of duty. They will say, indeed, that duty cannot really demand such sacrifice; but it does very often demand that we leave entirely out of question all consideration of results, and follow simply and without reserve the dictates of the Word. And it is certainly true that the thought of usefulness governs often disastrously even the interpretation of the word of God itself. Results are never really safe as guidance, and this for at least two plain reasons. First, because they must follow the action; and therefore come too late to determine it. And secondly, if it be thought that we can profit by the experience of others, so many things combine to produce them that we are constantly in danger of mistaking the real cause. Of course, if God’s word has spoken decisively, even in the least particular, then all pondering of results is mere unfaithfulness.

The Lord openly vindicates the act of the woman. This devotedness shows itself at the right time to refresh His true human heart, afflicted with the treachery of Judas, and now in near prospect of the cross. She had manifested an appreciative love which those around Him were unable even to enter into, and He declares that wherever His gospel shall be preached among men; this deed of her’s shall be told for a memorial of her. It may well be, indeed, a corrective of that tendency of utilitarianism to invade the gospel itself, to the great harm and loss of souls; and this is not unapt to be where salvation is made freest, but more a boon to man than a cost to God. Thus Christ is little known, little followed: to have salvation is to have all that the heart craves; yet it is not really satisfied thus, but the world comes in to fill the vacuum.

The dearer Christ is, the dearer souls will be; and His people represent Him for hearts true to Him. But the bland liberality which so often simulates love to the people of God, while it allows His word to be slighted and His rights to be discredited, works to His dishonor and their inevitable loss. To give Christ His due is the only way by which His people can be enriched. Ah, that the savor of the woman’s ointment might indeed still fill the house!

But this love and worship bring out the traitor’s heart, and the Iscariot, the "trafficker," fearfully earns the surname by which we know him (see p. 119, notes). For the price of a slave he agrees with the chief priests His enemies, to deliver up his Lord into their hands, they putting contempt thus upon Him and His betrayer. They know not that they are but moving in the way predicted, and manifesting His sovereignty in their very rejection of it.

2. (1) We now come to the last passover, the story of which is by all the synoptists very briefly told. It is John alone who, while he scarcely mentions the passover itself, gives the full out-pouring of Christ’s heart in connection with it. The ordering of the paschal supper is more briefly given in Matthew than in Mark or Luke, the directions as to finding the man at whose house it is to be prepared being omitted. But it is seen, all through, how fully He is Master of all circumstances, and the disciples, it is evident, are intended to feel this. If He be going down the steep decline to Calvary, it is of His own free choice, and He is still the King who does so. "My time is at hand," seems certainly spoken for the ear of a disciple; and it is natural that to such the Lord should give the privilege of entertaining Him at a time like this. That it is already the first day of unleavened bread is decisive that He did not anticipate the appointed time for the passover, as many have thought. The three synoptists unite in this specification of time, Mark and Luke adding that it was the day when they killed the passover. The statements of John alone are thought to be in contradiction to this, but have been often shown to be not really so; nor is this the place in which to consider them.

(2) The traitor is next pointed out, but by gradual approach, as if to alarm and arouse the conscience to repentance before the guilt was fixed. "One of you shall deliver Me up." Then "he that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish." Slowest of all to respond is Judas with his question; asked with fatal certainty of what would be the answer, yet with the appearance of the same innocence as the rest. But notice, he does not, as they, address Christ as his "Lord." That is ended for him: it is

"Rabbi, is it I?" "After the sop," says John; "Satan entered into him;" and Satan could not say, "Lord." If there were any struggle in his soul, it is ended now; and in the face of the awful "woe" that he has heard from lips that lie not, he goes away to do determinately what would stamp him as the "son of perdition" through all eternity. Such is the hardening power of sin.

(3) This separation of Judas from the rest takes place before the institution of the memorial feast which follows here; for John tells us that "Judas, having received the sop," went immediately out. Luke inverts the order of this and the last section; but Luke’s order is often different from that of time. The point, however, is not of doctrinal importance: for few would advocate a known traitor being admitted to the table of the Lord; and if it were to be permitted, no discipline could be maintained at all. If Judas were present, he was yet unknown as such to the disciples; and while the Lord knows all the secrets of the heart, His knowledge cannot, it is plain, be guidance for us, who do not possess it. The question is, therefore, as already said, of no practical importance: the principles involved are settled conclusively elsewhere.

There are others, as we know, much more widely and keenly debated, though one cannot say really more entitled to be heard. The Romanist contention that the bread and wine, after the Lord’s blessing, were pronounced by Him to be literally His body and blood, involves a grossness of conception which He has Himself rebuked elsewhere (Joh 6:60-63). It makes Him while alive in the body, take and break His body in His hands. It multiplies the body of Christ, at the will of man; upon myriads of altars, day by day. It makes God work as constant miracles to conceal those which are in this way taking place; so that to the senses that should still be bread and wine, which has wholly changed its character. It makes the flesh to profit spiritually, while the Lord has Himself denied it. And all this is done to escape a difficulty which never existed, and to make us treat one of the commonest forms of figurative speech, which we are every day using, as if it were a manifest perversion to take it as they themselves are doing without thought of wrong. "The rock was Christ," needed no transubstantiation to make good. Nay, even; "the cup is the new covenant in My blood," cannot be understood by them but as a figure. But "this is My body," must be maintained, in the face of whatever objection from nature, from spirit, from the connection here, from Scripture elsewhere, in the grossest literality!

The doctrine of consubstantiation escapes some of these incongruities, no doubt, but it is as open to some of these charges as is the Romish one itself. It admits that the bread is bread, and the wine wine; but it maintains that the "flesh profiteth" in the way Christ denies; and the actual production; multiplication and eating of the body of Christ.

In opposition to both these is the Calvinistic or "Reformed" view, in which the reception is not by the mouth, but by faith, through the power of the Spirit; and not of the substance of His body and blood, but of the sacrificial virtue or efficacy of His work alone.

Zwingle, on the other hand, maintained that the bread and wine were simply significant memorials; but this is considered by the greater number of the Reformed "too low" a view. Yet in refusing the thought of any actual physical reception of Christ in the Supper, and limiting this reception to that of the virtue of His sacrificial work, and in declaring that it is by faith we feed upon Him, and we can do the same thing apart from the Supper altogether, they come much nearer to Zwingle’s view than they seem to be aware: for if wherever there is faith, Christ is received and fed upon, and in the Supper not apart from faith, what does this add, except a significant memorial of what faith receives?

It is, however, in Luke and in Corinthians, and not in either of the first two Gospels, that its memorial character is explicitly affirmed; and this is of the most decisive importance for the interpretation. "Do this," the Lord says: for what? - "for calling me to mind" (Luk 22:19). Here the precise object of the bread and cup is stated; and it is the only object: no other ever is; any other than this is purely an addition to the word of Christ.

Now a remembrance is of what is not present, never of what is. Moreover it is of something in the past, not in time present. The apostle’s comment upon it is as plain as can be: "for as often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death, till He come" (1Co 11:26, R.V). Clearly the Lord’s death is not a present thing, but past: "death has no more dominion over Him." A dead Lord it is we remember, but a living Lord with whom we have now to do.

"Body" and "blood": why, of course, this is death. Would they be mentioned apart, if it were not so? "My body which is given for you" makes us naturally think of a dead not a living body; but "body and blood" separate: of what else can we think? We have no reason at all for attributing "blood" to the Lord in resurrection. Blood is the sign of change and the means of renewal. It implies a life sustained by food and drink, - capable of dying, though not necessarily subject to death. After His resurrection we hear Him speak of His "flesh and bones," not "flesh and blood" (Luk 24:39). But, apart from this, the blood spoken of here is the "blood shed for many," the blood of sacrifice: every thing assures us that we have before us here, not Christ as He is at all, but as He was: the bread and the cup are just significant memorials, - nothing else. The language used prohibits all possible thought of the Lord’s glorified humanity, and cuts away all basis for any view of an actual reception of Christ’s body and blood; for in that case it must be a dead Christ that we receive, and there is no dead Christ.

Moreover, this "Remember Me" of our Lord and Master seems quite to overtop all thoughts of what we receive in the bread and wine. No doubt we can never have Christ really before us without finding blessing in it; and no doubt the picture given is one of how Christ as the Bread of Life sustains the spiritual strength of His believing people. But what He desires in it is our heart’s remembrance, and the highest and sweetest view that we can have of it is surely that which brings before us, and qualifies us best to satisfy, this desire of His.

"Take, eat: this is My body."

"Drink ye all of it: for this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins."

Faith it is, of course, that enables us to do what is spoken of here. Eating and drinking are terms which imply the fullest appropriation of that which becomes thus part of our very selves. We enter into the sweetness and blessedness of a love so free, so costly, stooping so low, so triumphant in this humiliation. Out of death has come forth life; we enter into communion with death. Evil has been explored to its depths, and there is yet no dimming of the glory of God; nay, never was He so glorious.

Therefore this blood is that of a new covenant, in which God alone speaks, and as He will. He is free from all hindrance, and thus His whole heart comes out, and the result is that it is grace to the full that appears, and nothing but grace (Jer 31:31-34). Unlike the covenant that He had made with the people when He brought them out of the land of Egypt, this covenant thus abides. Human instability does not affect it, and sin is cancelled: "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin."

But now He is to be separate from His people’s joy on earth, looking for participation with them in His Father’s Kingdom. Then He will drink the wine with them in a new manner, no more a Nazarite stranger from that association with His own; for which in heaven itself He waits, as the full cup of blessing.

(4) They sing a hymn - in Israel it was usually the four psalms called the great Hallel (Psa 115:1-18; Psa 116:1-19; Psa 117:1-2; Psa 118:1-29), - and go out together to the Mount of Olives. And He warns them once more of what is before Him and them. They will all be offended because of Him and scattered; for the prophet had foretold the smiting of the Shepherd, and the consequent dispersion of the sheep (Zec 13:7). But after His resurrection He would go before them into Galilee. In fact the Gospel closes with His meeting them there, passing over most of what took place at Jerusalem, for in Galilee it is that He announces to them the Kingdom as in His hand, and this is the theme of Matthew, as we well know. Every Gospel, as every book of Scripture, keeps to its own portion of the one harmonious revelation of God to which it belongs.

Peter is the one who is to illustrate most fully the "offence of the cross" among those pre-eminently named as Christ’s disciples. How perfectly it is shown that divine grace alone can be the hope of any. It is characteristic of him who fails in this signal manner that he should be the one most loudly to maintain that for himself, at any rate, such failure was impossible. And this he repeats, still more emphatically, in spite of the Lord’s more precise and positive assurance. He that thinketh he standeth must take heed lest he fall, not merely because of the general liability, but as being then most of all liable. Our own strength is just our weakness, as our weakness realized will be our way to strength - a strength not our own. Every one of the Gospels enforces this most solemn lesson. Matthew and Mark assure us of the participation of the other disciples in Peter’s perilous self-confidence. He who would plead exemption must condemn himself by this very pleading.

3. In approaching the mysterious suffering in Gethsemane we are warned by every circumstance - even the scantness of the pregnant words - of the need of reverent caution. Eight of the eleven disciples are left behind, and with Peter, James, and John He goes on further. Presently He bids these also, "Tarry ye here, and watch with Me," but Himself still goes on to what they cannot share with Him. Only a little further, and then He falls upon His face in that deep distress of which He has spoken to the three, plunged in sorrow, as unto death, - "sore amazed," says Mark - and desolate. So He prays, - one prayer which with Him, we may say confidently, never had its like, - "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt."

He rises, comes back to His disciples whom He finds not watching but asleep; wakes them with a reproof and yet a tender apology for their weakness; goes back to say what He has said before, but with less pleading, "My Father, if this cannot pass except I drink it, Thy will be done."

He comes again to His disciples, to find them again asleep, leaves them once more, to pray the same words.

Then it is over. He comes back to them now to bid them sleep on and take their rest. There is a conflict passed, which Luke emphasizes in two particulars which he alone relates: the bloody sweat and the visit of an angel to strengthen Him, - two things which show the exceeding pressure of the agony upon Him physically, but add nothing to the explanation of its nature. What was the "cup" from which He shrank? which, plainly, He was not yet drinking, but which was before Him; as to which there was this prayer that could not be answered; something from which it was perfection in Him that shrank, because in Him all ever was perfect?

It seems certain that it was the cross, in some aspect of it, that cross to which He was going on; and which He had again and again announced to His disciples, and the necessity of it. "The Son of man must be lifted up," He had declared long before to Nicodemus, and again to the multitude (Joh 12:32-33): by this "signifying what death He should die." This, so announced by Himself, it does not seem possible that He should now pray might be averted.

There is, however, a passage in Hebrews which at first sight might seem to put it in this way, as it most certainly seems to refer to this very time, when the Lord "in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications unto Him that was able to save Him from death," was heard for His godly fear" (Heb 5:7). This surely refers to Gethsemane, in part at least: yet it does not speak of an unheard prayer, but of a heard one. Moreover, as He was not saved from death, what, both in the Revised, and in the older Version, has been put into the margin, should be in the text - "to Him that was able to save Him out of death," not from it. Out of it He was saved, was perfected as Captain (or "Leader" or "Originator") of salvation by the obedience wrought in suffering, and so is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him.

Resurrection was the divine answer, then, to a prayer that was heard; but in the twenty-second psalm, which also emphasizes a prayer that was heard, we have a prayer of the same blessed Person, as to which He says, "I cry in the day-time and Thou hearest not; and in the night-season; and am not silent." Have we not here the true Gethsemane prayer for which we are seeking? could there be more than one such prayer of the Lord Jesus?

The subject of the psalm also is the cross, and that in its sin-offering aspect. The cry that characterizes it is the cry that in Matthew the Lord takes up and uses as His own - the awful cry, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" a cry which is answered in the psalm by Him who utters it (See Notes on the psalm). And here, surely, is that from which the Lord must needs shrink because of His very perfection. Such a cup He might take as the Father’s will for Him, that God who is holy might dwell among the praises of His redeemed people, but not otherwise. Here then is the awful "cup" to which He is looking forward in Gethsemane, the subject of the one only prayer as to which it could be said of Him who "heard Him always," "Thou hearest not."

To realize the subject of the prayer is not to solve the mystery of it. It certainly gives us to see how true, while perfect, the humanity of the Lord Jesus was. In the seventh century, the words "Not My will, but Thine be done" were used against the Monothelites to prove the distinctness of the human from the divine will in Christ. But while we recognize their competency for such purpose, it is for us to acquiesce in the Lord’s own assurance that "No one knoweth the Son but the Father," and to refrain from seeking to penetrate beyond what is ours to know. The truth of His humanity, and its personality (without which it would not have been true) we may thank God for showing us in so clear a manner; and we must hold it fast as essential to the proper Christian faith. Analysis of His inscrutable nature we should not venture upon.

Gethsemane, the "oil-press," answers to its name. We find in it, not the wine-press, the suffering that wrought atonement, not the bearing of sin itself, but the pressure upon Him of that supreme sorrow, as now He touched the very border of it. We are allowed to see the agony of it to Him, who nevertheless takes the cup in its full bitterness, humbling Himself and becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. From the "oil-press" nothing flows but that which is of the Spirit: to God, uncompromising obedience; to man, self-sacrificing devotion to meet every need. We can understand how in the oil here as in the dove before, the types of Christ and of the Spirit should be one; and even so it is that the Spirit rests upon Him in absolute congenial delight. The meat-offering is first mingled with oil and then anointed with oil.

Mere human incompetence for that hour is seen in the disciples. Oppressed with it, they are found asleep - stupefied. As on the mount of glory, so in the valley of the shadow of death. They neither respond to His tender request that they should watch with Him, nor realize their own need, that they enter not into temptation. Even this incompetence might have been warning to them but was not, and they have to prove by sadder experience what they have not learned in a happier way.

And yet, indeed, they may now sleep on and take their rest. The work of deliverance is in hands that cannot fail in what they undertake, although there is now to be laid a deeper foundation than for the earth of old, and the "new creation" to be built upon it is to transcend in every measure the dimensions of the old.

4. (1) The traitor comes now, with the armed men he has procured, - a great multitude with swords and clubs from the chief priests and elders. "The swords indicate that the Roman cohort (Joh 18:3) was the centre of this multitude; while the clubs and so forth indicate that the Jewish temple watch, and other miscellaneous fanatics, were there also" (Lange). Jew and Gentile, men of different nationality and diverse classes, were ready to take part, and did, in the world’s crowning sin.

The treachery of Judas would fain still conceal itself in the kiss of identification; which is given emphatically, as if to assure the One he is betraying that he is not part of the multitude that follow him. The Lord penetrates this disguise, not with a rebuke but with a question: "Friend, wherefore art thou here?" to which He adds, as Luke tells us, the more direct one, "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" Divine love has not, even yet, ceased its expostulation, - has not closed the door against his return even yet.

(2) They take Him unresisting. But Peter is again to illustrate how far even a loyal heart may be from the mind of Christ. In speaking of the hostile attitude of the world in which He is leaving them, the Lord had enjoined one that had no sword to sell even his garment and buy one (Luk 22:36). Peter, taking this literally, as we may suppose, no sooner finds his beloved Master thus assailed than his weapon is out, and he smites a servant of the high priest and cuts off his ear. But he has belittled and misrepresented Him whom he would serve, who must be fallen low indeed to need His disciple’s sword to extricate Him from such hands as these. If He yield, it is to God, not man; He yields, - to take the cup from the Father’s hand: and what should the sword do here? Were not heaven’s legions dependent on His will? and would not the Father, if He had willed it, give Him, not twelve frail disciples, but more than twelve legions of angels?

But He had proclaimed also as the law of His Kingdom that they "resist not evil." The men in authority upon earth - to whom God for the need of men had given authority - to these it belonged to do this. If they failed, God was still upon the throne and could not fail. But for His people, His own path of quiet submission was ordained, - submission not to man; but to God. Here to resist would be to resist Him.

This was the path which for Christ Himself alone could give Him the throne for which He came, and His enemies were but unwittingly preparing to fulfil the prophetic voices which from the beginning had proclaimed this as the way of the divine counsels for Him. For the "Captain of salvation" must be "perfected through sufferings." The ram of sacrifice is taken by its horns (Gen 22:13); the need of man thus laying hold, through the love that was His nature, of the power that dwelt in Him.

(3) Of this fulfilment of the prophets He reminds the multitudes that had come to seize Him, as He had just reminded the disciple that would have fought for Him. Why had they not taken Him, while daily in the temple He had been teaching publicly amongst them? They had feared the people, as we know; and Judas’s treachery alone had given them what they deemed their opportunity. But neither power nor guile could have succeeded against Him, had it not been for that will of God which Scripture witnessed to; which indeed bound them so little, but Him so absolutely; yet they too were fulfilling it.

(4) Now the sheep of the flock are scattered, as the prophet had borne witness: protected in their flight, as John shows us, by their smitten Shepherd. In fact, they could not follow Him now, as He had said to Peter. There could not be permitted even any obscuring of the truth of the solitary, unique place in which He was now to stand, not with but for His people. Even though for Peter it might be entirely different in reality from the cross of his Lord, yet who could think of Peter on the cross beside his Lord? No, He might be "numbered with the transgressors" but not with His disciples. He was alone, therefore, now, and to be alone; until, His work perfectly achieved, He should come forth in the morning of resurrection, with the night for ever past.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Matthew Chapter 26

The Lord had finished His discourses. He prepares (chap. 26) to suffer, and to make His last and touching adieus to His disciples, at the table of His last passover on earth, at which He instituted, the simple and precious memorial which recalls His sufferings and His love with such profound interest. This part of our Gospel requires little explanation-not, assuredly, that it is of less interest, but because it needs to be felt rather than explained.

With what simplicity the Lord announces that which was to happen! (Mat 26:2). He had already arrived at Bethany, six days before the passover (Joh 12:1): there He abode, with the exception of the last supper, until He was taken captive in the garden of Gethsemane, although He visited Jerusalem, and partook of His last meal there.

We have already examined the discourses uttered during those six days, as well as His actions, such as the cleansing of the temple. That which precedes this chapter (26) is either the manifestation of His rights as Emmanuel, King of Israel, or that of the judgment of the great King with respect to the people-a judgment expressed in discourses to which the people could make no answer; or, finally, the condition of His disciples during His absence. We have now His submission to the sufferings appointed Him, to the judgment about to be executed upon Him; but which was, in truth, only the fulfilment of the counsels of God His Father, and of the work of His own love.

The picture of man’s dreadful sin in the crucifixion of Jesus unfolds before our eyes. But the Lord Himself (Mat 26:1) announces it beforehand with all the calmness of One who had come for this purpose. Before the consultations of the chief priests had taken place, Jesus speaks of it as a settled thing: “Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.”

Afterwards (Mat 26:3) the priests, the scribes, and the elders assemble to concert their plans for obtaining possession of His Person, and ridding themselves of Him.

In a word, first, the marvellous counsels of God, and the submission of Jesus, according to His knowledge of those counsels and of the circumstances which should accomplish them; and, afterwards, the iniquitous counsels of man, which do but fulfil those of God. Their purposed arrangement of detail not to take Him on the feast day as they dreaded the people (chap. 26:5) was not God’s and fails: He was to suffer at the feast.

Judas was but the instrument of their malice in the hand of Satan; who, after all, did but arrange these things according to divine intention. They wished, but in vain, to avoid taking Him at the time of the feast, on account of the multitude, who might favour Jesus, if He appealed to them. They had done so at His entrance into Jerusalem. They supposed Jesus would do so, for wickedness always reckons on finding its own principles in others. This is why it so frequently fails in circumventing the upright-they are artless. Here it was the will of God, that Jesus should suffer at the feast. But He had prepared a gracious relief to the heart of Jesus-a balm to His heart more than to His body-a circumstance which is used by the enemy to drive Judas to extremity and put him in connection with the chief priests.

Bethany (linked in memory with the last moments of peace and tranquillity in the Saviour’s life, the place where dwelt Martha and Mary, and Lazarus the risen dead)-Bethany [75] receives Jesus for the last time: the blessed but momentary retreat of a heart which, ever ready to pour itself out in love, was ever straitened in a world of sin, that did not and could not respond to it; yet a heart which has given us, in His relations with this beloved family, the example of an affection perfect, yet human, which found sweetness in being responded to and appreciated. The nearness of the cross, where He would have to set His face as a flint, did not deprive His heart of the joy or the sweetness of this communion, while rendering it solemn and affecting. In doing the work of God He did not cease to be man. In everything He condescended to be ours. He could no longer own Jerusalem, and this sanctuary sheltered Him for a moment from the rude hand of man. Here He could display what He ever was as man. It is with reason, that the act of one who in a certain sense could appreciate what He felt [76] (whose affection instinctively entered into the rising enmity against the object she loved and was drawn out by it), and the act that expressed the estimate her heart had of His preciousness and grace should be told in all the world. This is a scene, a testimony, that brings the Lord sensibly near to us, that awakens a feeling in our hearts which sanctifies by binding them to His beloved Person.

His daily life was one continued tension of soul, in proportion to the strength of His love-a life of devotedness in the midst of sin and misery. For a moment He could, and would own (in presence of the power of evil, now to have its way, and the love that clung to Him thus bowing under it, through true knowledge of Him cultivated in sitting at His feet) that devotedness to Himself, drawn out by that which His soul was in divine perfectness bowing to. He could give an intelligent voice, its true meaning, to that which divinely wrought affection silently acted on. [77]

The reader will do well carefully to study this scene of touching condescension and outpouring of heart. Jesus, Emmanuel, King and Supreme Judge, had just been causing all things to pass in judgment before Him (from chap. 21 to the end of 25). He had finished that which He had to say. His task here, in this respect, was accomplished. He now takes the place of Victim; He has only to suffer, and can allow Himself freely to enjoy the touching expressions of affection that flow from a heart devoted to Him. He could but taste the honey and pass on; but He does taste it, and did not reject an affection which His heart could and did appreciate.

Again, observe the effect of deep affection for the Lord. This affection necessarily breathes the atmosphere in which, at that moment, the spirit of the Lord is found. The woman who anointed Him was not informed of the circumstances about to happen, nor was she a prophetess. But the approach of that hour of darkness was felt by one whose heart was fixed on Jesus. [78] The different forms of evil developed themselves before Him, and displayed themselves in their true colours; and, under the influence of one master, even Satan, grouped themselves around the only object against whom it was worthwhile to array this concentration of malice, and who brought their true character out into open daylight.

But the perfectness of Jesus, which drew out the enmity, drew out the affection in her; and she (so to speak) reflected the perfectness in the affection; and as that perfectness was put in action and drawn to light by the enmity, so was her affection. Thus Christ’s heart could not but meet it. Jesus, by reason of this enmity, was still more the object that occupied a heart which, doubtless led of God, instinctively apprehended what was going on. The time of testimony, and even that of the explanation of His relationship to all around Him, was over. His heart was free to enjoy the good and true and spiritual affections of which He was the object; and which, whatever might be their human form, shewed so plainly their divine origin, in that they were attached to that object on which, at this solemn moment, all the attention of heaven was centred.

Jesus Himself was conscious of His position. His thoughts were on His departure. During the exercise of His power, He hides-He forgets-Himself. But now oppressed, rejected, and like a lamb led to the slaughter, He feels that He is the just object of the thoughts of those who belong to Him, of all who have hearts to appreciate that which God appreciates. His heart is full of the coming events, see Mat 26:2; Mat 26:10-13; Mat 26:18; Mat 26:21.

But yet a few words more on the woman who anointed Him The effect of having the heart fixed in affection on Jesus is shewn in her in a striking manner. Occupied with Him, she is sensible of His situation. She feels what affects Him; and this causes her affection to act in accordance with the special devotedness which that situation inspires. As hatred against Him rose up to murderous intent, the spirit of devotedness to Him grows in answer to it in her. Consequently, with the tact of devotedness, she does precisely that which was suited to His situation. The poor woman was not intelligently aware of this; yet she did the thing that was meet. Her value for the Person of Jesus, so infinitely precious to her, made her quick-sighted with respect to that which was passing in His mind. In her eyes Christ was invested with all the interest of His circumstances; and she lavishes upon Him that which expressed her affection. Fruit of this sentiment, her action met the circumstances; and, although it was but the instinct of her heart, Jesus gives it all the value which His perfect intelligence could attribute to it, embracing at once the sentiments of her heart and the coming events.

But this testimony of affection and devotedness to Christ brings out the selfishness, the want of heart, of the others. They blame the poor woman. Sad proof (to say nothing of Judas [79] how little the knowledge of that which concerns Jesus necessarily awakens suitable affection in our hearts! After this Judas goes out, and agrees with the unhappy priests to betray Jesus to them for the price of a slave.

The Lord pursues His career of love; and as He had accepted the poor woman’s testimony of affection, so He now bestows on His disciples one of infinite value to our souls. Mat 26:16 concludes the subject of which we have been speaking: Christ’s knowledge, according to God, of that which awaited Him; the conspiracy of the priests; the affection of the poor woman, accepted by the Lord; the selfish cold-heartedness of the disciples; the treachery of Judas.

The Lord now institutes the memorial of the true passover. He sends the disciples to make arrangements for the celebration of the feast at Jerusalem. He points out Judas as the one who would deliver Him up to the Jews. It will be noticed, that it was not merely His knowledge of the one who should betray Him which the Lord here expresses-He knew that when He called him; but He says, “One of you shall betray me.” It was that which touched His heart: He wished it to touch theirs likewise.

He then points out that it is a Saviour slain who is to be remembered. It is no longer a question of the living Messiah: all that was over. It was no longer the remembrance of Israel’s deliverance from the slavery of Egypt. Christ, and Christ slain, began an entirely new order of things. Of Him they were now to think-of Him slain on earth. He then draws their attention to the blood of the new covenant, adding that which extends it to others besides the Jews, without naming them- “It is shed for many.” Moreover, this blood is not, as at Sinai, only to confirm the covenant, for fidelity to which they were responsible; it was shed for the remission of sins. So that the Lord’s supper presents the remembrance of Jesus slain, who, by dying, has broken with the past; has laid the foundation of the new covenant; obtained the remission of sins; and opened the door to the Gentiles. It is only in His death that the supper presents Him to us. His blood is apart from His body: He is dead. It is neither Christ living on the earth, nor Christ glorified in heaven. He is separate from His people, as to their joys on earth; but they are to expect Him as the companion of the happiness He has secured for them-for He condescends to be so-in better days:-”I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new [80] with you in my Father’s kingdom.” But, these links broken, who, save Jesus, could sustain the conflict? All would forsake Him. The testimonies of the word should be accomplished. It was written, “I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.”

Nevertheless He would go, to renew His relationship, as a risen Saviour, with these poor of the flock, to the same place where He had already identified Himself with them during His life. He would go before them into Galilee. This promise is very remarkable, because the Lord resumes, under a new form, His Jewish relationship with them and with the kingdom. We may here remark that, as He had judged all classes (to the end of chap. 25), He now exhibits the character of His relationship with all those among whom He maintained any. Whether it is the woman, or Judas, or the disciples, each one takes his place in connection with the Lord. This is all we find here. If Peter had natural energy enoughto go a little farther, it would only be for a deeper fall in the place where the Lord alone could stand.

And now He isolates Himself to present, in supplication to His Father, the sufferings that awaited Him.

But while isolating Himself for prayer, He takes three of His disciples with Him, that in this solemn moment they may watch with Him. They were the same three who were with Him during the transfiguration. They were to see His glory in the kingdom, and His sufferings. He goes a little way beyond them. As for them, they fall asleep, as they did on the mount of transfiguration. The scene here is described in Heb 5:7. Jesus was not yet drinking the cup, but it was before His eyes. On the cross He drank it, made sin for us, His soul feeling itself forsaken of Him. Here it is the power of Satan, using death as a terror with which to overwhelm Him. But the consideration of this subject will be more in place when we come to Luke’s Gospel.

We here see His soul under the load of death-by anticipation -as He alone could know it, nor had it as yet lost its sting. We know who has the power of death, and death as yet had the full character of the wages of sin, and the curse, of God’s judgment. But He watches and He prays. As man, subjected by His love to this assault, in the presence of the most powerful temptation to which He could be exposed, on the one hand He watches; on the other, He presents His anguish to His Father. His communion was not interrupted here, however great His distress. This distress only cast Him the more, in all submission and in all reliance, upon His Father. But if we were to be saved, if God was to be glorified in Him who had undertaken our cause, the cup must not pass away from Him. And His submission is complete.

He tenderly reminds Peter of his false confidence, [81] making him sensible of his weakness; but Peter was too full of himself to profit by it; he awakes from his sleep, but his self-confidence is not shaken. A sadder experience was needed for its cure.

The Lord therefore takes the cup, but He takes it from His Father’s hand. It was His will that He should drink it. Committing Himself thus entirely to His Father, it is neither from the hand of His enemies, nor from that of Satan (though they were the instruments), that He takes it. According to the perfection with which He had subjected Himself to the will of God in this matter, committing all to Him, it is from His hand alone that He receives it. It is the Father’s will. It is thus that we escape from second causes, and from the temptations of the enemy, by seeking only the will of God who directs all things. It is from Him we receive affliction and trial, if they come.

The disciples need no longer watch: the hour is come. [82] He was to be betrayed into the hands of men. This was saying enough. Judas designates Him by a kiss. Jesus goes to meet the multitude, rebuking Peter for seeking to resist with carnal weapons. Had Christ wished to escape, He could have asked for twelve legions of angels and had them; but all things must be fulfilled. [83] It was the hour of His submission to the effect of the malice of man and the power of darkness, and God’s judgment against sin. He is the Lamb for the slaughter. Then all the disciples forsake Him. He surrenders Himself, setting before the crowd that came what they were doing. If no one can prove Him guilty, He will not deny the truth. He confesses the glory of His Person as Son of God, and declares that henceforth they should see the Son of man no longer in the meekness of One who would not break the bruised reed, but coming in the clouds of heaven, and sitting on the right hand of power. Having borne this testimony He is condemned on account of that which He said of Himself-for the confession of the truth. The false witnesses did not succeed. The priests and the heads of Israel were guilty of His death, by virtue of their own rejection of the testimony He rendered to the truth. He was the Truth; they were under the power of the father of lies. They rejected the Messiah, the Saviour of His people. He would come to them no more, except as Judge.

They insult and outrage Him. Each one alas! takes, as we have seen, his own place-Jesus, that of Victim; the others, the place of betrayal, rejection, abandonment, denial of the Lord. What a picture! What a solemn moment! Who could stand in it? Christ alone could steadily pass through it. And He passed through it as a victim. As such, He must be stripped of all, and that in the presence of God. Everything else disappeared, except the sin which led to it; and, according to grace, that also before the powerful efficacy of this act. Peter, self-confident, hesitating, detected, answering with untruth, swearing, denies his Master; and, painfully convinced of man’s powerlessness against the enemy of his soul and against sin, he goes out and weeps bitterly: tears, which cannot efface his guilt, but which, while proving the existence, through grace, of uprightness of heart, bear witness to that powerlessness which uprightness of heart cannot remedy. [84]

Footnotes on Matthew Chapter 26

75: It was not in Martha’s house that this scene took place, but that of Simon the leper: Martha served and Lazarus sat at meat. This makes the intelligent act of Mary more entirely personal.

76: No instance is found of the disciples ever understanding what Jesus said to them.

77: Christ meets the heart of the poor woman in the city which was a sinner, and told God’s mind out there, and told it to her. He meets Mary’s heart here, and justifies and satisfies her affection, and gave the divine estimate of what she did. He met Mary Magdalene’s heart at the sepulchre, to whom the world was emptiness if He was not there, and tells God’smind in its highest forms of blessing. Such is the effect of attachment to Christ.

78: The enmity of the chiefs of Israel was known to the disciples-”Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee, and goest thou thither again?” And afterwards by Thomas-a gracious testimony to the love of one who afterwards shewed his unbelief as to Jesus’ resurrection-”let us go that we may die with him.” Mary’s heart doubtless felt this enmity, and as it grew, her attachment to the Lord grew with it.

79: Judas’s heart was the spring of this evil, but the other disciples, not occupied with Christ, fall into the snare.

80: “New” is not anew, but in an entirely new way.

81: It is wonderful to see the Lord in the full agony of the anticipated cup, only as yet presenting it to His Father, not drinking the cup; yet turning to the disciples and speaking to them in calm grace as if in Galilee, and turning back to the dreadful conflict of spirit Himself exactly for what was before His soul. In Matthew He is victim, I add, and every aggravation, with no alleviating circumstance, is here what His soul meets.

82: I purpose speaking on the Lord’s sufferings when studying the Gospel of Luke, where they are described more in detail; because it is as Son of man that He is there especially presented.

83: Remark here in so solemn and crucial a moment, the place that the Lord gives to the scriptures: that thus it must be, for it was there (Mat 26:54). They are the word of God.

84: I think it will be found, on comparing the Gospels, that the Lord was examined at Caiaphas’s over night, when Peter denies Him, and that they met formally again in the morning, and, asking the blessed Lord, received from Himself the confession on which they led Him to Pilate. Over night it was only the active leaders. In the morning there was a formal assembling of the Sanhedrim.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 19

The Great Atonement Day - Mat_26:1-75 - Mat_27:1-56

WE enter now on the story of the last day of the mortal life of our Lord and Saviour. We have already noticed the large proportionate space given to the Passion Week; but still more remarkable is the concentration of interest on the Passion Day. The record of that single day is very nearly one-ninth of the whole book; and a similar proportion is observed by all the four Evangelists. This proportion of space is very striking even when we bear in mind that, properly speaking, the Gospels are not the record of thirty-three or thirty-four years, but only of three or four. Of the story of the years of the public ministry one-seventh part is given to the last day; and this, too, without the introduction of any lengthened discourse. If the discourse in the upper room and the intercessory prayer as recorded by St. John were added, it would be, not one-seventh, but almost one-fourth of the whole. Truly this must be the Day of days! Unspeakably sacred and precious as is the entire life of our Lord and Saviour, sacred above all and precious above all is His death of shame and agony. The same preeminence was evidently given to the dying of the Lord Jesus in the special revelation granted to St. Paul, as is evident from the fact that, in setting forth the gospel he had been commissioned to preach, he spoke of it as the gospel of "Jesus Christ and Him crucified," and put in the foreground, not the incarnate life, great as he recognised it to be, {1Ti_3:16} but the atoning death of Christ: "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." Here, then, we have the very gospel of the grace of God. Here we enter the inner shrine of the Word, the Holy of Holies of the new covenant. Let us draw near with holy reverence and deep humility, yet with the eye of faith directed ever upwards in reliance on the grace of Him Who searcheth all things, even the deep things of God, and Whose work and joy it is to take of the things of Christ, even those that are among the deepest things of God, and show them unto us.

"AFTER TWO DAYS". {Mat_26:1-19}

This passage does not strictly belong to the history of the one great day, but it is the approach to it. It opens with the solemn announcement "After two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified"; and without any record of the Saviours doings in the interval, it closes with the preparation for the keeping of the feast with His disciples, the directions for which are introduced by the pathetic words, "My time is at hand."

The incident at Bethany (Mat_26:6-13) seems to be introduced here in connection with the development of treason in the soul of Judas. This connection would not be so apparent were it not for the information given in St. Johns account of the feast, that it was Judas especially who objected to what he called "this waste" of the ointment, and that the reason why he was displeased at it was because "he had the bag, and bare what was put therein." With this in mind we can see how natural it was that, having had no occasion before to tell the story of the feast at Bethany, the Evangelist should be disposed to tell it now, as connected in his mind with the traitors selling of his Lord for thirty pieces of silver.

The two days of interval would extend from the evening following the abandonment of the Temple to the evening of the Passover feast. It is important always, and especially in studying the days of the Passion week, to bear in mind that, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, each new day began, not with the morning as with us, but with the evening. In this they followed a very ancient precedent: "The evening and the morning were the first day." The two days, then, would be from Tuesday evening till Thursday evening; so that with Thursday evening began the last day of our Lords Passion. There is no record at all of how He spent the Wednesday; in all probability it was in seclusion at Bethany. Nor have we any account of the doings of the Thursday save the directions given to prepare the Passover, the keeping of which was to be the first act of the last day.

We may think of these two days, then, as days of rest for our Lord, of holy calm and quietude-a sacred lull before the awful storm. What were His thoughts? what His feelings? What passages of Scripture were His solace? Would not the ninety-fourth psalm be one of them? If so, how fondly would He dwell upon that sentence of it, "In the multitude of my thoughts within me Thy comforts delight my soul." If we only had a record of His prayers, how rich it would be! If we had the spiritual history of these two days it would no doubt be full of pleading as rich and precious as the prayer of intercession His disciple heard and one of them recorded for our sakes, and of yearning as tender and touching as His wail over Jerusalem. But the Spirit, Who takes of the things of Christ and shows them unto us, does not invade the privacy of the Saviours hours of retirement. No diary is published; and beyond doubt it is better so. It may be that in the lives of the saints there has been too much of this-not too much of spiritual communing, but too much unveiling of it. It may be that there is a danger of leading us to seek after such "exercises" as an end in themselves, instead of as mere means to the end of holy and unselfish living. What the world should see is the life that is the outcome of those secret communings with God-it should see the life which was with the Father manifested in glowing word and self-forgetting deed. Why have we no need to see into that holy, loving heart during these two sacred days in Bethany? Because it is sufficiently revealed in the story of the day that followed it. Ah! the words, the deeds of that day-what revealings of heart, what manifestations of the life within are there!

The very silence of these two days is strikingly suggestive of repose. We are presently to hear of the awful agony in the Garden; but from the very way in which we shall hear of it we shall be strengthened in the impression, which no doubt is the true one, that the two days of interval were not days of agony, but days of soul rest; and in this we recognise a striking contrast to the restlessness of those who spent the time in plotting His destruction. Contrast, for example, the calm of our Lords announcement in the second verse, with the uneasy plotting in the palace of the high priest. Without agitation He faces the horror of great darkness before Him; without flinching He anticipates the very darkest of it all: "betrayed"-"crucified"; without a tremor on His lips He even specifies the time: "after two days." Now look at that company in the palace of the high priest, as with dark brows and troubled looks they consult how they may take Jesus by subtlety. Observe how in fear they put it off, -as not safe yet, not for nine days at least, till the crowds at the feast, so many of whom had so recently been shouting "Hosanna to the Son of David!" shall have gone home. "Not for nine days," so they resolve. "After two days," so He has said.

"Oh, but the counsel of the Lord Doth stand, for ever sure."

Christ knew far more about it than if there had been a spy in the palace of the high priest, reporting to Him. He was in communication with One Who doeth according to His will in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. Caiaphas and his fellow-conspirators may plot what they please, it shall be done according to the counsel of the Lord; it shall be so done that an apostle shall be able afterwards with confidence to say: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken."

The means by which their counsels were overruled was the treason of Judas, into whose dark heart the Bethany incident will afford us a glimpse. Its interest turns upon the different values attached to a deed of love, by Judas on the one hand, and by Jesus on the other.

To Judas it meant waste. And such a waste!-three hundred pence thrown away. on the foolish luxury of a moment! "This ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor." Be it remembered that there was a good deal to be said for this argument. It is very easy for us, who have the limelight of our Lords words on the whole scene, to see how paltry the objection was; but even yet, with this story now published, as our Lord said it would be, all over Christendom, how many arguments are heard of the very same description! It is hot so much to be wondered at that the objection of Judah found a good deal of favour with some of the disciples. They could not see the blackness of the heart out of which the suggestion came, nor could they see the beauty of the love which shed from Marys heart a perfume far more precious than the odour of the ointment. Probably even Mary was startled; and, if her Lord had not at once taken her part, might not have had a word to say for herself.

"But Jesus, perceiving it, said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work on Me." He understood her-understood her perfectly, read at once the whole secret of her loving heart, explained her conduct better even than she understood it herself, as we shall presently see. He deals very tenderly with the disciples; for He understood them too, saw at once that there was no treason in their hearts, that though they took up the suggestion of the traitor it was in no sympathy with his spirit, but simply because of their want of insight and appreciation. He, however, does rebuke them-gently; and then He quietly opens their eyes to the surpassing beauty of the deed they had ventured to condemn. "She hath wrought a good work upon Me." The word translated "good" has prominent in it the thought of beauty. And since our Lord has set that deed of Mary in its true light, there is no one with any sense of beauty who fails to see how beautiful it is. The very impulsiveness of the act, the absence of all calculation, the simplicity and naturalness of it, the womanliness of it-all these add to its beauty as an outburst of love. We can well imagine that these words of Jesus may have furnished much of the inspiration which thrilled the soul of the apostle as he wrote to the Corinthians his noble eulogy of love. Certainly its pricelessness could not have been more notably or memorably taught. Three hundred pence to be weighed against a true womans love! "If a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned."

We are led into still more sacred ground as we observe how highly the Saviour values Marys affection for Himself. "She hath wrought a good work upon Me"-"Me ye have not always"-"she did it for My burial." Who can reach the pathos of these sacred words? There is no doubt that amid the hate by which Jesus was surrounded, with His knowledge of the treason in the dark soul of Judas, and His keen sense of the want of sympathy on the part of the other disciples, His human heart was yearning for love, for sympathetic love. Oh, how He loved! and how that love of His was going out to all around Him throughout the Passion week-without return! We may well believe, then, that this outburst of love from the heart of Mary must have greatly cheered Him.

"She hath wrought a good work upon Me." With the ointment on His head, there had come a far sweeter balm to His wounded heart; for He saw that she was not wanting in sympathy-that she had some idea, however vague it might be, of the pathos of the time. She felt, if she did not quite see, the shadow of the grave. And this presentiment (shall we call it?) not as the result of any special thought about it, but in some dim way, had prompted her to choose this touching manner of showing her love: "In that she hath poured this ointment on My body, she did it for My burial." Verily, a true human heart beats here, welcoming, oh! so gladly, this womans loving sympathy.

But the Divine Spirit is here too, looking far beyond the needs of the moment or the burdens of the day. No one could more tenderly consider the poor; nothing was nearer to His heart than their necessities, -witness that wonderful parable of judgment with which He finished His public ministry; but He knew well that in that personal devotion which was shown in Marys loving act was to be found the mainspring of all benevolence, and not only so but of all that was good and gracious; therefore to discourage such personal affection would be to seal up the fount of generosity and goodness; and accordingly He not only commends it, but he lifts it up to its proper dignity, He gives it commendation beyond all other words of praise. He ever spoke; looking away down the ages, and out to the ends of the earth, and recognising that this love to Himself, this personal devotion to a dying Saviour, was to be the very central force of the gospel, and thus the hope of the world, He adds these memorable words: "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her."

From "this that this woman hath done" the record passes at once to that which was done by the man who had dared to find fault with it. It also is told wherever the gospel is preached as a memorial of him. Behold, then, the two memorials side by side. Has not the Evangelist shown himself the true historian in bringing them together? The contrast intensifies the light that shines from the love of Mary, and deepens the darkness of the traitors sin. Besides, the story of the three hundred pence is a most fitting prelude to that of the thirty pieces of silver. At the same time, by suggesting the steps which led down to such an abyss of iniquity, it saves us from the error of supposing that the sin of Judas was so peculiar that no one now need be afraid of falling into it; for we are reminded in this way that it was at bottom the very sin which is the commonest of all, the very sin into which Christians of the present day are in greatest danger of falling.

What was it that made so great a gulf between Judas and all the rest? Not natural depravity; in this respect they were no doubt much alike. When the Twelve were chosen there was in all probability as good material, so to speak, in the man of Kerioth as in any of the men of Galilee. What, then, made the difference? Simply this, that his heart was never truly given to his Lord. He tried throughout to serve God and mammon; and if he had been able to combine the two services, if there had been any fair prospect of these thrones on which the Twelve were to sit, and the honours and emoluments of the kingdom with which his fancy had been dazzled, treason would never have entered his mind; but when not a throne but a cross began to loom before him, he found, as every one finds some time, that he must make his choice, and that choice was what it invariably is with those who try to serve the two masters. The god of this world had blinded him. He not only failed to see the beauty of Marys loving deed, as some of the other disciples did just at the first, but he had become quite incapable of any spiritual in. sight, quite incapable of seeing his Masters glory, or recognising His claims. In a certain sense, then, even Judas himself was like the other murderers of Christ in not knowing what he did. Only he might have known, would have known, had not that accursed lust of gold been always in the way. And we may say of any ordinary worshipper of mammon of the present day, that if he had been in Judas place, with the prospects as dark as they were to him, with only the one course left, as it would seem to him, of extricating himself from a losing concern, he would be in the highest degree likely to do the very same thing.

As the two days draw to a close we see Judas seeking opportunity to betray his Master, and Jesus seeking opportunity to keep His last Passover with His disciples. Again, what a contrast! The traitor must lurk and lie in wait; the Master does not even remain in Bethany or seek some lonely house on the Mount of Olives, but sends His disciples right over into the city, and with the same readiness with which He had found the asss colt on which He rode into Jerusalem He finds a house in which to keep the feast.

I - THE EVENING. {Mat_26:20-30}

The last day of our Lords Passion begins at eventide on Thursday with the Passover feast, at which "He sat down with the Twelve."

The entire feast would be closely associated in His mind with the dark event with which the day must close; for of all the types of the great sacrifice He was about to offer, the most significant was the paschal lamb. Most fitting, therefore, was it that towards the close of this feast, when its sacred importance was deepest in the disciples minds, their Master should institute the holy ordinance which was to be a lasting memorial of "Christ our Passover sacrificed for us." Of this feast, then, with its solemn and affecting close, the passage before us is the record.

It falls naturally into two parts, corresponding to the two great burdens on the Saviours heart as He looked forward to this feast-the Betrayal and the Crucifixion (see Mat_26:2). The former is the burden of Mat_26:21-25; the latter of Mat_26:26-30. There was indeed very much besides to tell-the strife which grieved the Masters heart as they took their places at the table, and His wise and kindly dealing with it; {Luk_22:24, seq.} the washing of the disciples feet; the farewell words of consolation; the prayer of intercession, {John 13-17} -but these are all omitted here, that thought may be concentrated on the two outstanding facts: the unmasking and dismissal of the traitor, and the committing to the faithful ones of the sacred charge, "This do in remembrance of Me."

1. It must have been sorrowful enough for the Master as He sat down with the Twelve to mark their unseemly strife, and sadder still to think that, though for the hour so closely gathered round Him, they would soon be scattered every man to his own and would leave Him alone; but He had the comfort of knowing that eleven were true at heart and foreseeing that after all wanderings and falls they would come back again. "He knoweth our frame, and remembereth that we are dust"; and therefore with the eye of divine compassion He could look beyond the temporary desertion, and find satisfaction in the fidelity that would triumph in the end over the weakness of the flesh. But there was one of them, for whom His heart was failing Him, in whose future He could see no gleam of light. All the guiding and counsel with which he had been favoured in common with the rest had been lost on him, - even the early word of special personal warning, {Joh_6:70} spoken that he might bethink himself ere it were too late, had failed to touch him. There is now only one opportunity left. It is the last night; and the last word must now be spoken. How tenderly and thoughtfully the difficult duty is done! "As they did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you, that One of you shall betray Me." Imagine in what tones these words were spoken, what love and sorrow must have thrilled in them!

The kind intention evidently was to reach the heart of the one without attracting the attention of the rest. For there must have been a studied avoidance of any look or gesture that would have marked the traitor. This is manifest from the way in which the sad announcement is received. It comes, in fact, to all the eleven as a summons to great searchings of heart, a fitting preparation {1Co_11:28} for the new and sacred service to which they are soon to be invited; and truly there could have been no better sign than the passing from lip to lip, from heart to heart, of the anxious question, "Lord, is it I?" The remembrance of the strife at the beginning of the feast was too recent, the tone of the Masters voice too penetrating, the glance of His eye too searching, to make self-confidence possible to them at that particular moment. Even the heart of the confident Peter seems to have been searched and humbled under that scrutinising look. If only he had retained the same spirit, what humiliation would have been spared him!

There was one who did not take up the question; but the others were all so occupied with self-scrutiny that no one seems to have observed his silence, and Jesus forbears to call attention to it. He will give him another opportunity to confess and repent, for so we understand the pathetic words which follow: "He that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish, the same shall betray Me." This was no mere outward sign for the purpose of denoting the traitor. It was a wail of sorrow, an echo of the old lament of the Psalmist: "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." How could the heart even of Judas resist so tender an appeal?

We shall understand the situation better if we suppose what is more than probable, that he was sitting very near to Jesus, perhaps next to Him on the one side, as John certainly was on the other. We cannot suppose, from what we know of the customs of the East, that Judas was the only one dipping with Him in the dish; nor would he be the only one to whom "the sop" was given. But if his position was as we have supposed, there was something in the vague words our Saviour used which tended to the singling of him out, and, though not the only one, he would naturally be the first to whom the sop was given, which would be a sufficient sign to John, who alone was taken into confidence at the time, {see Joh_13:25-26} without attracting in any special way the attention of the rest. Both in the words and in the action, then, we recognise the Saviours yearning over His lost disciple, as He makes a last attempt to melt his obdurate heart.

The same spirit is manifest in the words which follow. The thought of consequences to Himself gives Him no concern; "the Son of man goeth, even as it is written of Him"; it is the awful abyss into which His disciple is plunging that fills His soul with horror: "but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." O Judas! Thy treachery is indeed a link in the chain of events by which the divine purpose is fulfilled; but it was not necessary that so it should be. In some other way the counsel of the Lord would have been accomplished, if thou hadst yielded to that last appeal. It was necessary that the Son of man should suffer and die for the worlds sin, but there was nothing to compel thee to have thy hand in it.

At last Judas speaks; but in no spirit of repentance. He takes up, it is true, the question, of the rest, but not in sincerity-only driven to it as the last refuge of hypocrisy. Moreover, he asks it in so low a tone, that neither it nor the answer to it appears to have been noticed by the general company. {Joh_13:29} And that there is no inclining of the heart to his Lord appears perhaps in the use of the formal title Rabbi, retained in the Revised Version: "Is it I, Rabbi?" Had he repented even at this late hour-had he thrown himself, humbled and contrite, at the Saviours feet, with the question "Lord, is it I?" struggling to find utterance, or better still, the heart-broken confession, "Lord, it is I"-it would not yet have been too late. He Who never turned a penitent away would have received even Judas back again and forgiven all his sin; and in lowliness of heart the repentant disciple might have received at his Masters hands the symbols of that infinite sacrifice which was sufficient even for such as he. But his conscience is seared as with a hot iron, his heart is hard as the nether millstone, and accordingly without a word of confession, actually taking "the sop" without a sign even of shame, he gave himself up finally to the spirit of evil, and went immediately out-"and it was night". {see Joh_13:30} There remain now around the Master none but true disciples.

2. The Passover meal is drawing to a close; but ere it is ended the Head of the little family has quite transfigured it. When the traitor left the company we may suppose that the look of unutterable sadness would gradually pass from the Saviours countenance. Up to this time the darkness had been unrelieved. As he thought of the lost disciples fate, there was nothing but woe in the prospect; but when from that dark future he turned to His own, He saw, not the horror of the Cross alone, but "the joy set before Him"; and in view of it He was able with a heart full of thanks and praise to appoint for remembrance of the awful day a feast, to be kept like the Paschal feast by an ordinance for ever. {see Exo_12:14}

The connection of the new feast with the old is closely maintained. It was "as they were eating" that the Saviour took bread, and from the way in which He is said to have taken "a cup" (R.V) it is plain that it was one of the cups it was customary to take at the Paschal feast. With this in mind we can more readily see the naturalness of the words of institution. They had been feasting on the body of the lamb; it is time that they should look directly at the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world; so, taking the new symbol and handing it to them, He says, "Take, eat; this is My body."

How strange that into words so simple there should have been imported anything so mysterious and unnatural as some of the doctrines around which controversy in the Church has raged for weary centuries-doctrines sadly at variance with "the simplicity that is in Christ.," At the first institution of the Passover the directions for eating it close with these words, "It is the Lords Passover." Does any one for a single moment suppose that in so putting it Moses meant to assert any mysterious identity of two things so diverse in their nature as the literal flesh of the lamb and the historical event known as the Lords Passover? Why, then, should any one for a moment suppose that when Jesus says, "This is My body," He had any thought of mysterious transference or confusion of identity? Moses meant that the one was the symbol of the other; and in the same way our Saviour meant that the bread was henceforth to be the symbol of His body. The same appropriateness, naturalness, and simplicity, are apparent in the words with which He hands the cup: "This is My blood of the covenant" (R.V) omits new, which throws the emphasis more distinctly on "which is shed"-not, like the blood of the lamb, for a little family group, but-"for many," not as a mere sign, {see Heb. 10} but "unto remission of sins."

The new symbols were evidently much more suitable to the ordinance which was to be of world-wide application. Besides, it was no longer necessary that there should be further sacrifice of life. Christ our Passover was sacrificed once for all; and therefore there must be no thought of repetition of the sacrifice; it must be represented only; and. this is done both simply and impressively in the breaking of the bread and the pouring of the wine. Nothing could be more natural than the transition from the old to the new Passover feast.

Rising now above all matters of detail and questions of interpretation, let us try humbly and reverently to enter into the mind of Christ as He breaks the bread and pours the wine and institutes the feast of love. As in the earlier part of the evening we had in His dealings with the traitor a touching unveiling of His human heart, so now, while there is the same human tenderness, there is with it a reach of thought and range of vision which manifestly transcend all mortal powers.

Consider first how extraordinary it was that at such a time He should take pains to concentrate the thoughts of His disciples in all time to come upon His death. Even the bravest of those who had been with Him in all His temptations could not look at it now; and to His own human soul it must have seemed in the very last degree repulsive. To the disciples, to the world, it must have seemed defeat; yet He calmly provides for its perpetual celebration as a victory!

Think of the form the celebration takes. It is no mournful solemnity, with dirges and elegies for one about to die; but a Feast-a strange way of celebrating a death. It may be said that the Passover feast itself was a precedent; but in this respect there is no parallel. The Passover feast was no memorial of a death. If Moses had died that night, would it ever have occurred to the children of Israel to institute a feast for the purpose of keeping in memory so unutterable a calamity? But a greater than Moses is here, and is soon to die a cruel and shameful death. Is not that a calamity as much more dreadful than the other as Christ was greater than Moses?

Why, then, celebrate it by a feast? Because this death is no calamity. It is the means of life to a great multitude that no man can number, out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation. Therefore it is most fitly celebrated by a feast. It is a memorial; but it is far more. It is a feast, provided for the spiritual nourishment of the people of God through all their generations. Think what must have been in the Saviours mind when He said, "Take, eat"; how His soul must have been enlarged as He uttered the words "shed for many." Simple words, easily spoken; but before they came from these sacred lips there must have risen before His mind the vision of multitudes all through the ages, fed on the strangest food, refreshed by the strangest wine, that mortal man had ever heard of.

How marvellously the horizon widens round Him as the feast proceeds! At first He is wholly engaged with the little circle round the table. When He says, "One of you shall betray Me," when He takes the sop and hands it, when He pours out His last lament over the false disciple, He is the Man of Sorrows in the little upper chamber; but when He takes the bread and again the cup, the horizon widens, beyond the cross He sees the glory that shall follow, sees men of all nations and climes coming to the feast He is preparing for them, and before He closes He has reached the consummation in the heavenly kingdom: "I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in My. Fathers kingdom." "Truly this was the Son of God."

Then hear Him singing at the close. How bewildered the disciples, how rapt the Master, must have been! What a scene for the painter, what a study of divine calm and human agitation! The "hymn" they sang was in all probability the latter part of the Great Hallel, which closes with Ps 118. It is most interesting. as we read the psalm to think what depths of meaning, into which none of His disciples as yet could enter, there must have been to Him in almost every line.

II - THE NIGHT. {Mat_26:31-75}

As the little company have lingered in the upper room evening has passed into night. The city is asleep, as Jesus leads the way along the silent streets, down the steep slope of Moriah, and across the Kedron, to the familiar place of resort on the mount of Olives. As they proceed in silence, a word of ancient prophecy lies heavy on His heart. It was from Zechariah, whose prophecy was often {Zec_9:9; Zec_11:12; Zec_13:7} in his thoughts in the Passion week. "Awake, O sword, against My shepherd, and against the man that is My fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered." It is the last part of it that troubles Him. For the smiting of the Shepherd He is well prepared; it is the scattering of the sheep that makes His heart so sore, and forces Him to break the silence with the sorrowful words, "All ye shall be offended because of Me this night." What pathos. in these words "because of Me": how it pained Him to think that what must come to Him should be so terrible to them! And is there not a touch of kind allowance in the words "this night"? "He that walketh in the night stumbleth," and how could they but stumble in such a night? Then the thought of the shepherd and the sheep which fills His mind and suggests the passage He quotes is full of tenderness without even a hint of reproach. Who will blame the sheep for scattering when the Shepherd is smitten? And how trustfully and withal how wistfully does He look forward to the reassembling, of the flock in the old home, the sacred region where they gathered first round the Shepherd: "After I am risen again, I will go before you as the shepherd goes before the flock into Galilee." Thus after all would be. fulfilled His prayer of intercession, so recently offered on their behalf: "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one."

The silly sheep were not at all alarmed. This was altogether natural; for the danger was not yet within their sight. Nor was it really at all unnatural that the impulsive Peter should be now at the very opposite pole of feeling from where he stood an hour or two before. Then, sharing the general depression, he joined the rest in the anxious question, "Lord, is it I?" now, having been relieved from the anxiety which for the moment pressed upon him, and having been moreover raised into a glow of feeling and an assurance of faith by his Masters tender and stirring words, and the prayer of intercession which so fitly closed them, he has passed from the-depths of self-distrust to the heights of self-confidence, so that he even dares to say, "Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will 1 never be offended."

Ah! Peter, you were safe when you were crying "Lord, is it I?"-you are very far from safe now, when you speak of yourself in so different a tone. Jesus sees it all, and gives him warning in the very plainest words. But Peter persists. He vainly imagines that his Master cannot know how strong he is, how burning his zeal, how warm his love, how steadfast his devotion. Of all this he is himself distinctly conscious. There is no mistake about it. Devotion thrills in every fibre of his being; and he knows, he feels it in his soul, that no torture, not death itself, could move him from his steadfastness: "Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee."

"Likewise also said all the disciples." Quite natural too. For the moment Peter was the leader of the sheep. They all caught his enthusiasm, and were conscious of the same devotion: why, then, should they not acknowledge it as he had done? They had yet to learn the difference between a transient glow of feeling and abiding inward strength. Only by sad experience can they learn it now; so Jesus lets them have the last word.

And now Gethsemane is reached. The olive trees which in the daytime give a shadow from the heat will now afford seclusion, though the moon is at the full. Here, then, the Son of man will spend some time with God, alone, before He is betrayed into the hands of sinners; and yet, true Son of man as He is, He shrinks from being left alone in that dread hour, and clings to the love and sympathy of those who have been with Him in His temptations hitherto. So He leaves eight of the disciples at the entering in of the olive grove, and takes with Him into the darkness the three most in sympathy with Him-the same three who had been the sole witnesses of His power in raising from the dead the daughter of Jairus, and had alone seen His glory on the holy mount. But even these three cannot go with Him all the way. He will have them as near as possible; and yet He must be alone. Did He think of the passage, "I have trodden the winepress alone, and of the people there was none with me"?

That solitude may not be invaded. We can only, like the disciples of old, look reverently at it from afar. There are probably many true disciples who can get no nearer than the edge of the darkness; those who are closest in sympathy may be able to obtain a nearer view, but even those who like John have leant on His breast can know it only in part-in its depth it passeth knowledge. Jesus is alone in Gethsemane yet, and of the people there is none with Him.

"Ah! never, never can we know The depth of that mysterious woe."

While it is not possible for any of us to penetrate the deep recesses of Gethsemane, we have a key to let us in, and open to us something of its meaning. This help is found in that striking passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the experience of the Lord Jesus in the Garden is closely connected with His being "called of God a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec." It is true that at His baptism Jesus entered on His ministry in its largest sense, the Prophet, Priest, and King of men. But there is a sense in which later on, at successive stages, He was "called of God" to each of these offices in succession. At His baptism the voice from heaven was, "This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased." On the mount of Transfiguration there was this added, "Hear ye Him," and the withdrawal of Moses and Elias, leaving Jesus alone, indicated that henceforth Me was called of God to be the one prophet of humanity. Similarly, though from the beginning He was King, it was not till after He had overcome the sharpness of death that He was "called of God" to be King, to take His seat on the right hand of majesty in the heavens. At what period, then, in His ministry was it that He was called of God to be a high priest? To this natural question the passage m the Epistle to the Hebrews supplies the answer; and when we take the thought with us we see that it is indeed a torch to lighten for us just a little the darkness of the Gardens gloom.

Is there not something in the very arrangement of the group which harmonises with the thought? Three days ago the Temple had been closed for ever to its Lord. Its shrine was empty now for evermore: "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." But still there is to be a temple, in which shall minister a priest, not of the line of Aaron, rather after the older order of Melchisedec-a temple, not of stone, but of men-of believers, according to the later apostolic word: "Ye are the temple of the living God." Of that new and living temple we have a representation in Gethsemane. The eight disciples are its court; the three are in the holy place; into the holiest of all our great High Priest has gone-alone: for the veil is not yet rent in twain.

But why the agony? The difficulty has always been to account for the sudden change from the calmness of the Paschal feast to the awful struggle of Gethsemane. What had happened meanwhile to bring about so great a change? There was light in the upper chamber-it was dark in the Garden; but surely the darkness and the light were both alike to Him; or if to His human heart there was the difference we all are conscious of, it could not be that the mere withdrawal of the light destroyed His peace. It is altogether probable that both the previous nights had been spent on this same mount of Olives, and there is no hint of agony then. It is true that the prospect before Him was full of unutterable horror; but from the time He had set His face to go up to Jerusalem it had been always in His view, and though at times the thought of it would come over Him as a cold wave that made Him shudder for the moment, there had been up to this hour no agony like this, and not a trace of pleading that the cup might pass.

What, then, was the new element of woe that came upon Him in that hour? What was the cup now put for the first time to His sacred lips, from which He shrank as from nothing in all His sad experience before? Is not the answer to be found in the region of thought into which we are led in that great passage already referred to, which speaks of Him as then for the first time "called of God a High Priest," which represents Him, though He was a Son, learning His obedience (as a Priest) by the things which He suffered?

May we not, then, reverently conceive of Him as in that hour taking on Him the sin of the world, in a more intimate sense than He had ever done before? "He bare our sins in His own body on the tree." In a certain sense He had borne the burden all His life, for He had throughout endured the contradiction of sinners against Himself; but in some special sense manifestly He bore it on the tree. When did He in that special sense take the awful burden on Him? Was it not in the Garden of Gethsemane? If so, can we wonder that the Holy One shrank from it, as He never shrank from simple suffering? To be identified with sin-to be "made sin," as the apostle puts it-how His soul revolted from it! The cup of sorrow He could take without a murmur; but to take on Him the intolerable load of the worlds sin-from this He shrank with all the recoil of stainless purity, with all the horror of a heart that could not bear the very thought. It was not the weakness of His flesh, but the purity of His spirit, that made Him shrink, that wrung from Him once and again, and yet again, the cry, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." It was a new temptation, three times repeated, like that old one in the wilderness. That assault, as we found, was in close relation to His assumption at His baptism of His work of ministry; this conflict in the Garden was, we believe, as closely connected with His assuming His priestly work, undertaking to make atonement for sin by the sacrifice of Himself. As that followed His baptism, this followed His institution of the holy supper. In that ordinance He had prepared the minds of His disciples to turn from the Paschal lamb of the old covenant, to behold henceforth the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. From the feast He goes straightway to this lonely garden, and there begins His dread atoning work.

It must have been a great aggravation of His agony that even the three disciples could not enter into sympathy with Him, even so much as to hold their eyes waking. True, they were very weary, and it was most natural that they should be heavy with sleep; but had they had even a faint conception of what that agony of their Master meant they could not possibly have slept; and we can well fancy that in that hour of anguish the Saviour must have called to mind from the Book of Psalms, with which He was so perfectly familiar, the sad lament: "Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none."

But though He keenly feels His loneliness, His thoughts are far less of Himself than of them. Realising so vividly the horrors now so close at hand, He sees, from the very possibility of their sleeping, how utterly unprepared they are for what awaits them, so He summons them to "watch and pray," to be on the alert against sudden surprise, and to keep in constant touch with God, so that they may not find themselves confronted with temptation which, whatever the devotion of the spirit, may prove too much for the weakness of the flesh. Think of the tender consideration of this second warning, when the first had been so little heeded.

And we cannot but agree with those who see in what He said when He returned for the last time to the three, not irony, no touch of sarcasm, but the same tender consideration He has shown throughout. From the Garden they could easily see the city in the moonlight across the ravine. As yet there was no sign of life about it: all was quiet; there was therefore no reason why they should not for the few moments that might remain to them sleep on now and take their rest. But it can only be for a short time, for "the hour is at hand." We may, then, think of the three lying down to sleep, as the eight had probably been doing throughout, while Jesus, from whose mortal eyes sleep was banished now for ever, would watch until He saw the gleam of lanterns and torches as of men from the city coming down the hill, and then He would wake them and say, "Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray Me."

The arrest immediately follows the agony; and with it begin the outward shame and torture of the Passion. The time has now come when all the indignities and cruelties of which Jesus had spoken to His disciples "apart in the way" {see Mat_20:17-19} shall be heaped upon Him. But none of these things move Him. The inward shame and torture had almost been too much for Him. His soul had been "exceeding sorrowful, even unto death"; so that He was in danger of passing away from the scene of conflict ere yet it would be possible to say "It is finished." Only by "strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death" had He obtained the needful strength {Luk_22:43} to pass the awful ordeal, and come out of it ready to yield Himself up into the "wicked bands" by which He must be "crucified and slain." But now He is strong. St. Matthew does not tell us that the prayer in the Garden was answered; but we see it as we follow the Son of man along the dolorous way. If He shrank from taking up the load of human sin, He does not flinch in carrying it; and amid all He has to bear at the hands of sinners, He maintains His dignity and self-possession.

When the armed men approach, He goes calmly out to meet them. Even the traitors kiss He does not resent; but only takes occasion to make one more appeal to that stony heart, "Comrade," He says, "(do) that for which thou art come" (see R.V). There is a brokenness in the utterance which makes it difficult to translate, but which is touchingly natural. It would seem as if our Lord, when Judas first appeared, though He knew well for what purpose He had come, and wished to show him that He did, yet shrank from putting it into words. When the traitor had actually done that for which he had come, when he had not only given the traitors kiss, and that in a shamelessly effusive way, as appears from the strong word used in the account both here and elsewhere, then would come that other appeal which most impressed the eyewitness from whom St. Luke had his information: "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?"

At this point probably occurred an incident of the arrest recorded only in the fourth Gospel, the recoil of the mob when Jesus confronted them and acknowledged Himself to be the man whom they were seeking. Though this is not mentioned here, we recognise the effect of it upon the disciples. It would naturally embolden them when, on the second advance, they saw their Master in the hands of these men, to ask, "Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" And it was most characteristic that "one of them" (whom we should have recognised, even though St. John had not mentioned his name) should not wait for the answer, but should smite at once.

All is excitement and commotion. Jesus alone is calm. In such a sea of trouble, behold, the Man! See the heart at leisure from itself to care for and to cure the wounded servant of the high priest. {Luk_22:51} Think of the mind so free at such a time to look out far into the future, using the occasion to lay down the great principle that force, as a weapon which will recoil on those who use it, must not be employed in the cause of truth and righteousness. Look at that spirit, so serenely confident of power with God at the very moment that the frail body is helpless in the hands of men: "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels?" How it enlarges our souls even to try to enter into that great mind and heart at such a moment. What an outlook of thought! What an up-look of faith! And again, what mastery!

What self-annihilation! We have seen His self-repression in the prayer He offered in the Garden; but think of the prayers He did not offer; think what effort, what sacrifice, what self-abnegation it must have been to Him to suppress that prayer for help from the legions of heaven against these bands of the ungodly. But it was enough for Him to remember, "How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" It was necessary that He should suffer at the hands of men; therefore He allows them to lead Him away, only reminding them that the force which would have been needful for the arrest of some robber desperado was surely quite unnecessary in dealing with One Whose daily practice it had been to sit quietly teaching in the Temple.

The reference to the Scriptures was probably intended not only to explain His non-resistance, but also to support the faith of His disciples when they saw Him bound and carried off. Had they known the Scriptures as under His teaching they might well have known them, not only would they have seen that thus it must be, but they would have had before them the sure prospect of His rising from the dead on the third day. But in their case the Scriptures were appealed to in vain; they had not the faith of their Master to venture on the sure Word of God; and so, hope failing, "all the disciples forsook Him and fled." Not all finally, however, even for that dark night; for though faith and hope failed, there remained love enough in the hearts of two to make them presently stop and think, and then turn slowly and follow from afar. Only Peter is mentioned here as doing this, because the sequel concerns him; but that John also went to the palace of the high priest we know from his own account. {Joh_18:15}

The night is not yet over, and therefore there can be no formal meeting of the Jewish council, according to an excellent law which enacted that all cases involving the death penalty should be tried in the daytime. This law was, quite characteristically, observed in the letter, transgressed in the spirit; for though the formal sentence was deferred till morning, {Mat_27:1} the real trial was begun and ended before the dawn. The reference by St. Matthew to both sessions of the council enables us clearly to understand what would otherwise have appeared a "manifest: discrepancy" between his account and that of St. Luke, the former speaking of the trial as having taken place in the night, while the latter tells us it only began "as soon as it was day."

Our Evangelist shows himself to be a true historian in that, while disposing of the formal morning session in half a sentence, he gives a full account of the night conclave which really settled all. They proceed in a thoroughly characteristic manner. Having secured their prisoner, they must first agree upon the charge: what shall it be? It was no easy matter; for not only had His life been stainless, but He had shown consummate skill in avoiding all the entanglements which had been set for Him; and besides, it so happened that nothing they could prove conclusively against Him, such as His breaking the letter of the Sabbath law, or rather of their traditions, would suit their purpose, for they would run the risk on the one hand of calling fresh attention to the works of healing which had made so deep an impression on the popular mind, and on the other of stirring up strife between the opposing factions which had entered into a precarious union based solely on their common desire to do away with Him. Hence the great difficulty of securing testimony against: Him, and the necessity of having recourse to that which was false.

We may wonder perhaps that a court so unscrupulous should have made so much of the difficulty of getting witnesses to agree. Could they not, for other "thirty pieces of silver," have purchased two that would have served their purpose? But it must be remembered that men in their position had to pay some respect to decency; and from their point of view to pay a man for helping to arrest a criminal was an entirely different transaction from giving money to, procure false witness. Besides, there were men of the council who did not "consent to the counsel and deed of them," {see Luk_23:51, and Joh_7:50-51} and they must be careful. It is not probable of course that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus would be present at the secret session in the night; but they would of course be present, or have the opportunity of being, present, at the regular meeting in the morning.

When, therefore, the attempt to found a charge, on the testimony of witnesses against Him failed, the only hope was to force Him, if possible, to incriminate Himself. The high priest accordingly addresses himself to the prisoner, and attempts to induce Him to say something which might tend to clear up the confusion of the witnesses testimony. It was evident that something had been said about destroying the Temple. and building it in three days-would He not state exactly what it was? "But Jesus held His peace." He would not plead before such a tribunal, or acknowledge the irregular appeal by so much as a single word.

Caiaphas is baffled; but there is one course left to him, a course which for many reasons he would have preferred not to take, but he sees now no other way of setting up a charge that will bear examination in the morning.

He therefore appeals to Jesus in the most solemn manner to assert or deny His Messiahship.

Silence is now impossible. The high priest has given Him the opportunity, of proclaiming His gospel in presence of the council, and He will not lose it, though it seal His condemnation. "He cannot deny Himself." In the most emphatic manner He proclaims Himself the Christ, the Son of God, and tells them that the time is coming when their positions shall be reversed-He their Judge, they summoned to His bar: "Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven" (R.V). What light must have been in His eye, what majesty in His mien, as He spoke those thrilling words! And who shall limit their power? Who of us shall be surprised to find members of that very conclave among the ransomed of the Lord in the New Jerusalem? They might not heed His words that night, but three days after would they not recall them? And fifty days after that again-who can tell?

Meantime the only result is to produce real or affected horror. "The high priest rent his clothes," thereby expressing in a tragic manner how it tore his heart to hear such "blasphemy"; and with one consent, or at least with no voice raised against it, He is condemned to death.

The council have now done with Him for the night, and He is handed over to the custody of the guard and the servants of the high priest. Then follows that awful scene, which cannot be recalled without a shudder. To think that the Holy One of God should suffer these personal indignities-oh, degradation! It is more dreadful to think of than even the nails and the spear. Alas, even the dregs of the bitter cup of sorrow were wrung out to Him! "Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? Behold and see if there be any sorrow like unto My sorrow!"

Where is Peter now? We left Him following afar off. He has summoned up courage enough to follow on into the court of the high priests palace, and to mingle among the people there. If he had been let alone, he would with John have in some measure retrieved the disgrace of all the disciples forsaking their Master in "that night on which He was betrayed"; but it has been necessary to ally all the remnants of his bravery to come so far, and now he has none of it to spare. Besides, he is very tired, and shivering with cold-in no condition, verily, for anything heroic. Who is there of us will cast the first stone at him? There are those that speak of him in a tone of contempt as "quailing before a servant maid," as if the meanness of the occasion were not the very thing which made it so hard for him. Had he been summoned to the presence of the high priest, with all the eyes of the council fastened on him, his tired feeling would have left him all at once, his pulse would have beat fast, the excitement would have stirred him so that no fire of coals would have been needed to-warm him, and he might then have acquitted himself in a manner worthy of the rock-apostle; but to be suddenly met with a womans question sprung upon him unawares, with nobody he cared for looking on, with nothing to rouse his soul from the prostration into which it had been cast by the suddenness of what looked like overwhelming defeat-that was more than even Peter could bear; and accordingly he fell-fell terribly. Not to the bottom all at once. He tries first to pass the question off with a show of ignorance or indifference: "I know not what thou sayest." But when the first downward step is taken, all the rest follow with terrible rapidity. As we look down into the abyss into which plunged headlong the foremost of the Twelve, and hear these oaths and curses, what force it lends to the warning in Gethsemane: "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation"!

What a lesson of charity is here! Suppose for a moment that one of the Marys had been standing near, and heard Peter denying his Master with oaths and curses, what would her thought of him, have been? What else could it have been than a thought of sorrowful despair? She would have felt constrained, however reluctantly, to place him, not with the timid ten, but alongside of "Judas who betrayed Him." Yet she would have been wrong; and many good people are quite wrong when they judge disciples of Christ by what they see of them when at their worst. After all Peter was true at heart; and though from such an abyss he could never have recovered himself, he was so linked to his Master by the true devotion of the days of old that he could not fall utterly away. It was quite otherwise with Judas. His heart had been set on his covetousness throughout, while Peter in his inmost soul was loyal and true. His Master has prayed for him that his faith fail not. His courage has failed; and if that faith which is the only sure foundation for enduring courage had utterly failed too, his case would have been hopeless indeed. But it has not; there is still a link to bind him to the Lord, Whom in word he is denying for the moment; and first the crowing of the cock which reminds him of his Masters warning, and then immediately after, that look which was turned full on Peter as Jesus passed him, led across the court, perhaps with jeerings and buffetings at the very moment-that solemn memory and that sad and loving look recall him to himself again, the old true life wells up from the depths of the genuine and noble heart of him, and overflows in tears. So ends the story of that awful night.

III - THE MORNING. {Mat_27:1-26}

The formal meeting of the council in the morning would not occupy many minutes. The death sentence had been already agreed upon, and it only remained to take the necessary steps to carry it into effect. Hence the form in which the Evangelist records the morning session: "All the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put Him to death." This could not have passed as a minute of the meeting; but it was none the less a true account of it. As, however, the law forbade their inflicting the death penalty, "when they had bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor."

This delivering up of Jesus is a fact of the Passion on which special stress is laid in the sacred records. It seems, indeed, to have weighed on the mind of Jesus Himself as much as the betrayal, as would appear from the manner in which, as He was nearing Jerusalem, He told His disciples what He should suffer there: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify." {Mat_20:18-19; see also Mar_10:33, and Luk_18:32} Long before this, indeed, "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." With the sorrow of that rejection He was only too familiar; but it was a new heartbreak to be delivered up to the Gentiles. It was a second betrayal on a much larger scale. So Stephen puts it in the impassioned close of his defence, where he charges the council with being "the betrayers and murderers" of "the Just One"; and indeed the thought is suggested here, not only by the association with what follows in regard to the traitors end, but by the use of the very same word as applied to the traitors act; for the word translated "betrayed" in verse 3 {Mat_27:3} is the very same in the original as that translated "delivered up" in verse 2 {Mat_27:2}. Judas is about to drop out of sight into the abyss; but the nation is one Judas now.

It may be, indeed, that it was the seeing of his own sin as mirrored in the conduct of the council which roused at last the traitors sleeping conscience. As he saw his late Master led away bound "as a lamb to the slaughter," these very words may have come back to his memory: "They shall deliver the Son of man to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify." It is quite possible, indeed, that the man of Kerioth was too good a Jew to have been willing to sell his Master to Pilate directly. But now he sees that that is just what he has done. We have no sympathy with those who imagine that Judas only intended to give his Master an opportunity of displaying His power and asserting His rights in a manner that would secure at once the allegiance of the people; but though-we see no evidence of any good intentions, we can readily believe that in the act of betrayal his mind did not go beyond the immediate consequences of his action-on the one hand the money; and on the other what was it but the banding of his Master to the chief priests and elders, who were after all His ecclesiastical superiors; and had they not the right to put Him on His trial? But now that he sees Jesus, Whom by long acquaintance he knows to be without spot or stain, bound as a common criminal and led away to execution, his act appears in a new and awful light, he is smitten with a measureless fear, and can no longer bear to think of what he has done.

"He repented himself," so we read in our version; but that it is no true repentance the more expressive Greek makes plain, for the word is quite distinct from that which indicates "repentance after a godly sort." Had there been in his heart any spring of true repentance its waters would have been unsealed long ere this-at the Table, or when in the Garden he heard his Masters last appeal of love. Not love, but fear, not godly sorrow, but very human terror, is what moves him now; and therefore it is not to Jesus that he flies, -had he even now gone up to Him, and fallen at His feet and confessed his sins, he would have been forgiven, -but to his accomplices in crime. Fain would he undo what he has done; but it is impossible! What he can do, however, he will; so he tries to get the chief priests to take back the silver pieces. But they will have nothing to do with them or with him. To his piteous confession they pay no heed; let him settle his own accounts with his own conscience: "What is that to us? see thou to that."

He is now alone; shut up to himself; alone with his sin. Even the thirty pieces of silver, which had such a friendly sound as he first dropped them in his purse, have turned against him; now he hates the very sight of them, and must be rid of them. As the priests will not take them back, he will cast them "into the sanctuary" (R.V), and so perhaps find some relief. But oh, Judas! it is one thing to get the silver out of your hands, and quite another to get the stain out of your soul. The only effect of it is to make the solitude complete. He has at last come to himself; and what a self it is to come to! No wonder that he "went and hanged himself."

The chief priests have not yet come to themselves. They will by-and-by, whether after the manner of the prodigal or after the manner of the traitor time will show; but meanwhile they are in the full career of their sin, and can therefore as yet consult to very good purpose. It was not at all a bad way of getting out of their difficulty with the money found in the sanctuary, to buy with it a place to bury strangers in; but little did they dream that when the story of it should be told thereafter to the world they would be discovered to have unconsciously fulfilled a prophecy, {Zec_11:12-13} which on the one hand gibbeted their crime as a valuing of the Shepherd of Israel at the magnificent price of thirty pieces of silver, and on the other carried with it the suggestion of those awful woes which Jeremiah had pronounced at the very spot they had purchased with the price of blood. {Jer. 19}

From the end of the traitor Judas we return to the issue of the nations treason. "Now Jesus stood before the governor." The full study of Jesus before Pilate belongs rather to the fourth Gospel, which supplies many most interesting details not furnished here. We must therefore deal with it quite briefly, confining our attention as much as possible to the points touched in the record before us.

As before the council, so before Pilate, our Lord speaks, or is silent, according as the question affects His mission or Himself. When asked of His Kingdom, He answers in the most decided manner ("Thou sayest" was a strong affirmation, as if to say "Certainly I am"); for on this depends the only hope of salvation for Pilate-for His accusers-for all. He will by no means disown or shrink from acknowledging the mission of salvation on which His Father has sent Him, though it may raise against Him the cry of blasphemy in the council, and of treason in the court; but when He is asked what He has to say for Himself, in the way of answer to the charges made against Him, He is silent: even when Pilate himself appeals to Him in the strongest manner to say something in His own defence, "He gave him no answer, not even to one word" (R.V). "Insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly; for how could he understand? How can a cautious, cunning, timeserving man of the world understand the selflessness of the Son of God?"

Pilate had no personal grudge against Jesus, and had sense enough to recognise at once that the claims of Kinghood advanced by his prisoner did not touch the prerogatives of Caesar-had penetration also to see through the motives of the chief priests and elders (Mat_27:18), and therefore was not at all disposed to acquiesce in the demand made on him for a summary condemnation. Besides, he was not without fears, which inclined him to the side of justice. He was evidently impressed with the demeanour of his prisoner. This appears even in the brief narrative of our Evangelist; but it comes out very strikingly in the fuller record of the fourth Gospel. His wifes influence, too, was used in the same direction. She evidently had heard something about Jesus, and had taken some interest in Him, enough to reach the conviction that He was a "righteous man." It was as yet quite early in the morning, and she may not have known till after her husband had gone out that it was for the trial of Jesus he was summoned. Having had uneasy dreams, in which the Man Who had impressed her so much was a leading figure, it was natural that she should send him a hasty message, so as to reach him "while he was sitting on the judgment seat" (R.V). This message would reinforce his fears, and increase his desire to deal justly with his extraordinary prisoner. On the other hand, Pilate could not afford to refuse point-blank the demand of the Jewish leaders. He was by no means secure in his seat. There had been so many disturbances under his administration, as we learn from contemporary history, that his recall, perhaps something more serious than recall, might be expected from Rome, if he should again get into trouble with these turbulent Jews; so he did not dare to run the risk of simply doing what he knew was right. Accordingly he tried several expedients, as we learn from the other accounts, to avoid the necessity of pronouncing sentence, one of which is here set forth at length (Mat_27:15, seq.), probably because it brings into strong relief the absolute rejection of their Messiah alike by the rulers and by the people. It was a most ingenious device, and affords a striking example of the astuteness of the procurator. Barabbas may have had some following in his "sedition"; but evidently he was no popular hero, but a vulgar robber or bandit, whose release was not at all likely to be clamoured for by the multitude; and it was moreover reasonably to be expected that the chief priests, much as they hated Jesus, would be ashamed to even hint that He was worse than this wretched criminal. But he did not know how deep the hatred was with which he had to deal. "He knew that for envy they had delivered Him"; but he did not know that at the root of that envy lay the conviction that either Jesus must perish or they must. They felt that He was "of purer eyes than to behold evil, and could not look upon iniquity"; and inasmuch as they had made up their minds to keep their iniquity, they must get rid of Him; they must seal up these eyes which searched them through and through, they must silence these tones which, silvery as they were, were to them as the knell of judgment. They had no liking for Barabbas, and, to do them justice, no sympathy whatever with his crimes; but they had no reason to be afraid of him: they could live, though he was free. It must have been a hard alternative even for them; but there is no hesitation about it. Themselves and their emissaries are busy among the mob, persuading them "that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus."

The multitudes are only too easily persuaded. Not that they had the dark envy, or anything like the rooted hatred, of their leaders; but what: will a careless mob not be prepared to do when excitement prevails and passions are inflamed? It is not at all unlikely that some of the same people who followed the multitude in shouting "Hosanna to the Son of David!" only five days before, would join in the cry which some of the baser sort would be the first to raise, "Crucify Him! crucify Him! "Those who know human nature best-at its basest; as in the hatred of the chief priests and elders; at its shallowest, as in the passions of the fickle crowd-will marvel least at the way in which the alternative of Pilate was received. There is no touchstone of human nature like the cross of Christ; and in the presence of the Holy One of God, sin is forced, as it were, to show itself in all its native blackness and enormity; and what sin is there, however small it seem to be, which if allowed to develop its latent possibility of vileness, would not lead on to this very choice-"Not Jesus, but Barabbas"?

And Pilate, you may wash your hands before the multitude, and say, "I am innocent of the blood of this just Person"; but it is all in vain. There is a Searcher of hearts Who knows you through and through. "See ye to it," you say; and so said to Judas the chief priests and elders, using the very same words. But both they and you must see to that which each fain would put aside for ever. Aye, and it will be less tolerable for you and for them than even for the thoughtless crowd who cry, "His blood be upon us and on our children." It was in vain to ask of people like these, "What shall I do, then, with Jesus which is called Christ?" There was only one thing to do: the thing which was right. Failing to do this, you had no alternative but to share in the sin of all the rest. Even Pilate must take a side, as all must do. Neutrality here is impossible. Those who persist in making the vain attempt will find themselves at last on the same side as Pilate took when he "released unto them Barabbas; but Jesus he scourged and delivered to be crucified."

IV - FROM THE THIRD TO THE NINTH HOUR- {Mat_27:27-56}

The cool of the morning was passing into the heat of the day, as the soldiers took Jesus and led Him away to be crucified; and the sun was at the same angle in the western sky when He bowed His head and gave up the ghost. In the six hours between lay the crisis of the world (see Joh_12:31, Greek): its judgment, its salvation. The great conflict of the ages is concentrated in these hours of agony. In the brief record of them we have the very core and kernel of the gospel of "Jesus Christ and Him crucified."

All we can hope to do is to find some point of view which may afford a general survey of the awful scene; and such point of observation we may perhaps discover in the thought of the marvellous significance of each detail when set in the after light of faith. Most of the incidents are quite simple and natural-what might in every way be expected as concomitants of the deed of blood which darkened the day-and yet the simplest of them is charged with unexpected meaning. The actors in this dark scene are moved by the basest of passions, are destitute of the smallest gleam of insight into what is passing; and yet, in saying what they say and doing what they do, they declare the glory of the Christ of God as signally as if they were saying and doing all by Divine direction. In more senses than one "they know not what they do."

From this point of view we might survey all the four records of the Crucifixion, and find striking illustrations of our thought in each of them. As a specimen of this we may refer in passing to the words of Pilate recorded by St. John alone: "Behold the Man!" and again, "Behold your King!" In these remarkable utterances the procurator quite unconsciously furnishes the answer to his own as yet unanswered questions, {Mat_27:22} and, Balaam-like, becomes a preacher of the gospel, summoning the whole world to admiration and homage, to faith and obedience. But we may not extend our view over the other Gospels; it will be enough to glance at the particulars found in that which lies before us.

The first is the mockery of the soldiers. A brutal Set they must have been; and their treatment of their victim, as they intended it, is too revolting even to think of in detail. Yet, had they been inspired by the loftiest purpose, and been able to look into the meaning of what they did with the most penetrating insight, they could not have in a more striking manner illustrated the true glory of His royalty. Ah, soldiers! you may well plait that crown of thorns, and put it on His head; for He is the Prince of Sufferers, the King of Sorrow! On that head are many crowns-the crown of righteousness, the crown of heroism, the crown of life; but of them all the very best is the crown of thorns, for it is the crown of Love.

The next incident is the impressing of Simon of Cyrene to bear His cross. It was intended as an insult. The service was too degrading even for any of the rabble of Jerusalem, so they imposed it on this poor foreigner, coming out of the country. Little did they think that this same man of Cyrene, who probably had provoked them by showing some sympathy with the Sufferer, and might by no means grudge the toil, unjustly forced upon him though it was, should with his two sons Alexander and Rufus {see Mar_15:21} be a kind of firstfruits of a great multitude of foreigners coming out of all countries, who should consider it the highest honour of their lives to take up and bear after Jesus the cross which Simon had borne for Him.

The very name Golgotha, though derived in all probability from the natural appearance of the eminence on which the crosses were erected, has a certain dreary appropriateness, not only because of the horror of the deed, but because the thought is suggested that deaths Destroyer gained His victory on deaths own ground; and the offering of the potion usually given to deaden pain gave the pale sufferer an opportunity of showing by His refusal of it that not only was the death which ended all a voluntary act, but that each pang of the passion was borne in the resoluteness of a love-constrained will:

"Thou wilt feel all, that Thou mayst pity all;

And rather wouldst Thou wrestle with strong pain

Than overcloud Thy soul

So clear in agony.

O most entire and perfect Sacrifice,

Renewed in every pulse,

That on the tedious

Cross Told the long hours of death."

The dividing of the garments among the soldiers was a most natural and ordinary incident; it would seem, indeed, to have been the common practice at crucifixions; and the fulfilment of prophecy would be the very last thing that would enter the mens minds as they did it: even St. Matthew himself, in recording it, does not view it in this light; for, though he evidently made a point of calling attention to all fulfilments of prophecy that struck him, he seems to have omitted this; yet here again, even in a small but most significant matter of detail, as recorded by St. John, {Joh_19:23-24} the Scriptures are fulfilled.

The writing on the cross is called "His accusation." So indeed it was; for it was for this he was condemned: no other charge could be made good against Him. But it was not His accusation only, -it was His coronation. In vain the chief priests tried to induce the governor to change it. "What I have Written, I have written," was his answer; and there it stood, and a better inscription for the cross the apostles themselves could not have devised. "This is Jesus," the Saviour-the name above every name. How it must have cheered the Saviours heart to know that it was there! "This is Jesus, the King," never more truly King than when this writing was His only crown. "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews," despised and rejected of them now, but Son of David none "the less, and yet to be claimed and crowned, and rejoiced in when at last all Israel shall be saved." Elsewhere we learn that the inscription was in Hebrew and Greek and Latin, -the first the tongue of the people to whose keeping had been committed the oracles of God, the other two the languages in which Gods good tidings of Life through a Crucified Saviour could be best and most quickly carried "to every creature," - as if to make the proclamation worldwide.

His position between the two thieves is told as simply as all the rest; yet how full of meaning, not only as fulfilling the Scripture which spoke of Him as "numbered with the transgressors," but as furnishing a most impressive picture of the Friend of Sinners, enduring their revilings, and yet as soon as one of them shows the first signs of coming to a better mind, eagerly granting him forgiveness and eternal life, and receiving him into His kingdom as the firstfruits of His redeemed ones.

Again, the mocking cries of the passers-by are exactly what was to be expected from the coarse natures of the men; yet each one of them, when seen in the after light of faith, becomes a tribute to His praise. As an illustration of this, listen Co the cry which comes out of the deepest abyss of hatred. Hear these chief priests mocking Him, with the scribes and elders. With bitter taunt they say, in scorn, "He saved others; Himself He cannot save." With bitter taunt? In scorn? Ah, "fools and blind," you little know that you are making a garland of imperishable beauty to wreathe around His brow! It was indeed most true. It was because He saved others that He could not save Himself. Were He willing to let others perish, were He willing to let you perish-He would this very moment save Himself. But He will bear, not only the cruel nails and spear, but your more cruel mockeries, rather than give up His self-imposed task of saving others by His perfect sacrifice!

It is high noon; but there, at that place of a skull, a deed is being done from which the sun must hide his face for shame. "From the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour." The simple-hearted Evangelist has no reflections of his own to offer; he simply records the well-remembered fact, with his usual reticence of feeling, which makes the deep, dread meaning of it only more impressive. For there is not only darkness over all the land; there is darkness in the Sufferers soul. The agony of the Garden is on Him once again. He sees no longer the faces of the crowd, and the mocking voices are now silent, for the people cannot but feel the solemnising effect of the midday gloom. The presence of man is forgotten, and with it the shame, even the pain: the Redeemer of the world is again alone with God.

Alone with God, and the sin of the world is on Him. "He bare our sins in His own body on the tree," therefore is it that He must enter even into the very deepest darkness of the soul, the feeling of separation from God, the sense of forsakenness, which is so appalling to the awakened sinner, and which even the sinless One must taste, because of the burden laid upon Him. To Him it was a pang beyond all others, forcing from these silent lips the lamentable cry, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" There is no reason indeed to suppose that the Sufferer was really forsaken by God, even for a moment. Never was the love of the Father deeper and stronger than when His Son was offering up the all-atoning sacrifice. Never was the repeated testimony more sure than now-"This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased." But none the less was there the sense of forsakenness.

This sense of forsakenness seems to have had some mysterious connection with the pains of death. In the Garden, where the experience was similar, He said, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death," and now that death is on Him, now that His human spirit is about to sink into the unknown abyss, now that darkness is closing over Him on every side, He feels as if He were forsaken utterly: yet His faith fails not; perhaps He thinks of the words, "Yea the darkness hideth not from Thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to Thee," and though He cannot now say "Father" even, He can at least cry as from the depths, His spirit overwhelmed within Him, "My God, My God." That 22nd Psalm which was certainly in His mind must have suggested thoughts of hope and strength, and ere His spirit leaves the tortured body He has reached the triumphant close of it; for as its opening utterance became His cry of agony, its closing word suggests His shout of victory. The shout is mentioned by St. Matthew; the words we learn from St. John: "It is finished."

From the sixth hour to the ninth the darkness lasted, and at the ninth hour Jesus yielded up the ghost. The agony is over. The feeling of separation, of utter loneliness, is gone, for the last word has been, "Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit"; and as the spirit of the Son of man returns to the Fathers bosom, the gloom is gone, and the sun shines out again upon the earth.

How appropriate the rending of the veil, the quaking of the earth, the shuddering of the graves, and the visitants from the realm of the unseen greeting the eyes of those for whom heaven was opened now, is all so plain in the light of faith on the Son of God that it needs no pointing out. It was no wonder that even the Roman centurion, unaccustomed as he was to think of such things, could not refrain from exclaiming, "Truly this was the Son of God." Much more may we echo his exclamation when in the light of the glory that has followed we look back on "the things that were done." Recall them, -the crown of thorns, the cross-hearing of Simon, the place of a skull, the parting of the garments, the writing on the cross, the company of the thieves, the mockeries of the people, the darkness of the heavens, the shaking of the earth, the rending of the veil, -is there not profound meaning in it all?

The portents at the close, as was natural, impressed the centurion most; but these are just what make the least impression now, because we do not see them, and those for whom no veil has been rent by the Saviours sacrifice cannot be expected to recognise them. But think of the other incidents-incidents to which not even the most sceptical can attach a shadow of doubt: observe how utterly unconscious the actors were-the soldiers in plaiting the crown of thorns, Pilate in writing His title, the chief priests in shouting "He saved others; Himself He cannot save"-and yet how these all, viewed in a light that did not shine for them, are seen to have vied with each other in setting forth His glory as the Saviour-King; and then say whether it could all have been the merest chance, whether there be not in it manifestly "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," whether if is possible to escape the conviction of the Roman centurion, "Truly this is the Son of God!"

The reference to the "many women," "beholding afar off," forms a pathetic close to the story of the Great Atonement Day.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

Mat 26:1. Ἐτέλεσε πάντας, ended all) He had said all that He had to say. He did not enter on his Passion sooner, or defer it later than this point. A regular systematic plan of our Lord’s Discourses may be produced from the Harmony of the Gospels.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_26:1 f.[21] For this form of transition, by which a marked pause is indicated at the close of a somewhat lengthened discourse, comp. Mat_7:28, Mat_11:1, Mat_13:53, Mat_19:1.

πάντας] referring back, without any particular object in view (such as to call attention to the fact that our Lords functions as a teacher were now ended, Wichelhaus and the earlier expositors), to the preceding discourse, consisting, as it does, of several sections (Mat_24:4 to Mat_25:46), not a parallel to LXX. Deu_31:1 (Delitzsch).

ΜΕΤᾺ ΔΎΟ ἩΜΈΡΑς] after the lapse of two days, i.e. the day after next the Passover commenced. It would therefore be Tuesday, if, as the Synoptists inform us (differently in John, see on Joh_18:28), the feast began on Thursday evening.

τὸ πάσχα] פֶּסַח, Aram. פַּסְחָא, the passing over (Exo_12:13), a Mosaic feast, in commemoration of the sparing of the first-born in Egypt, began after sunset on the 14th of Nisan, and lasted till the 21st. On its original meaning as a feast in connection with the consecration of the first-fruits of the spring harvest, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 466 f.; Dillmann in Schenkels Lex. IV. p. 387 f.

καὶ ὁ υἱός, κ.τ.λ.] a definite prediction of what was to happen to Him at the Passover, but represented as something already known to the disciples (from Mat_20:19), and which, though forming part of the contents of οἴδατε, is at the same time introduced by a broken construction (not as dependent on ὍΤΙ), in accordance with the depth of His emotion.

[21] See on ch. 26 f. (Mark 14, Luke 22); Wichelhaus, ausführl. Kommentar über die Gesch. des Leidens J. Chr., Halle 1855; Steinmeyer, d. Leidensgesch. d. Herrn in Bezug auf d. neueste Krit., Berl. 1868.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 26:1-5 . Introductory (Mar 14:1-2 , Luk 22:1-2 ).

Mat 26:1-2 contain a prediction by Jesus two days before Passover of His approaching death; Mat 26:3-5 a notice of a consultation by the authorities as to how they might compass His death. n the parallels the former item appears as a mere date for the latter, the prediction being eliminated.

Mat 26:1 . πάντας τ . λόγους τούτους , all these sayings, most naturally taken as referring to the contents of chaps. 24, 25, though a backward glance at the whole of Christ’s teaching is conceivable. Yet in case of such a comprehensive retrospect why refer only to words? Why not to both dicta et facta ?

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap. 26:1,

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26:1-5. From Mar 14:1, Mar 14:2.

(E) 1. And it came to pass, when Jesus finished all these words, that He said to His disciples.] for the formula, cf. 7:28, 11:11, 13:53, 19:1. Here it is an editorial link, enabling the editor to resume Mk.’s narrative, which he abandoned at 24:42.—πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους] i.e. the whole discourse, 24-25.

1.Mar 14:1 ἦν δὲ τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἄζυμα μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας, κ.τ.λ. According to the usual interpretation, the authorities are here represented as plotting on Wednesday the 13th to arrest the Christ and to put Him to death, but as deciding not to effect this ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ. Did they then propose to postpone His capture until after the Feast of Unleavened Bread? If so, why did they arrest Him on the Thursday evening, the 14th-15th, and cause Him to be put to death on the 15th, i.e. ἐν τῇ ἐορτῇ, contrary to their intention?

It is clear that something is wrong with the text, for τὸ πάσχα and τὰ ἄζυμα are not coincident, but successive periods. Both could not happen μετὰ δύο ἠμέρας Moreover, μετὰ δύο ἠμέρας is itself obscure. It is argued that μετὰ τρεῖς ἠμέρας is equivalent to τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ = “on the day after to-morrow,” cf. 16:21; but the analogy of this usage does not justify μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας in the sense of “on the morrow.” Greek and Aramaic alike used other expressions to denote this. We are therefore led by the general intention of the narrative to suppose that the authorities planned the arrest some days before the feast, and proposed to effect it before the feast. This is confirmed by the light thrown upon the following narrative, Mar 14:3-9, by Joh 12:1, where it is said that the feast at Bethany took place six days before the Passover. This would date the determination of the Sanhedrin in Mar 14:1 as six days or more before Passover.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Christ witnesseth by his voluntarily going to death, that he will make full satisfaction for the sin of Adam, by his obedience.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

CHAPTER XXVI.

Christ predicts his being betrayed and crucified, 1, 2.

The chief priests, scribes, and elders consult about his death,

3-5.

A woman anoints his head at Bethany, at which the disciples are

offended, but Christ vindicates her conduct, 6-13.

Judas, for thirty pieces of silver, engages with the chief

priests to betray him, 14-16.

He eats a passover with his disciples, and assures them of his

approaching death, and that one of them would betray him, 17-21.

On each asking, Is it I? Christ asserts that Judas is the

traitor, 22-25.

Having eaten his last supper, he institutes the eucharist, to be

observed in his Church as a memorial of his sacrificial death,

26-29.

They sing a hymn, go to the mount of Olives, and he again

announces his approaching death and resurrection, 30-32.

Peter asserts his resolution to be faithful to his Master, and

Christ foretells his denial and apostasy, 33-35.

He goes to Gethsemane; the transactions there, 36-46.

Judas comes with the high priest's mob and betrays him with a

kiss, 47-50.

Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant; Christ

discourses with the multitude, 51-55.

The disciples flee, and he is led to Caiaphas, 56, 57.

Peter follows at a distance, 58.

They seek false witnesses, and question our Lord, who declares

himself to be the Christ, 59-64.

They accuse him of blasphemy, and abuse him, 65-68.

Peter's denial and repentance, 69-75.

NOTES ON CHAP. XXVI.

Verse 1. When Jesus had finished all these sayings] He began these sayings on Mount Olivet, Mt 24:1, and continued them till be entered into Bethany, whither he was going.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

XXVI.

(1) The portion of the Gospel narrative on which we now enter is common, as far as the main facts are concerned, to all the four Gospels, and this gives to every detail in it a special interest. We cannot ignore the fact that it brings with it also some peculiar difficulties. The first three Gospels are in substantial agreement as to the order of the facts and the time at which they occurred. But the fourth, in some respects the fullest and most striking, differs from the Three: (1) in omitting all mention that the Last Supper of our Lord with His disciples was also the Paschal Supper, and at least appearing to imply (Joh_13:1; Joh_18:28) that it was before it; (2) in also omitting all record (a) of the institution of the Lord’s Supper as the sign of the New Covenant, and (b) of the agony in Gethsemane; (3) in recording much, both as to our Lord’s acts and words, which the Three do not record. It will be enough to discuss once for all the problems which thus present themselves, and it is believed that the right place for the discussion will be in the Notes on the Gospel which first presents the difficulties. Here, therefore, our work will be confined to the text actually before us, with only such passing references to the narrative of St. John as occasion may require. As far as the variations in the first three Gospels are concerned, they are sufficiently explained by the hypothesis that they had a common origin in a history at first delivered orally, and reduced afterwards to writing, with the diversities which are, in the nature of the case, incident to such a process.

All these sayings.—The words clearly point to the great discourse of Matthew 24, 25. The “disciples” to whom our Lord then spoke of His betrayal and death, may have been either the four who are named in Mar_13:3, or the whole company of the Twelve. In the latter case, we must assume that the rest had joined Him, either during the utterance of the discourse or after it was finished.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,

Ver. 1. And it came to pass when, &c.] This is our evangelist’s transition from the ministry of Christ’s doctrine to the mystery of his passion. He had hitherto taught salvation, and now is declared how he wrought it. He had done the office of a doctor, now of a redeemer: of a prophet, now of a priest.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mark saith, Mar 14:1. After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread. Luke saith, Luk 22:1, Now the feast of unleavened drew nigh, which is called the passover. For our better understanding of what the evangelists say here, and in the following part of this history, we will consider the law of the passover in its institution, which we find in Exo 12:3 &c., Lev 23:4 &c., Num 28:16 &c., In Exo 12:1-51, we find its first institution, and the occasion of it. Upon the tenth day of the month Nisan, they were to take up a lamb for every household; or if the household were too small, they might take in their neighbours. This lamb was to be a male without blemish, and to be kept up to the fourteenth day; then to be killed in the evening; or between the two evenings, that is, as is most probably judged, some time that day after the sun began after noon to decline, before the sun did set. The flesh of this lamb was that night to be eaten, neither raw, nor sodden, but roasted with fire, with unleavened bread, and with bitter herbs: nothing was to remain till the morning; and if any did remain, it was to be burned. They were to eat it with their loins girded, their shoes on their feet, and their staff in their hands. They were to strike the blood of the lamb on the two first posts, and on the upper doorposts, of the houses where they did eat it. Seven days they were to eat unleavened bread, beginning on the fourteenth day of the month at even, and ending the one and twentieth at even. This was to be to them for a memorial of their deliverance in Egypt upon God’s destroying the firstborn of the Egyptians and sparing them, and their deliverance and coming out of Egypt; and was to be an ordinance unto them for ever. This may be read at large, Exo 12:3-20. This also was a figure of the true Passover Jesus Christ, whom the apostle calleth our Passover, and the evangelist calls the Lamb of God. The law of the passover was again repeated, Lev 23:5-8; Num 28:16-25. The first and last of the days of unleavened bread (as may be seen there) were to be days of an holy convocation. There were some differences between the observation of the first passover in Egypt and their after observations of it. At the passover in Egypt the blood was to be sprinkled on the doorposts; in following times the blood and the fat were to be sprinkled upon the altar: at the passover in Egypt every paschal society slew the passover in their own house; but afterwards they were all slain in the temple, and then carried to be roasted and eaten by the several societies. The passover in Egypt was to be eaten standing, with their loins girded, their shoes on their feet and staves in their hands, in token of their being ready to take their journey out of Egypt; but in their following passovers they (in token of the liberty into which God had brought them) did eat it sitting: hence we shall find that Christ sat down with the twelve when he ate the passover. In other things the observation was much alike. They strictly kept to the time, the fourteenth day of the month Nisan or Abib, which answereth to part of our March and April. This great festival was to be kept after two days, saith our Saviour. Whether the two days are to be understood as including or excluding the day when he spake is uncertain, and not material for us to know; probably he spake this on the Tuesday, (as we call it), Friday being to be the passover day.

And the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified. Though he was not yet actually betrayed that we read of, yet he knew both what counsels his adversaries had already been taking, and were further about to take, and what was in the heart of Judas; he therefore forewarns his disciples, that when the thing should come to pass they might not be surprised, and might know that he was the Son of God, who could foretell future contingencies, though he was also as the Son of man to be crucified.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The Betrayal. The Last Supper. Arrest of Jesus, and Trial Before the High Priest

1-5. A Council is held against Jesus (Mar_14:1; Luk_22:1 : cp. Joh_13:1).

2. After two days] This fixes the date as Tuesday, if the Passover was on Thursday night; or Wednesday, if, as is more probable, it was on Friday night. Is betrayed] This clear prediction is peculiar to St. Matthew.

3. And the scribes] RV omits. The palace] RV 'the court,' i.e. the central quadrangle, the house being built round a square plot of ground, like a college. From the place of meeting it may be inferred, but not with certainty, that this was not a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin. Caiaphas] in full, Joseph Caiaphas, son-in-law to Annas, was appointed high priest by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus (Pilate's predecessor), and therefore before 26 a.d. He was deposed by Vitellius 37 a.d.

5. Not on the feast day] RV 'Not during the feast.' This strongly favours the view that the Jewish Passover that year took place on Friday night. If the Passover took place on Thursday night, as many maintain, Jesus was crucified on the feast day itself, which extended from the Passover evening till sunset the next day.

6-13. Jesus is anointed in the House of Simon the Leper (Mar_14:3; Joh_12:1 : see further on Jn). This incident seems in St. Matthew and St. Mark to take place on Tuesday or Wednesday evening, but the true chronology is probably given by St. John, who places it six days before the Passover. It is inserted here probably from the light it throws upon the character of Judas (see St. John's narrative), whose treachery immediately follows in the synoptists. For a similar, but quite distinct incident, see Luk_7:36.

Some authorities (but without good reason) distinguish between this anointing and that of Joh_12:1, making altogether three anointings.

6. Simon the leper] His leprosy must have been healed, or he could not have entertained guests. The incurable character of leprosy renders it a sure conjecture that he owed his healing to Jesus. It is probably no more than a coincidence, yet it is a very singular one, that in the very similar incident in Luk_7:36, the name of the host is also Simon. This Simon was probably a near relation of the family of Lazarus.

7. A woman] i.e. Mary, sister of Lazarus (Jn). A quite untrustworthy but widelyspread tradition identifies her with the 'sinner' of Luk_7:37, who is (also without any sufficient reason) often identified with Mary Magdalene.

Alabaster box.. poured it on his head] see on Luk_7:37, Luk_7:38. His head] St. John says 'his feet.' Anointing was customary both in Jewish and Gentile feasts. The Talmud says, 'The school of Shammai saith, He holds sweet oil in his right hand and a cup of wine in his left. He says grace first over the oil, and then over the wine. He blesseth the sweet oil and anoints the head of him that serves.' Here, however, it is one who sits at meat who is anointed.

8. His disciples] St. John mentions especially Judas.

9. For much] for 300 denarii (Mk, Jn).

11. Ye have the poor] cp. Deu_15:11; Mar_14:7.

12. My burial] Another prediction of His death, followed in the next v. by a remarkable prophecy of the universal extension of His religion.

14-16. Judas betrays Jesus (Mar_14:10; Luk_22:3). The exact date cannot be fixed. It may have been as early as Sunday night, or Monday. Mat_26:16 implies a considerable interval between the betrayal and the arrest. The paltry sum for which Jesus was betrayed (the price of a slave, Exo_21:32) has raised the question whether avarice was really the main motive of Judas. There have even been attempts to place his conduct in a favourable light, as if his desire was to bring about a rising of the people at the time of the feast, and so to constrain 'the dilatory Messiah to establish His kingdom by means of popular violence' (Paulus), or by the exercise of His supernatural power. This is possible, but not probable. Judas was thoroughly alienated from Jesus. He found his Master's ideals diverging more and more widely from his own. Instead of an earthly kingdom, in which Judas hoped to hold a lucrative position, Christ seemed to be aiming at an impracticable ideal, which might, perhaps, be very beautiful, but which certainly did not seem to be a practical way of making money. He had already embezzled money from the common purse, and he could not be ignorant that he was suspected and disliked by his colleagues, and that his true character had long been discerned by his Master. His former love and trust were now turned to hatred and contempt, and in a frenzy of disappointed ambition he betrayed Jesus. Yet, when the fatal deed was done, there came a revulsion of feeling, and he would fain have undone it.

15. They covenanted with him] RV 'they weighed unto him,' in accordance with ancient custom (Gen_23:16), but money was probably at this period always coin, not bullion.

17-30. The Last Supper (Mar_14:12; Luk_22:7; Joh_13:1). For the order of events see on Jn, and intro. to Matthew 21. The question whether the Last Supper was the Jewish Passover or not, is discussed in a note on Joh_18:28, where it is argued that Jesus, knowing that He would be crucified on Friday, celebrated the Passover on Thursday evening, a day before the legal time. That the Jewish Passover did not take place till Friday evening (after the crucifixion) is abundantly plain from the Fourth Grospel (see especially Joh_18:28), and even in the Synoptic Gospels, which at first sight give an opposite impression, there are sufficiently clear indications that this was the case. The chief are, (1) The purpose of the priests not to take and execute Jesus during the festival, lest a tumult should arise (Mat_26:5 RV). (2) It was contrary to custom to hold trials and execute criminals on the first and holiest day of the feast, which was kept as a sabbath. (3) The feast day would not be called simply 'Preparation,' i.e. Friday. (4) The officers and the disciples would not have carried arms on the feast day. (5) Joseph of Arimathea would not have bought a linen cloth, or the women have prepared spices on that day (Mar_15:46; Luk_23:56).

17. The first day of.. unleavened bread] As, according to St. Mark and St. Luke, this was the day on which the Passover lambs were slaughtered, it must mean the day before the Passover (Jewish reckoning), i.e. from sunset on Thursday to sunset on Friday. The last supper was held on Thursday evening, and the lambs were killed at 3 p.m. on Friday, but that would be on the same day, according to Jewish ideas.

In strict usage 'the first day of unleavened bread 'meant the first day of the Passover festival, which began with the paschal supper. But it is possible that the day before this, when the paschal lambs were sacrificed, and all leaven was expelled from the houses, was popularly spoken of as 'the first day of unleavened bread.'

The disciples came to Jesus] at or after sunset on Thursday, and within an hour or two the necessary preparations for the supper were complete. Where wilt thou that we prepare] 'For they might anywhere; since the houses at Jerusalem were not to be hired, but during the time of the feast, they were of common right' (J. Lightfoot). The rabbis say, 'It is a tradition that houses were not let for hire at Jerusalem, because they were not privately owned, nor were beds, but the householder received from his guests as a recompense, the skins of the animals sacrificed.' To eat the Passover] The Last Supper is here called 'the Passover,' because in many respects it resembled it. It is not, however, certain that there was a lamb. Jesus Himself was the Lamb, and, as He intended to supersede the type by the reality, it was not absolutely necessary for the type to be present.

The paschal lamb was slain in the court of the Temple on the afternoon of the 14th Nisan, and was eaten the same evening after sunset, when the 15th Nisan had already begun: see Exodus 12, etc.

18. The Master saith] It is clear that the man was a disciple, so that here is another synoptic proof of a previous ministry of Jesus at Jerusalem. St. Mark and St. Luke here add additional details to the narrative, implying a miraculous gift of foresight on our Lord's part. My time is at hand] The disciple would doubtless be surprised at the proposal of Jesus to keep the Passover a day before the legal time. The apostles were therefore instructed to give the reason: 'My time is at hand,' i.e. My death will happen before the legal time of the Passover arrives.

20. He sat down] RV 'He was sitting at meat,' or, rather, 'reclining.' For the attitude at table, see on Joh_13:23. The Law (Exo_12:11) required the Passover to be eaten standing, but this was no longer observed. The Talmud says, 'It is the custom of slaves to eat standing, but now let them eat reclining, that it may be discerned that at the exodus they went out from slavery into freedom.'

23. He that dippeth] RV 'He that dipped' (Psa_41:9). St. John describes this incident in much fuller detail.

24. It had been good] A popular expression. The rabbis said, 'Whoever knows the Law and does it not, it were better for him never to have been born.' 'If a man does not attend to the honour of his Creator, it were better if he had not come into the world.' The justice of Judas's punishment, seeing that the betrayal of Jesus was predestined, has been much, discussed. The solution probably is that the betrayal by Judas was not predestined. It was morally certain that in a state of society like that in Palestine in our Lord's time, a teacher like Jesus would be betrayed by some one, but that some one need not have been Judas. Judas was rightly punished because he freely took the evil business upon himself. For the probable reasons why Jesus chose Judas to be an Apostle, see on Joh_6:71.

25. Master] RV 'Rabbi.' Thou hast said] i.e. Yes: a rabbinical idiom never found in the OT.

After Mat_26:25 the evangelist probably (though not certainly) intends it to be understood that Judas at once withdrew (see Mat_26:47), thus agreeing with St. John, who also represents the traitor as leaving before the institution of the Holy Sacrament. In St. Luke Judas appears to be present and to receive the Sacrament, but that is probably because the third Gospel does not relate the events in order: see on Lk and on Joh_13:30.

26-30. Institution of the Lord's Supper (Mar_14:22; Luk_22:19; 1Co_11:23). It is not certain how far Jesus at the Last Supper followed the customary Passover ritual, but it is clear that He did so to some extent. The following gives the usual order of proceedings, omitting a few details:

(1) The first cup was blessed and drunk. (2) The hands were washed while a blessing was said. (3) Bitter herbs, emblematic of the sojourn in Egypt, were partaken of, dipped in sour broth made of vinegar and bruised fruit. (4) The son of the house asked his father to explain the origin of the observance. (5) The lamb and the flesh of the thank offerings (chagigah) were placed on the table, and the first part of the Hallel sung (Psalms 113, 114). (6) The second cup was blessed and drunk. (7) Unleavened bread was blessed and broken, a fragment of it was eaten, then a fragment of the thank offerings, then a fragment of the lamb. (8) Preliminaries being thus ended, the feast proceeded at leisure till all was consumed. (9) The lamb being quite finished, the third cup, the cup of blessing, was blessed and drunk. (10) The fourth cup was drunk, and meanwhile the second part of the Hallel (Psalms 115-118) was sung.

Those who partook of the Passover were required to be ceremonially clean, and to have been fasting from the time of the evening sacrifice, which on this day was offered early, about 1.30 p.m. All male Israelites above the age of fourteen were required to partake of it.

26. As they were eating, Jesus took bread] This may correspond with No. 7, but it seems more probable that both the bread and the wine were consecrated together at the close of the meal, the bread when it was.almost, and the cup when it was quite, finished.

The Jewish ritual of breaking the Passover bread was as follows: 'Then washing his hands, and taking two loaves, he breaks one, and lays the broken loaf upon the whole one, saying, “Blessed be He who causeth bread to grow out of the earth.” Then, putting a piece of bread and some bitter herbs together, he dips them in the sour broth, saying this blessing: “Blessed be Thou, O Lord God, our eternal King, He who hath sanctified us by His precepts, and commanded us to eat.” Then he eats the unleavened bread and bitter herbs together.' But it is unlikely that Jesus, who was founding a new rite, followed the Jewish ritual in every detail.

This is my body] see on Mat_26:30.

27. The cup] RV 'a cup.' Since it was taken after supper (St. Luke and St. Paul), and is expressly called by the latter the 'cup of blessing' (1Co_10:16), it was clearly the third cup of the paschal supper, called by the rabbis the 'cup of blessing' (No. 9). The ritual was as follows: (1) It was washed and cleansed; (2) the wine in it was mingled with water, and it was blessed; (3) it was crowned, i.e. the worshippers stood round it in a ring; (4) the householder veiled his head and sat down; (5) he drank it, holding it with both hands.

That the cup of the Christian sacrament was also mingled with water, was indicated by Jesus Himself, when He called it 'this fruit of the vine.' The Talmud says, 'The rabbis have a tradition. Over wine which hath not water mingled wiih it they do not say the blessing, “Blessed be He that created the fruit of the vine,” but, “Blessed be He that created the fruit of the tree.” 'And it is added, 'The wise agree with Rabbi Eleazar, that one ought not to bless over the cup of blessing till water be mingled with it.'

28. My blood of the New Testament] RV 'my blood of the covenant.' This is a clear proof that Jesus regarded His death as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, and, therefore, as altering the relation of the whole human race to God. As Moses had once made a covenant with God by the blood of victims sprinkled on the people (Exo_24:8), so now Jesus by His own blood made a new and better covenant.

Shed for many] i.e. probably 'for mankind,' stress being laid on their multitude.

29. I will not drink henceforth, etc.] (Mar_14:25; Luk_22:18). These mysterious and beautiful words are a well-known 'crux' of interpreters. It seems clear, however, that they are to be taken as referring to the whole rite of the Lord's Supper, and not simply to the 'fruit of the vine,' or cup. This is evident from Luk_22:16, 'I will not any more eat thereof' (viz. of the Christian Passover or Supper) 'until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' Interpretations fall into two main classes, according as 'the kingdom of God' ('My Father's kingdom') is understood to refer to the period after the Resurrection, or to the period after the Judgment. According to the first interpretation, the sacred rite which Jesus now institutes, and which He will not again celebrate until He has triumphed over death and sat down a conqueror on the throne of His Father's kingdom, will, after the Ascension, and especially after the descent of the Spirit, be to the disciples a new thing. No longer will the shadow of disappointment and seeming failure hang over their meetings. The sin of the world will have been atoned for, death will have been conquered, the Spirit will have been given, and Jesus will be present at the feast, not, as now, in the body of His humiliation, but in the power of His risen and glorious life. According to the other interpretation, the Lord's Supper is regarded as a type and prophecy of the eternal marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev_19:9). These two views do not exclude one another. The title 'this fruit of the vine' which Jesus applies to the sacred cup even after consecration, would seem to exclude the mediaeval doctrine of Transubstantiation.

30. Sung an hymn] i.e. the second part of the Hallel (Psalms 115-118) which accompanied the fourth Passover-cup: see No. 10 above.

Additional Notes on the Last Supper

(a) Its theological and apologetic importance. On the night of the Last Supper the fortunes of Jesus were at their lowest ebb. There was treason in His own camp. The triumph of His enemies was at hand, and He looked forward with certainty on the morrow to the degrading death of a common malefactor. Yet He chose this moment to ordain a rite in which His death should be commemorated by His followers to the end of time, showing that He foresaw His resurrection and the future triumph of His cause. Such conduct under such circumstances shows a strictly supernatural gift of faith and insight. Moreover He chose this moment of deepest depression and seeming failure, for the most studied declaration of His true Divinity. For what less than divine can He be said to be, whose death atones for the sins of the whole world, and reconciles the human race to God? And how can He be other than the Author of Life Himself, who declares that His Body and Blood are the spiritual food and drink of mankind? If all the records of Christianity had perished, and only the rite of the Holy Communion remained, it would still remain certain that One had appeared on earth who claimed to be the Divine Saviour of the world, and whose death was believed to have been followed by a glorious Resurrection and Ascension.

(b) The doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Space does not permit us to give an adequate account even of the best-known interpretations of our Lord's words in instituting this holy rite. All that can be done here is to indicate a few leading points which the reader may find devotionally helpful.

(1) Although some earnest believers have seen in the Lord's Supper nothing but a bare commemoration of the Lord's death, yet the great majority of Christians in all ages have believed that, attached to devout and reverent participation in the rite, is a special covenanted blessing, which cannot (ordinarily at least) be obtained in any other way, and which is necessary for the nourishment and growth of the spiritual life. Such a view seems clearly to underlie the statement of St. Paul (1Co_10:16), that 'the cup of blessing which we bless 'is to the faithful communicant 'the communion,' i.e. the partaking in common with others, 'of the blood of Christ,' and 'the bread which we break,' 'the communion of the body of Christ.'

(2) The covenanted blessing is generally conceived as a special realisation of the union between the believer and his Saviour, as suggested by our Lord's own allegory of the Yine and the Branches (John 15) spoken immediately after the institution, and by that of the Bread of Life (John 6), which was intended to prepare the way for it. It is specially true at the Table that 'Christ dwells in our hearts by faith,' 'we are one with Christ and Christ with us,' 'we dwell in him and he in us,' and He is in us the fountain of life, sanctification, and cleansing.

(3) The primary reference of the rite is to the death of Christ. The 'broken body' and 'shed blood' symbolise the atoning death upon the cross. It is implied that those who with faith and due thankfulness approach the Table, 'obtain remission of their sins, and all other benefits of his passion.'

(4) At the same time the reference is not exclusively to Christ's death. He does not say 'Do this in remembrance of my death,' but 'Do this in remembrance of me,' i.e. of all that I am to Christians;—of My incarnation, resurrection, and ascension, as well as of My death. To the early Christians the rite was very largely a memorial of the Resurrection, and as such was regularly celebrated on the first day of the week (Act_20:7).

(5) Accordingly in the Supper it is with the ascended and glorified Lord that the Christian holds communion. While commemorating the tragedy of Calvary he communes with Him who 'is alive for evermore, and has the keys of hell and of death' (Rev_1:18). He joins in the heavenly worship of 'the Lamb as it had been slain,' who, in recompense for His humiliation, is now endowed with almighty power (Rev_5:6).

(6) There is some difference of view among believing Christians as to how the scriptural expressions, eating and drinking Christ's flesh and blood (Joh_6:58), or Christ's body and blood (1Co_10:16), are to be understood. Many think that Christ is present in the ordinance only according to His divine nature, and that He communicates to believers not His actual body and blood, but only the benefits which the offering of these upon the Cross procured for mankind. Others, however, interpreting our Lord's mysterious words in a more literal sense, are of opinion that Christ is present in the ordinance not only in His Deity, but also in His glorified humanity, and that in some spiritual and ineffable, but still most real manner, He imparts to believers not only His Godhead, but also His Manhood, making them partakers, not in figure only, but verily and indeed, of His sacred body and blood. We are here in the presence of very deep mysteries, of which we should speak with awe and reverence, remembering how very limited our faculties are.

(7) The Supper is a memorial rite, 'this do in remembrance of me,' more literally, 'as my memorial' (Luk_22:19; 1Co_11:24). Some have regarded it as a memorial before man only, but the prevailing opinion among Christians is that it is a memorial also before God, a pleading before the Father of the merits of the precious death of His Son. The word used (anamnesis) is a rare one, and in biblical Greek means uniformly a memorial before God, both in the OT. (see e.g. Lev_24:7; LXX), and in the NT. (Heb_10:3). There is good reason, therefore, for thinking that this may be the meaning here.

Note. At this point must be inserted John 14-17.

31-35 Jesus predicts His Death, the scattering of the disciples, the fall of Peter, and His own Resurrection (Mar_14:27; Luk_22:31; Joh_13:38).

31. I will smite] freely adapted from Zec_13:7, a strictly Messianic passage. The quotation is intended to alleviate the scandal of the disciples' conduct, by showing that it was foretold.

33. Peter answered] 'He ought rather to have besought Christ, and begged for aid (against the coming temptation). But he sinned in three ways at once: (1) in contradicting the Prophet and the Christ, (2) in placing himself above the rest, (3) in trusting in himself alone, and not in the help of God. Wherefore also he was permitted to fall, that he might be humbled, and might learn not to trust too much in himself, and that others also might learn the same. Also he was allowed to fall that he might learn to love more. For he to whom more is forgiven, loves more '(Euthymius).

34. Before the cock crow] i.e. before the day begins to dawn. There is practically no difference of meaning between this and 'before the cock crow twice' (Mk), for when the cock once begins to crow in the morning, he does so at frequent intervals. The rabbis say, 'They do not keep cocks at Jerusalem on account of the holy things (which they might pollute); nor do the priests keep them throughout all the land of Israel.' But this law was clearly not enfored.

36-46. The Agony in the Garden (Mar_14:32; Luk_22:40). The peculiar intensity of Christ's agony at Gethsemane presents a difficult problem. It cannot have been due to fear of death, for He came to Jerusalem expressly to die, and never faltered in His resolve, nor is the foreseen flight of the disciples, the treachery of Judas, the denial of Peter, and the sin of the Jewish nation in rejecting and crucifying Him, sufficient to account for it. Perhaps the explanation is to be found in the mystery of the Atonement. He was to bear the sins of the whole world, and the thought of that awful burden oppressed Him. 'The Lord felt the bitterness of death, He tasted it as the wages of sin; and this alone is the bitterness of death—not His own, but so much the profounder and keener as the sin of the whole world' (Dale).

The best commentary on Gethsemane is Heb_5:7. Important additional details are found in St. Luke's Gospel (Western text).

36. Gethsemane] lit. 'oil-press.' On the W. slope of Olivet, near the foot. 'It is now '(says Sir chapter W. Wilson) 'a small enclosure surrounded by a high wall. The ground is laid out in flower-beds, which are carefully tended by a Franciscan monk; but the most interesting objects are the venerable olivetrees, which are said to date from the time of Christ, and which may in truth be direct descendants of trees which grew in the same place at the time of the crucifixion.' The gardens of Jerusalem were outside the city, because it was forbidden to plant a garden within the walls.

37. Peter, etc.] In this hour of agony He clung to the companionship of His closest friends, to whom also, as spectators of the glory of the Transfiguration, His present humiliation would be less of a stumblingblock. And very heavy] RV 'and sore troubled.'

39. Let this cup] i.e. not merely His death, but all that was implied in bearing the sins of the world in His own body on the tree: cp. Mat_20:22. The prayer, 'Let this cup pass,' was not sinful, because it was accompanied by the resolution to submit to the divine will, whatever it was. Not as I will] As Christ was God and man, there were in Him two wills, a human will and a divine will, and the former did not always conform itself to the latter without an inward struggle: cp. Joh_5:30; Joh_6:38.

40, Asleep] 'You promised to die with me, and could you not watch with me one hour?' (Euthymius).

41. Temptation] i.e. the temptation to forsake and deny Christ.

44. The third time] not a 'vain repetition,' but a repetition of intense earnestness. In great agony men do not frame many words, but say the same words many times.

45. Sleep on now] spoken with reproachful irony, 'Tou have slept through My agony. Sleep also through My betrayal and capture.'

46. Let us be going] i.e. not to escape, but to meet the betrayer.

47-56. Jesus is taken (Mar_14:43; Luk_22:47; Joh_18:2): see further on Jn.

47. From the chief priests] These were the Temple guard of Levites, sent by the Sanhedrin. St. John mentions that Roman soldiers were also present.

48. Kiss] 'It was not unusual for a master to kiss his disciple; but for a disciple to kiss his master was more rare' (J. Lightfoot).

49. Hail, master] RV 'Hail, Rabbi.' Kissed] a different word: 'Kissed and embraced him effusively.' Jesus received the kiss, (1) to soften the heart of Judas by His gentleness, if that were possible; (2) in the words of St. Hilary, 'to teach us to love our enemies, and those whom we know to be bitter against us.'

50. Friend, wherefore art thou come?] RV 'Friend, do that for which thou art come.' Lk adds, 'Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? 'Here follows in St. John a dialogue between Jesus and those who came to seize Him; after which they all fell to the ground.

51. One of them] The synoptic tradition suppresses the name, probably to ensure the safety of Peter. St. John alone mentions that it was Peter, with whose character the act fully accords. His sword] see Luk_22:38.

A servant] RV 'the servant' ('slave'). His name was Malchus (Jn). St. Luke alone mentions that Christ healed him.

52. All they that take the sword, etc.] cp. Rev_13:10. This incident is a practical commentary on the third Beatitude (Mat_5:5). It discourages resort to violence on the part of Christ's followers, and recommends instead the meek endurance of injuries. Peace, not war, is their mission. Another interpretation has been given, 'All they that take the sword,' i.e. rashly and on their own authority, 'shall perish by the sword,' i.e. are worthy to perish by the sword, i.e. the sword of the magistrate. So that Christ here renews the precept given to Noah, 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed' (Gen_9:6).

55. I sat daily] This cannot merely refer to the two, or at most three days' ministry during Holy Week, but indicates a more extended ministry at Jerusalem at an earlier period, as the Fourth Gospel relates.

57-68. Trial before Caiaphas (Mar_14:58; Luk_22:54). The synoptists omit the preliminary examination before Annas recorded by Jn, because it led to nothing. St. John omits the trial before Caiaphas, because it had already been recorded. From St. Matthew and St. Mark it might be thought that the trial took place immediately after the arrest, but St. Luke, whose narrative is here independent, makes it clear that there was a considerable interval, during which the rest of the members of the Sanhedrin were summoned. The chief enemies of Jesus had not gone to bed, and were already assembled. It was necessary to wait for the morning (Luk_22:66), because it was unlawful to try capital offences at night. There was, however, very little attempt on the part of the Jewish authorities to preserve even the forms of a legal trial. The time of the trial would be about 4 a.m.

The following account of the judicial procedure of the Sanhedrin in capital cases is abridged from Schürer, who follows the Mishna. The members of the court sat in a semi-circle. A quorum of 23 was required. In front of them stood the two clerks of the court, of whom the one on the right hand recorded the votes for acquittal, and the one on the left hand the votes for condemnation. The 'disciples of the wise' (pupils of the scribes) occupied three additional rows in front. It was required to hear the reasons for acquittal first (a regulation violated in the case of Jesus) and afterwards the reasons for condemnation. The 'disciples of the wise' could speak, but only in favour of the prisoner. Acquittal could be pronounced on the day of the trial, but condemnation not till the following day (this regulation also was violated, though some suppose that there were two meetings, one on Thursday night, the other on Friday morning to render the proceedings technically legal). Each member stood to give his vote, and voting began with the youngest member. For acquittal a simple majority sufficed; for condemnation a majority of two was necessary.

Was the assembly which condemned Jesus a regular and formal meeting of the Sanhedrin? Edersheim denies it, because 'All Jewish order and law would have been grossly infringed in almost every particular, if this had been a formal meeting of the Sanhdrin.' But the case of Stephen shows how little the Sanhedrin cared for order and law, when it was really angry. A stronger argument is drawn from the place of meeting, which was apparently the high priest's palace, though none of the evangelists expressly say so, and Luk_22:66 possibly suggests the contrary. This was certainly not the proper place for the Sanhedrin to meet, but we are not in a position to say that at this time such a meeting-place was impossible or even unlikely. The legal place of meeting was the Hall Gazith (lit.

'Hall of Hewn Stones') which was on the Temple mount, and probably within the Temple enclosure. But the Mishna says that forty years before the fall of Jerusalem the Sanhedrin removed to the 'booths,' or 'shops.' Whether these booths were in the Temple, or in Jerusalem, or on the Mt. of Olives, is uncertain, but if such an irregularity as meeting in the 'booths' was possible, so also was that of meeting in the high priest's house.

58. Unto the.. palace] RV 'unto the court' (i.e. quadrangle) 'of the high priest': see on v. 3. The servants] RV 'the officers.'

59. Sought false witness] That the judges sought witnesses at all, much less false witnesses, is enough to condemn them to perpetual infamy.

61. I am able to destroy] At the worst this was a boastful remark, and could not be made the basis of a capital charge. This incident strikingly confirms the accuracy of the discourses recorded in the Fourth Gospel, which alone records this saying of Christ (Joh_2:19). The false witnesses distorted the saying. Christ did not say 'I am able to destroy,' but 'Destroy this temple,' i.e. 'If you destroy this temple.'

63. I adjure thee by the living God] Jesus consents to be put on His oath, thus declaring oaths before a magistrate to be lawful. The Christ, the Son of God] The high priest asks not merely whether He is the Messiah, but whether He is a divine Messiah. To claim to be the Messiah whom all good Israelites were expecting, was no crime, but to claim to be the Son of God, in the sense of God's equal, was blasphemy. Here the synoptists again strongly confirm the peculiar features of the Fourth Gospel, for how did the high priest know or suspect that Jesus claimed to be divine, unless Jesus had publicly said so at Jerusalem, as related in the Fourth Gospel? (Joh_5:17-47; Joh_8:56-59; Joh_10:33).

64. Thou hast said] Christ's exact words which St. Mark and St. Luke render by 'I am' (see Mat_26:25). Nevertheless] better, 'moreover.' Hereafter (RV 'Henceforth') ye shall see, etc.] Jesus here makes two distinct statements: (1) That henceforth, i.e. from the Ascension onwards, His enemies will behold Him sitting on the right hand of God, and causing His Kingdom mightily to prevail over the earth, in spite of all their efforts to prevent it. (2) That they will also see Him one day coming to judgment seated on the clouds of heaven. The reference is to Dan_7:13, which was then interpreted of the Messiah.

65. Rent his clothes] The Jewish law was: 'They that judge a blasphemer first ask the witness, and bid him speak out plainly what he hath heard; and when he speaks it, the judges, standing on their feet, rend their garments and do not sew them up again.'

66. He is guilty (RV 'worthy') of death. To condemn Jesus at once, was contrary to the law, which was, 'Judgment in capital causes is passed the same day if it be for acquitting; but if it be for condemning, it is passed the day after.' The reason is, 'He delays his judgment, and lets it rest all night, that he may sift out the truth.' But Edersheim remarks, 'It seems, however, at least doubtful, whether in case of profanation of the divine name, judgment was not immediately executed.' The trial was further illegal, as being held on the eve of the Passover, for 'Let them not judge on the eve of the sabbath, or on the eve of a feast day.' After passing sentence of death the judges were bound to taste nothing the whole day. The punishment for blasphemy was stoning.

67. Fulfilment of Isa_50:6

68. Prophesy] Christ was blindfolded at the time. The mockery was carried out by the 'officers' of the Sanhedrin.

Additional Note on the Teial

The synoptists all agree that Jesus was condemned for blasphemy, i.e. for claiming more than human powers and attributes. This is inconsistent with the contention of those who maintain that Jesus merely professed to be a mere human teacher, or at most a prophet. The trial itself is enough to show that there is essential unity between the synoptists and the Fourth Gospel in their doctrine of Christ's person. The Christ of the synoptists at the last great crisis of His life makes the same tremendous claims as the Christ of St. John, and is put to death for making them.

69-75 Peter's Denials (Mar_14:66; Luk_22:54; Joh_18:15-18, Joh_18:25, Joh_18:27). The accounts agree in all main features, but the details are difficult to harmonise exactly. All agree that Peter was three times charged with being a disciple, and three times denied it; also that a cock crew at the time of the third denial, reminding Peter of the words of Jesus. St. Luke and St. John represent Peter in a somewhat more favourable light than St. Matthew and St. Mark, for they say nothing of his cursing and swearing. St. Luke alone mentions the look of Jesus which went to the heart of Peter. St. John represents the denials as taking place in the court of Annas, the synoptists in that of Caiaphas, but perhaps both had apartments in the same building. In any case the account of St. John, who was an actual eyewitness, is to be preferred: see on Jn.

69. In the palace] RV 'in the court,' i.e. in the quadrangle.

75. Wept bitterly] 'Thou hast seen Peter's sin, see also his repentance. For to this very end were the sins and the repentances of the saints written, that whenever we sin, we may imitate their repentance. And Peter was allowed to fall not only for the reasons mentioned before, but also that he might learn to make allowances for those that stumble, knowing from his own experience what human weakness is' (Euthymius).

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ch. Joh_13:1, 29 18:28 19:14, 31. Attention to these passages will show that, according to the Fourth Gospel, the Passover had not been eaten when our Lord was crucified, and that in that year the Passover coincided with the sabbath. To meet the difficulty of the synoptists" assertion, that Jesus ate the Passover at the last Supper, two suggestions are put forth. It is said that he anticipated the legal time by some few hours, being greater than the Law, as he had often shown himself greater than the sabbath. If this were so, how was the lamb procured? The Paschal victims were not legally slain till the afternoon of the next day, the 14th; how could the twelve have obtained one of these on the 13th? This question is met by the assertion that the lambs (estimated at some 200, 000) could not have been sacrificed in the time appointed, and that a large proportion of the animals were killed and eaten both before and after the strictly legal time. There is no evidence whatever to support this notion, nor can we imagine that Christ, who came to fulfil the Law, would have connived at such a manifest infringement of its provisions. Another solution is that the meal of which he partook with his disciples was a solemn supper in anticipation of the Feast of the Passover, but without the lamb. He himself was the true Passover, the Lamb of God, and in instituting at that time the Holy Eucharist, he gave himself as the spiritual food of his followers. This new festival superseded the Jewish solemnity, and it is possible that, in oral tradition, the two were confused and were counted as occurring together. This solution seems more probable than the former, and would doubtless be confirmed if we were better acquainted with many details well known in the apostolic ages, now unhappily obscured. Some of the difficulties will, we hope, be seen to be reconcilable, as we proceed in our Exposition. How the perplexity concerning the enormous number of lambs required for the teeming population gathered together was met, we know not. Doubtless time and circumstances had modified the rigorous adherence to the prescribed ritual, and possibly many householders (all being in this matter priests unto God, Exo_19:6 and Rev_1:6) slew and prepared their Passover at their own houses or outside the sacred precincts on the legal day and hour. But there is no tradition of any unauthorized alteration of these points in the ordained ceremonial, and we cannot doubt that the Lord would not by his own practice endorse such laxity.

Vers. 1, 2. Final announcement of the approaching Passion. (Mar_14:1 Luk_22:1)

When Jesus had finished all these sayings; i.e. those comprised in chs. 22-25. This was the close of his public teaching. The other discourses which are preserved by St. John (Joh 13:31-17:26) were addressed to the chosen apostles Henceforward the narrative sets him forth as Priest, Victim, Redeemer; and Christ himself now distinctly states the day of his death and the person who was to betray him.

Vers. 1-5. The shadow of the cross.

I THE PROPHECY.

1. The end of the Lords public teaching. "Jesus had finished all these sayings." There was precious teaching yet to come; but that would be private, in the upper room, addressed to the little circle of the twelve. This Tuesday was the last day of the Lord"s public teaching. Now he had finished all these sayings the controversies with scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees, the great discourse delivered on the Mount of Olives, the parables of judgment, the awful prophecy in which he describes himself as the great King, who shall sit on the throne of glory, who shall judge all the nations of the world. Now he passes from the prophetic to the priestly office. The work of public teaching is ended; the work of atonement is beginning. We are approaching that tremendous sacrifice, the one most awful scene in the whole history of the world, when the high Son of God, who for our salvation"s sake became the Son of man, offered up himself the one sufficient Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. It becomes us to draw near with reverence and godly fear, with deep self-abasement and adoring love.

2. The near approach of his death. "After two days," he said, "is the Passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified." It was his second clear announcement of the form of death which he was to suffer. It was to be the death of the cross, of all deaths the most horrible. He would indeed sit on the throne of glory with all the holy angels round him; but the cross must come first. He knew it; he knew the day and the hour; he looks forward with sweet, holy calmness to that cruel death. "The Son of man is delivered up," he said is being delivered; even while he was speaking the treason was being planned; it would soon be consummated. The greatest festival of the Jewish year would be desecrated by the foulest crime which the world has ever seen; but that crime would, by God"s overruling providence, bring about the great sacrifice of which the Passover was the type. "Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us." Mark the quiet composure with which the Lord spoke of his coming Passion, and learn of him to contemplate the approach of death with calmness and tranquillity.

II THE BEGINNING OF THE FULFILMENT.

1. The assembly in the house of Caiaphas. Caiaphas was, by the appointment of the Roman governor, high priest that year. He had already (Joh_11:50) urged the Sanhedrin to seek the death of Christ, prophesying unconsciously "that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." Now the chief priests and elders assembled in the court of his house to take counsel as to the best means for carrying out their wicked purpose.

2. Their fears. The Lord"s words and actions had made a great impression upon the people; they had observed his victories over the Pharisees and Sadducees; they had listened to his reaching with interest, and were very attentive to hear him. Many of them had. taken part in the triumphal procession which had escorted him into Jerusalem, and had recognized him with "Hosannas!" as the King Messiah. The leading Jews dared not attempt to take him openly by force; they feared lest the people should rise in his favour, especially as large numbers of Galilaeans always came to the Passover. They consulted, therefore, that they might take him by subtilty; but they determined to defer the execution of their assign till after the feast day. It was not from reverence for the sanctity of the Passover season; they did not shrink from desecrating it, when the treachery of Judas enabled them to do so without danger. They feared the multitude. There was an immense concourse in the city. The people, always inflammable, were more so than ever at the Passover, partly through the excitement of numbers, partly through the national spirit aroused by the festival. They might, the chief priests thought, side with Jesus; they might support his claims to the Messianic dignity. The attempt to seize him might evoke a burst of popular sympathy, and lead him to put himself at the head of the multitude. So they determined to defer their guilty design.

LESSONS.

1. The Lord had finished his public teaching; the Pharisees and chief priests had heard it; it had increased their condemnation. Take heed how ye hear.

2. The Lord was about to die. We must die soon. Let us learn to think and speak of our death calmly as he did.

3. The chief priests feared danger; they did not fear the wrath of God. Let us learn of Christ to fear not death, but him who is able to cast both soul and body into hell.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 1-5. God"s plans and man"s plots.

The "sayings," "words," or discourses of Jesus here "finished," were begun on the Mount of Olives, (see Mat_24:1) and continued till he came to Bethany (see ver. 6). They were spoken, it would seem, publicly, while the sentence following was privately spoken "unto his disciples" (ver. 2). The matter of this sentence is intrinsically intensely interesting, and it is interesting also from its relation to the consultation of the Sanhedrin next mentioned (vers. 3-5). The subject remarkably illustrates two things, viz.

I THAT GOD"S PLANS ARE WISE AND BENEFICENT.

1. Here note the prescience of Jesus.

(1) He clearly and circumstantially foretells his death. Mark the contrast in his revelations: "The Son of man shall come in his glory"; (Mat_25:31) "The Son of man is delivered up to be crucified." The literal fulfilment of the latter pledges the certainty of the former.

(2) He had already very particularly foretold his death. (see Mat_16:21 Mat_20:17 Mar_10:32-34) Now he precisely indicates the time: "After two days," i.e. on the third day, or with one full day intervening. (cf. Hos_6:2) This was Wednesday; on Thursday night he was betrayed by Judas; Friday morning he was condemned by the Sanhedrin, and two hours later crucified by Pilate.

(3) The calmness with which Jesus anticipated the horrors so soon to be experienced is truly admirable. It is explained by the prescience which carried him further. (cf. Mat_25:31 Heb_12:2)

2. This prescience is clearly Divine.

(1) The chief priests and rulers had for some time meditated his death, and it was within the range of probability that they might accomplish their purpose. But what human forecast could have seen the circumstances and the time of the event?

(2) These particulars, as he anticipated them, were against human probability. The plot was to destroy Jesus secretly, and therefore the execution of the purpose was to be deferred until after the feast (ver. 5). Then the multitude would have dispersed, and the Galilaeans in particular would have returned to their homes.

(3) It was not until Judas made his overture that the plotters altered their plans, and resolved to risk the "tumult among the people." But the treachery of Iscariot was fully within the prescience of Jesus (see vers. 21-25).

3. It is the prescience of wisdom and beneficence.

(1) Jesus was sacrificed at the Feast of the Passover as the antitype of the Paschal lamb.

(a) This God distinguishes as especially his: "My sacrifice", (see Exo_23:18) viz. because it was instituted by him to be a special type of "the LAMB OF GOD that beareth away the sin of the world". (see 1Co_5:7)

(b) The Paschal lamb was "a male of the first year," the symbol of excellence in its prime. So was Jesus, in the prime of his peerless manhood, when offered up.

(c) It was "without blemish." He was immaculate in his birth, and in his life and death he fulfilled all righteousness.

(2) Wisdom is also seen in the time.

(a) The word here construed "betrayed" is in the New Version rendered "delivered up," the reference being to the setting apart of the lamb rather than to the treachery of Judas. It refers to something accomplished. The lamb was taken on the tenth day of the first month; (see Exo_12:1-3) and on this day Jesus entered Jerusalem. (see Joh_12:1, Joh_12:12, Joh_12:13)

(b) The lamb was then to be kept "until the fourteenth day of the same month". (see Exo_12:6) On this day the true Paschal Lamb was sacrificed. There is reason to believe that in this case, two days were kept, and the right day was that upon which Jesus was offered up.

(c) The time of the day also was exact, viz. "between the two evenings", (see Exo_12:6, margin) i.e. between the sun"s declining west, at noon, and his setting, at about six in the afternoon. Jesus was crucified at noon, and expired three hours later, exactly between the evenings. (see Mat_27:46-50)

(3) The beneficence of this wisdom is seen in the purposes. As the blood of the Paschal lamb redeemed Israel from Egypt, and redeemed his firstborn from the sword of the destroyer, so are we redeemed from sin and death by the sacrificial blood of Christ.

II THAT HE MAKES MAN"S PLOTS SUBSERVIENT TO THEM,

1. We see God"s purposes in the assembly.

(1) Who are they? "The chief priests ... and the elders of the people." Little did they think that they were giving effect to the truth of prophecy; for it is written that "the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against his Christ". (see Psa_2:2 Psa_41:7) It is also specified that the Paschal lamb should be offered by the whole congregation: "The whole assembly of the congregation shall kill it". (Exo_12:6) Here was the very Sanhedrin.

(2) What a lesson of human depravity is here! "The chief priests," and probably Caiaphas the high priest at the head of them. Sacredness of office is no security against rascality. "The rulers," who were members of the great Sanhedrin because of their influence, whether of wealth, or birth, or abilities. Men the most reputable as seen by their fellows, may be the most odious as seen by God.

2. We see God"s purposes in their measures.

(1) Their policy is to have Jesus secretly killed. This was manifestly from the devil, who would give sceptics the pretext to say, "This thing was done in a corner." The Sanhedrin feared the uproar of the people.

(2) But the devil outwits himself. Iscariot appears upon the scene, and his proposals induce them to hazard the bolder policy. It was customary at festivals to execute malefactors publicly, "that all Israel might see and fear". (see Deu_17:13 Act_12:4)

(3) Thus, then, the Passion of Christ became a matter of the utmost celebrity. He suffers openly amidst thousands of witnesses. His death was notorious, which gave emphasis to the notoriety of the subsequent event of the glorious resurrection from the dead.

(4) Thoughts of the suffering Christ sustain the suffering Christian, suffering for him and with him. And "if we suffer with him, we shall be also glorified together. J.A.M.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

When Jesus had finished all these discourses - When he had spoken all he had to speak. Till then he would not enter upon his passion: then he would delay it no longer. Mark xiv, 1; Luke xxii, 1.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

into everlasting

Judgments (the seven). Luk 14:14; 2Sa 7:14; Rev 20:12. "Eternal" and "everlasting" are the same word.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Events Preceding the Last Passover.

Final prediction of the Passion:

v. 1. And it came to pass when Jesus had finished all these sayings, He said unto His disciples,

v. 2. Ye know that after two days is the Feast of the Passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified.

Jesus had begun His last great discourse to His disciples immediately after leaving the Temple, chapter 24:2, and had continued it on Mount Olivet and also on the way to His lodging-place in Bethany. It did not end all His sayings; for He still intended to give His disciples a farewell talk of a most intimate kind, full of the deep humility and searching love which characterized His ministry, Joh 13:1-38; Joh 14:1-31; Joh 15:1-27; Joh 16:1-33; Joh 17:1-26. But the Lord here completed His historical, His public prophetic office. Before dismissing His followers for the evening, He reminded them once more of the culmination of His ministry. In two days, on the Thursday of this week, beginning with sunset on the 14th

of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish church calendar, the Feast of Passover, combined with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, would begin, to last for a whole week, or till the evening of the 21st

of the month. Jesus was still a member of the Jewish Church, and observed the holidays and festivals of the Jews, the gospels showing Him to have been present at practically every one of the great feasts since entering upon His ministry. But this Passover was to be distinguished as no Passover before or since, by the fulfillment of the type and prophecy in the person of Jesus, the true Lamb of God. As members of the Jewish Church with Him, His disciples were fully aware of the fact that the festival was coming. What He wanted to impress upon them was the fact that He, the Son of Man, literally is delivered up to be crucified, the most terrible death in the catalog of Roman tortures. In His prophetic character, Christ speaks as though the Passion has even now begun. It is immutably fixed in the counsel of God, the betrayal process has even now begun.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 26:6-13

The Alabaster Box.

Here is a woman—probably a poor woman—doing an action which excites the indignation of the whole Church. Not a voice is heard in her favour except—sublime exception!—the voice of Jesus. In such circumstances there must be something worth looking at. A minority which God approves must not be overlooked with heedlessness and contempt. The wisdom in this case is with the few, and the folly with the many; the wisdom is with love, not policy, with gratitude, not calculation.

The points of special interest are these:—

I. The all-surrendering generosity of love. The woman had ah alabaster box of very precious ointment—only one box—and that solitary box she broke, and poured its pure nard on the only human head that had not lost its crown. Love never puts its own name upon anything. Love has some object, must have some object, on whose shrine it lays its every possession. Love, warm, intelligent, growing love, keeps back nothing from God.

II. The moral blindness of a prudential policy in the service of Christ. There are men who can never take other than an arithmetical view of things. They are the keen economists of the Church; they get near enough to Christ to ascertain the texture of His garments, and to calculate the value of His seamless vesture. There is a point of criticism here most singularly suggestive. The same word in the original is used to signify both waste and perdition; and if we connect this idea with another, we shall apprehend the idea I wish to present. "Those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition;" and this very son of perdition was the man who, on another occasion, and probably on this, called a sacrifice "waste," and vehemently maintained the claims of the poor. There, then, is the startling fact before us, that the men who denominate other people’s service "waste" are themselves the most likely to be cast away as the refuse of the universe.

III. The all-comprehending wisdom of the Saviour’s judgment. (1) He shows His anxiety for the peace of all who attempt to. serve Him. (2) He shows His sympathy with the poor. (3) He shows that every age brings its own opportunities for doing good.

IV. The assured immortality of goodness.

Parker, Hidden Springs, p. 276; see also Inner Life of Christ, vol. iii., p. 194.

References: Mat 26:6-13.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 156; Homiletic Magazine, vol. xii., p. 141; A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 300.

Mat 26:13

There can be no question but that in this action of Mary there was something deeply symbolical. I am not going to say that Mary meant it to be so. There may often be far more in our own actions than we imagine. Perhaps, though, her ardent love led her to do just the right thing at the right moment, and that is the highest wisdom. The act of Mary suggested to the mind of Christ the greater act He was about to perform; and in that pure offering of Mary’s love He saw symbolised the greater offering He was about to make, prompted by a love infinitely deeper than hers. He saw the broken alabaster box; He noted the flowing ointment; He smelt the sweet savour that filled all the house, and He said, "This Gospel—the Gospel that is in figure here—this Gospel, wherever it is preached, shall be linked with Mary’s action, for there is a spiritual affinity between the two."

Note:—

I. The woman’s sublime devotion; and she may serve as a model to all God’s children in one or two respects. (1) She was completely under the sway of devoted love to Christ’s Person. If you read the record you will see how Christ distinguished, all the way through, her personal attachment to Him. "She hath done a good work unto Me." In the mind of Christ devotion is the chiefest of Christian virtues. (2) Her devotion was both original and fearless. The disciples had only one idea for doing good. Charity was their hobby, and so the moment they saw Mary pouring out this ointment upon Christ, they began to count up the cost, and said, "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" They were spiritually stereotyped in their mode of action. Love must always be original. Let a person only love, and he becomes a genius in manifesting it. (3) This manifestation was magnificent. The woman did not think simply how little she could give and yet maintain her character. It was, "What does my heart prompt?" Let us ask our souls this question, "My heart, hast thou ever done a magnificent thing for Christ? Hast thou ever known what it is to be, in the judgment of the world, extravagant for Him?

II. Christ’s chivalrous championship of this woman. In espousing her cause He was espousing His own. Note the resemblance that exists between this woman’s action and our Lord’s action in a few hours after the incident—the resemblance that leads Him to say, "This Gospel." There is a resemblance: (1) In the motive; Christ knew that it was pure love which prompted this gift of consecration. He saw in this a symbol of the motive power of His own action. (2) Mary’s work resembled His in its self-devotion. In the broken alabaster box He saw His own offering unto death, and therefore said, "Wheresoever this Gospel is preached."

A. G. Brown, Penny Pulpit, No. 1,085.

Christ anointed for His Burial.

I. There can be no doubt that the majority of Christians, if they candidly gave utterance to their sentiments, would express surprise at the high honour promised to Mary for so slight a service. What she did was unnecessary; it was of no utility; it could be in itself of no value to our Blessed Lord. If disproportion exist between the service of Mary in anointing Him, and His commendation, the whole passage of Scripture must remain obscure. But is there such disproportion? We are prepared to argue that there is not; that light and trivial as the action seems of her so blessed, it contained in it enough to merit the gracious promise of remembrance which Christ enunciated. What is our ideal of a religious character? Is it not that a man should be uniformly upright, sober, just, and regular in his habits? The result is, that the temper of our religion is the reverse of enthusiastic. And from our national prejudices it arises that such narratives as that in which the text occurs, seem strange and hard to understand. The conduct of the woman who anointed our Lord was the result of an overflowing love, which mastered all her powers to suppress. He who measures every act of His creatures, not by its intrinsic value, but as it has Himself for its source, its object and its end, may, and it would seem does, rate the offering of the heart’s deep love higher than all. It may have been to teach us this, that in the days of His sojourn below the Eternal Son bestowed praise so high upon Mary’s simple act of love, and promised that wherever His Gospel should be preached that thing which she had done should be told for a memorial of her.

II. The woman in the text offers also an illustrious example of implicit faith. It is probable that she, like the disciples, had heard the Redeemer speak of His death. On the very day upon which the feast in the abode of Simon the leper took place, He had said to them, "Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified." He made mention of His death, and her mind travelled at once to His entombment. She took the precious ointment, and anticipating in her love and faith those sorrowing women who, a few days later, came early to the sepulchre, she brake the box and poured it upon His head. She who anointed Him for His burial was the first who signified her assent to the mystery of His death, with a love that could not be restrained, and a faith that nothing could withstand.

J. R. Woodford, Occasional Sermons, p. 84.

References: Mat 26:13.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. vi., No. 286; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iii., pp. 331, 333; W. M. Taylor, Three Hundred Outlines from the New Testament, p. 28. Mat 26:14-16.—C. C. Bartholomew, Sermons chiefly Practical, p. 115. Mat 26:14-25.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. i., p. 272. Mat 26:14-30.—Parker, Inner Life of Christ, vol. iii., p. 204. Mat 26:20.—F. W. Brown, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 58. Mat 26:20-22.—J. R. Macduff, Communion Memories, p. 74. Mat 24:20-25.—A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 371.

Mat 26:22

I. Look at the question, "Lord is it I?" in connection with the scene and the time when each disciple was shocked and startled into asking it. You have, perhaps, in the mirror of memory, the picture of a certain tranquil sunset. If in that moment, and without any premonitory sign, there had all at once burst out upon the tranquillity a peal of terrible thunder, you could not have been so startled as were the disciples when these words struck upon them. There never was a sunset like this, the sunset of the Sun of Righteousness. It was an hour of beautiful peace and farewell revelation, when out broke the thunderclap, "One of you shall betray Me." Never before had words filled souls with the shock of such an unspeakable surprise.

II. Look at this question in connection with the remark that called it forth: "The Son of Man goeth as it is written of Him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." Reading these predictive words in the light of what we find farther on, we know that they pointed to Judas.

III. Look at the question in connection with the simple, unsuspecting brotherliness it revealed in those to whom it was spoken. It might have been thought that instant suspicion would have fastened on Judas. His character had always been open to question. When, therefore, Christ’s declaration was made, "One of you shall betray Me," it would not have been wonderful if such words as these had passed through various minds: "It is Judas—I always mistrusted that Judas—I never liked his grasp of the bag." No such thoughts were in open or secret circulation. With lips that were tremulous, and cheeks that were blanched, each one said, not "Lord, is it he?" but "Lord is it I?"

IV. Note the fear for himself shown by everyone who asked this question. Pitiless detectors of sin in others should begin at home.

V. Note the love that worketh in the heart of the questioner. Not one of them ever knew how much he loved his Lord, but this shock brought the love out.

VI. Note the answer to the question. Eleven times the question had been asked, for the scare was felt and the cry was uttered by every man at the table. Then it was forced from Judas, who repeated it, and Jesus answered, "Thou hast said." You can read what is on the open page, Jesus can look through the lids of the book—read off the shut-in print. You can see the whited sepulchre, He can see the skeleton within. You can see the body, He can see the soul.

C. Stanford, Evening of Our Lord’s Ministry, p. 36.

Mat 26:22, Mat 26:25

(with Joh 13:25)

I. In the first form of the question: "Is it I?" we have an example of that wholesome self-distrust, which a glimpse into the possibilities of evil that lie slumbering in all our hearts ought to teach every one of us. Every man is a mystery to himself. In every soul there lie, coiled and dormant, hybernating snakes—evils that a very slight rise in the temperature will wake up into poisonous activity. And let no man say, in foolish self-confidence, that any form of sin which his brother has ever committed is impossible to him. The identity of human nature is deeper than the diversity of temperament, and there are two or three considerations that should abate a man’s confidence that anything which one man has done it is impossible that he should do. (1) All sins are at bottom but varying forms of one root—selfishness. (2) All sin is gregarious; is apt not only to slip from one form to another, but any evil is apt to draw another after it. (3) Any evil is possible to us seeing that all sin is but yielding to tendencies common to us all. (4) Men will gradually drop down to the level which before they began the descent, seemed to be impossible to them.

II. We have here an example of precisely the opposite sort, namely, of that fixed determination to do evil, which is unshaken by the clearest knowledge that it is evil. Judas heard his crime described in its own ugly reality, he heard his fate proclaimed by lips of absolute love and truth; and notwithstanding both he comes unmoved and "unshaken with his question." The dogged determination in the man that dares to see his evil stripped naked, and is not ashamed, is even more dreadful than the hypocrisy and sleek simulation of friendship in his face.

III. We have in the last question an example of the peaceful confidence that comes from communion with Jesus Christ. It was not John’s love to Christ, but Christ’s love to John, that made his safety. He did not say, "I love thee so much that I cannot betray thee." For all our feelings and emotions are but variable, and to build confidence upon them is to build a heavy building upon quicksand; the very weight of it drives out the foundations. But he thought to himself—or he felt rather than he thought—that all about him lay the sweet, warm, rich atmosphere of his Master’s love, and to a man that was encompassed by that, treachery was impossible.

A. Maclaren, Christian Commonwealth, March 5th, 1885.

References: Mat 26:24.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. i., p. 269; E. Mason, A Pastor’s Legacy, p. 386.

Mat 26:24-25

Judas rebuked by Christ.

I. It will give increased interest to the sayings of our Lord in the text if we suppose that they were uttered with a special reference to Judas, with the merciful design of warning him of the enormity of his projected crime, and thus, if it were yet possible, of withholding him from its commission. The Son of Man was about to go as it was written of Him—nothing was about to happen to Him which had not been distinctly prearranged. The part which Judas was about to take in the fearful tragedy was every jot as accurately defined in the Divine plan as if Judas had been simply a passive instrument in the Divine hand; but nevertheless, woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! And if the wretched Judas dreamt, as possibly he did, of its being a sort of apology for his treachery, that it was needful in order to the accomplishment of prophecy, it should have brought home to him an overwhelming conviction of the falsehood which he harboured that Christ could thus combine the certainty of His being betrayed, and the criminality of His betrayer.

II. Glance next at another delusion to which it is likely that Judas gave indulgence. This is the delusion as to the consequences, the punishment, of sin being overstated or exaggerated. It might have been that Judas could hardly persuade himself that a Being so beneficent as Christ, whom he had seen wearying Himself to bless even His enemies, whom he had beheld weeping bitter tears over the infidel Jerusalem, would ever wholly lay aside the graciousness of His nature, and avenge a wrong done by surrendering the doer to intense and interminable anguish. In all the range of Scripture there is not, perhaps, a passage which sets itself so decisively against this delusion as the latter clause of our Saviour’s address in the text. "It had been good for that man if he had not been born." Better, indeed, better never to have been born—never to have risen in the world, a being endowed with the magnificent but tremendous gift of immortality—if sin incur the surrendering of that immortality to a portion of fire and shame. The saying of our text roots up utterly the falsehood to which Judas and his followers are so ready to cling.

H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1,866.

References: Mat 26:26.—Contemporary Pulpit, vol. vii., p. 182; Durrant, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 277. Mat 26:26, Mat 26:27.—G. Calthrop, Words to my Friends, p. 177.

Mat 26:26-28

Notice:—

I. When the Lord’s Supper was first kept, and who kept it. As He was eating, Jesus took bread. He was eating unleavened bread and drinking wine at the Feast of the Passover in the city of Jerusalem. The Last Supper was first eaten at the Passover Supper of the Jews. It was first eaten by Jesus and His Twelve Apostles the night He was betrayed.

II. What did these words mean to those who first heard them? The Apostles did not know what they meant. Jesus was with them at the feast. They could see His body, touch it. His blood was not poured out. But they knew that He spoke no words in vain. The bread was a token from Him, they could but eat it as He bade them. The wine was a token from Him, they could but drink it as He bade them. But after His Resurrection the Apostles began to know a little what was meant by the words which were spoken at the feast. Then they understood that in the body of Jesus Christ God was united to men, men to God. Then they understood that His blood was poured out, not for a few disciples, but for all men in all lands. That blood was the seal of a new covenant between God and men that He would blot out their sins and give them a new life,—the life of Him who died unto sin once, over whom death has no more dominion.

III. To us the Lord’s Supper is the assurance of the redemption and reconciliation which God has made for us, and all mankind, in the body of His Son. It is the assurance that we are very members incorporate in the body of His Son. It is the assurance that He will give us His Spirit to enable us to do the good works which He has prepared for us to walk in. It is a better and higher feast to us than the Passover was to the Jews; a feast like that which tells us of a God who has broken our bonds asunder; a feast like that which tells us that He is the King over us; but a feast which is not limited to one people, but which is intended for all, because our Lord Jesus Christ is, as St. Paul says, the Head of every man, the Author and Giver of salvation and life to those who have been most tied and bound by the chains of sin and death.

F. D. Maurice, Sermons preached in Country Churches, p. 277.

Reference: Mat 26:26-28.—C. Molyneux, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 225. Mat 26:26-29.—A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 359.

Mat 26:27-28

I. The Cup to us speaks of a Divine treaty or covenant. Ancient Israel had lived for nearly two thousand years under the charter of their national existence, which, as we read in the old Testament, was given on Sinai amidst thunderings and lightnings; and that covenant, or agreement, or treaty, on the part of God, was ratified by a solemn act, in which the blood of the sacrifice, divided into two portions, was sprinkled: one half upon the altar, and the other half, after their acceptance of the conditions and obligations of the covenant, on the people, who had pledged themselves to obedience. The new covenant, which Christ seals in His blood, is the charter, the better charter, under the conditions of which not a nation but the world may find a salvation which dwarfs all the deliverances of the past. The new covenant, in the exuberant fulness of its gracious purposes, is at once the completion and the antithesis of the ancient covenant with its precepts and its retribution.

II. This Cup speaks to us of the forgiveness of sins. One theory, and one theory only, as it seems to me, of the meaning of Christ’s death, is possible if these words of my text ever dropped from Christ’s lips, or if He ever instituted the rite to which they refer; He must have believed that His death was a sacrifice, without which the sins of the world were not forgiven, and by which forgiveness came to us all.

III. This Cup speaks likewise of a life infused. "The blood is the life" says the physiology of the Hebrews. The blood is the life, and when men drink of that cup they symbolise the fact that Christ’s own life and spirit are imparted to them that love Him. The very heart of Christ’s gift to us is the gift of His own very life to be the life of our lives.

IV. And lastly, it speaks of a festal gladness. They who live on Christ, they who drink in of His Spirit, should be glad in all circumstances, they and they alone. We sit at a table, though it be in a wilderness, though it be in the presence of our enemies, where there ought to be joy and the voice of rejoicing. But beyond that, this Cup points onward to a future feast. At that solemn hour Jesus stayed His own heart with the vision of the perfected kingdom and the glad festival then. So this communion has a prophetic element in it, and links on with predictions and parables which speak of the marriage supper of the great King, and of the time when we shall sit at His table in His kingdom.

A. Maclaren, Christian Commonwealth, Nov. 5th, 1885.

References: Mat 26:28.—Expositor, 1st series, vol. xii., p. 49; A. Barry, Sermons for Passiontide and Easter, p. 89. Mat 26:29.—Spurgeon, Three Hundred Outlines from the New Testament, p. 29.

Mat 26:30

There are many truths which present themselves to the mind, when it duly ponders the simple statement of the text.

I. The first of these truths is that our blessed Lord, by conforming to certain customs of the Jews in the eating of the Passover, gave His sanction to ceremonies which may not be able to plead a Divine institution. It was not only in the singing of psalms, but in many other particulars, such as the recumbent posture, and the drinking of wine, that the Jews had altered or added to the original practice; but our Saviour made no objection to the alteration or addition. He celebrated the Passover just as He found it then used to be celebrated, submitting, so to speak, to tradition and custom. Had our Lord been a leader, disposed to make ceremonies the occasion of schism, He might have armed Himself with very specious objections, and have urged that there were conscientious grounds for separating from the communion of the national Church. But we may justly conclude that our Lord proceeded on what (were it not for modern cavils) we might call a self-evident principle, that rites and ceremonies are not in themselves any part of the public worship of God; they are nothing but circumstances and customs to be observed in conducting that worship, and may, therefore, be enacted and altered as shall seem best to the Church.

II. The singing of a hymn was apparently inappropriate to the circumstances of Christ and His Apostles. They were joyous hymns in which they joined. Praise is the best auxiliary to prayer; and he who most bears in mind what has been done for him by God, will be most emboldened to supplicate fresh gifts from above. We should recount God’s mercies, we should call upon our souls and all that is within us to laud and magnify His Name, when summoned to face new trials and encounter fresh dangers. This is too much overlooked and neglected by Christians. They are more familiar with the earnest petition than with the grateful anthem. Like the captives in Babylon, they hang their harps upon the willows when they find themselves in a strange land; whereas, if they would sing one of the songs of Zion, it would not only remind them of home, but encourage them to ask assistance and expect deliverance. Look at Christ and His Apostles. Before they departed—the Redeemer to His terrible agony, the disciples to the dreaded separation—the last thing which they did was to join in the chanting of thankful psalms; it was not until they had sung an hymn, but then it was, that they went out into the Mount of Olives.

H. Melvill, Sermons on Less Prominent Facts, vol. i., p. 71.

Reference: Mat 26:30.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vii., p. 205.

Mat 26:33

Enthusiasm and its Dangers.

I. One reason of St. Peter’s confidence was that he did not realise the situation which was awaiting him. As yet he had had no experience of any trial of the kind, and he seems not to have had that kind of imagination which can anticipate the untried with any sort of accuracy. When he said, "Though all men should be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended," he had not thought out in detail what was meant by the contingency which he thus describes. He had never yet seen his Master deserted by His friends and disciples, and he really treats such an occurrence in his inward heart as utterly improbable. Had St. Peter placed clearly before his mind what was meant by all men being offended at Christ, had he pictured to himself how matters would stand, when even St. James, even St. John, had forsaken the Divine Master, he would have shrunk from adding his concluding words. St. Peter’s confidence, then, was first of all the confidence of inexperience, aided by lack of imagination. It is repeated again and again under our eyes, at the present day.

II. Closely allied to this general failure to realise an untried set of circumstances was St. Peter’s insufficient sense, at this period of his life, of the possibly awful power of an entirely new form of temptation.

III. St. Peter’s over-confidence would seem to have been due in part to his natural temperament and to his reliance on it.

IV. What, then, is the lesson which we should try to carry away from this one event in St. Peter’s history. Not, assuredly, to think cheaply of moral or religious enthusiasm as such, but to measure well, if possible, our religious language, especially the language of fervour and devotion. When religious language outruns prudence or conviction, the general character is weakened.

H. P. Liddon, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxiv., p. 113.

References: Mat 26:33.—J. Vaughan, Children’s Sermons, 6th series, p. 30. Mat 26:33-35.—A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 393.

Mat 26:34

Christian Recompense.

The case of Peter shows that there is a denial of Christ which may be forgiven, although there is a denial of Him which will not. There is a denial of Him which may be forgiven, if we turn to Him, as Peter did, in sincere and hearty repentance. Peter went out and wept bitterly. But the denial of Him, which seems to us a little thing and to require no earnest repentance, is, indeed, not far from being a betrayal of Him.

I. What is the difference between the sin of Peter and the sin of Judas? Let us see what was the difference of their general lives. We know that Peter loved our Lord sincerely, and that he followed Him with a real desire to do His will, whereas what we know of Judas, even before His great sin, is unfavourable. It is of importance to observe this, because, in fact, our particular sins take their colour from the general character of our lives. What we call sin of infirmity, a sudden yielding to some very strong temptation, can hardly be said to exist in a man whose life is generally careless or sinful. He who takes no heed at any time to strengthen his nature has no right to plead its weakness; he who is the slave of all common temptations has no right to say that this one temptation overcame him because of its greatness.

II. Yet the acts of Peter and of Judas were in themselves different. The act of Peter was done without premeditation. Assuredly had he felt himself in any danger of denying his Lord, he would have gone away to his own home rather than have sought admission to the palace of the high priest. But Judas’s sin was deliberate; it had been resolved upon, not some minutes only before it was committed, but some hours, and even some days.

III. And so after the two sins were committed, what followed in either case? One look at our Lord recalled Peter to himself, to that very self, that better and habitual self, which our Lord had pronounced to be clean. He went out and wept bitterly. But of all this in the case of Judas we hear nothing: with him there was remorse indeed, but not repentance—an unblessed sorrow, working an unblessed death.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. v., p. 98.

Mat 26:36

The Conflict in Gethsemane.

I. The place of the conflict calls for a brief notice. Gethsemane is now only a name for one of the booths in Vanity Fair. There are two rival Gethsemanes, and rival guides wrangle about the truth of this and that local identification. One place, called the true Gethsemane, is walled round by the Latins. Another, a little more to the north, is walled round by the Greeks; both enclosures being under lock and key. The New Testament lends no help to enquiries that have reference to sanctity of places.

II. The story of this conflict. (1) Its intensity is the first fact in the story that strikes us. (2) This awful inward conflict was in a scene of outward peace. (3) The conflict wrung from the Saviour a great cry: "O, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." We have a glimpse here of the conflict carried on by Christ for us, single-handed. (4) We see that under all the sorrows of the Man of Sorrows, in this night of conflict, there was tender personal thought about His disciples.

III. The sleep of the disciples while this conflict was going on. While the Lord’s great cry rang they were dropping asleep. On three occasions He came back from His own terrible post, that He might see how they were faring at theirs, and on these occasions He found them asleep. "Couldest not thou watch one hour?" He had only asked Peter and his associates to watch. As a true man, He longed to have at least their sympathy, though He would not have their cooperative work. In your measure you know the feeling. "The spirit, indeed, is willing; but the flesh is weak." There was tender remonstrance, but not severe reproof. The sleep of the disciples has been cited as a sign of indifference; but it was treated by Jesus only as a symptom of mortality. In the case of excessive sorrow and care, the immense fatigue demands the enormous sleep. There is no master so merciful as He, no friend who makes such allowances. This quick apology of love for weakness is set on record for all who need it; and we, ashamed of our slumbers, and alarmed at our deadness of soul to things tremendous, may sometimes be kept from despondency by these words of Christ—golden words to be hidden in our most sacred treasury.

C. Stanford, Evening of Our Lord’s Ministry, p. 171.

References: Mat 26:36.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xii., No. 693; H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Sunday Sermonettes for a Year, p. 199; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vii., p. 215.

Mat 26:36-46

Gethsemane.

I. The first thing to which we direct attention, is the intense severity of the suffering which now overwhelmed and oppressed the mind of Christ. The extreme severity of Christ’s sufferings in the garden are indicated by several circumstances. (1) It appears that as soon as He had retired with the three disciples who were permitted to be near Him, the internal conflict commenced, and a sudden change took place in His appeareance. "He began to be sorrowful and very heavy." There was a complete prostration of the bodily powers; a suspension or deprivation, so to speak, of nervous energy. His internal strength seemed to fail and forsake Him, and He appeared in danger of passively yielding to the onset of sorrow, as if it were hopeless to bear up against it. (2) The next particular that shows the severity of His suffering, is the language in which He Himself describes it, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." (3) The crushing and agonising nature of our Lord’s sufferings may be seen in His earnest appeal to His three friends: "Tarry ye here, and watch with Me." (4) There appeared an angel from heaven, strengthening Him. But this shows to what a mysterious condition of weakness He was reduced. Physically and mentally He was brought very low, and needed to have His anguish assuaged, His courage recalled, and His frame supported, by one from heaven.

II. The seat of our Lord’s suffering was the soul. The Scriptures seem to refer to three sources of this distress and anguish. (1) There was some mysterious conflict with the great adversary of God and man. (2) There was some mysterious infliction direct from the hand of God, some wonderful withdrawal of His countenance and complacency, or, at least, of their sensible manifestation. (3) Our iniquities were laid upon Him, and He bore the curse and penalty of transgression.

III. Note the conduct of Jesus under His mysterious trial. He was sorrowful, amazed, and very heavy; but He roused Himself to pray, and was heard in that He feared. He was not literally delivered from death, nor from those deadly mental pangs, so much worse than the cross itself; but He was saved from sinking under them, He was strengthened by an angel sent to Him from the Father, and was thus enabled to bear up until the darkness had passed away.

T. Binney, King’s Weigh-house Chapel Sermons, 2nd series, p. 150.

References: Mat 26:36-41.—A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 469. Mat 26:36-46.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. xv., p. 70; Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 325. Mat 26:36-50.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. i., p. 275.

Mat 26:38

The Valley of the Shadow of Death.

I. Whether death be easy or painful, it is appointed unto all men once to die. This everyone knows, so that each person thinks that he can gain nothing by hearing it repeated. But I imagine, that although we know that we shall die, yet we who move about in health and strength have a very faint and imperfect notion of what death is. Indeed, it is not more concealed from our spirit than it is shut out from our minds. It would be vain to say that we can by any means escape all its bitterness, most certainly we cannot; but we can make this bitterness only a brief suffering of a few days or weeks, instead of the beginning of a miserable eternity. This we may gain, with God’s blessing, by thinking seriously and frequently upon it.

II. It becomes us to accustom ourselves to consider death as something real, to make it a part of every day’s serious thoughts; to bring steadily before our eyes the possibility that before the day closes which has now begun, it may be near, even at the doors. Will it be said that such thoughts would unfit us for our common business, or, at least, would stop all cheerfulness, and mark our countenances with a perpetual expression of gloom? Then we must still be in bondage to the weak and beggarly elements; we must be ignorant of the liberty which Christ has given us; or else our mirth and pleasure, and our business, must be such as Christ would condemn, and, in that case, we must, at whatever cost, get rid of them. For most certainly that is no fit employment and no Christian relaxation, in which we should be afraid to die; but either it is wrong in itself, or it takes us too much time, or it encourages us in a spirit of sloth, or pride, or carelessness. If it does none of these, and if it be pursued with thankfulness, as the gift of God, then the thought of death need not disturb or sadden it; we may go to it without scruple from our most solemn thoughts and prayers; and we may be called from it without fear if such be the will of God in the pangs of the most sudden death.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. i., p. 85.

Christ’s Agony in the Garden.

I. It was in the soul rather than in the body that our blessed Saviour made atonement for transgression. He had put Himself in the place of the criminal, so far as it was possible for an innocent man to assume the position of the guilty; and standing in the place of the criminal with guilt imputed to Him, He had to bear the punishment that misdeeds had incurred. You must be aware that anguish of the soul more than of the body is the everlasting portion which is to be awarded to sinners, and we might well expect that our Lord’s external affliction, however vast and accumulated, would be comparatively less in its rigour 01 accompaniments than His internal anguish, which is not to be measured or imagined. This expectation is quite borne out by the statements of Scripture, if carefully considered. Was it the mere thought of dying as a malefactor which so overcame the Redeemer that He needed strengthening by an angel from heaven? Was it this that wrung from Him the thrilling exclamation, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful?" Though we cannot explain what passed in the soul of the Redeemer, we would impress on you the truth, that it was in the soul rather than in the body that those dire pangs were endured which exhausted the curse denounced against sin.

II. It gives a preciousness to every means of grace, to consider it as brought into being by the agonies of the Redeemer. It would go far, were this borne in mind, to defend it against resistance or neglect if it were impressed on you that there is not a single blessing of which you are partakers that did not spring from this sorrow—this sorrow unto death—of the Redeemer’s soul. Neither is it the worth only of the means of grace that we may learn from the mighty sorrow by which they were purchased; it is also our own worth, the worth of our own soul. If you read the form of the question, "What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" you will see it implies that it is not within the empire of wealth to purchase the soul. But cannot this assume the form of another question—What would God give in exchange for the soul? Here we have an answer, not of supposition, but of fact; we tell you what God has given, He has given Himself. Wonderful as it may be, the human soul is worth the incalculable price which was paid for its ransom.

H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1,501.

Reference: Mat 26:38.—W. Gresley, Parochial Sermons, p. 189.

Mat 26:38-40

Divine Sorrow.

It is not on the actual physical sufferings of the Crucifixion that the Bible most invites us to dwell—it relates them, but it passes over them as lightly as the circumstances will admit—but on the inner suffering, on the inner intentions of the scene, we are invited to rest; and it is this inner intention which it expresses in the garden of Gethsemane.

I. Consider what were the causes which wrung from the Redeemer this strong crying and tears, the intolerable anguish of that hour among the sacred olive-trees, on the eve of the first Good Friday. (1) First, that gloom may have been the sense of the near approach of death with all the dread misgivings which beset the spirit in that supreme hour. (2) Or, again, it may have been the sense of loneliness—of the ingratitude, the desertion, the failure of disciples and kinsmen and country. (3) Or, yet again, it may have been something deeper, the sense of the load of human wretchedness entering into his soul, so as almost to take possession of it, so that, in the strong language of St. Paul, "He who knew no sin was made sin for us."

II. Let us remember that this scene is the silent, but most significant, protestation against the misery of wrong-doing, against the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Let us remember it also as the memorial that if we are oppressed by trials, which seem to us too hard to bear, we are but sharing the destiny of the well-beloved Son in whom God is well pleased. The scene suggests also how and in what spirit we ought to pray. There is something nobler and higher in the efficacy and the answer of prayer than the mere demanding and receiving the special blessings for which we ask. We are, indeed, by this narrative encouraged to lay all our wants before our Father, to cast all our cares upon Him, to beseech Him that He will hear us in small things as in great. We may pray, even as our Saviour prayed, that if it be possible the cup of our trial may pass from us; but if no direct answer be given, if the cup does not pass from us, let not our faith be shaken; let us look at the history of our Saviour’s agony.

A. P. Stanley, Christian World Pulpit, vol. i., p. 344.

Mat 26:39

The Will of God the Cure of Self-will.

It was the deep disease of self-will to cure which our good Lord came, in our nature, to fulfil the Father’s will, to suffer what the Father willed, to "empty Himself and become obedient unto death." Since pride was the chief source of disease in our corrupted wills, to heal this the Eternal Son of God came as now from His everlasting glory, and as a little child fulfilled His Father’s will. So He teaches us how to learn that will; by filial obedience; by willing suffering; and so at last by active doing of the will of God. We unlearn self-will by receiving all patiently which crosses self.

I. It is not against the will of God even strongly to will if it should be His will, what yet may prove not to be His will. Entire submission to the will of God requireth absolutely these two things: wholly will whatsoever thou knowest God to will; wholly reject whatsoever thou knowest God willeth not. Beyond these two, while the will of God is as yet not clear unto thee, thou art free.

II. Nor again is it against the will of God that thou art bowed down and grieved by what is the will of God. How can we but weep and have sorrow of heart when, if it be, for our own sins and the sins of our people, the Ark, the Church of God, is sorely stricken, and the hearts of men are perplexed and the work of God is hindered? And even when the heaviness is for our own griefs, yet, if it be patient, it too is according to the will of God. For had we not grief we should not have suffering, and without suffering there were no healing.

III. Whatever thy grief or trouble be, take every drop in thy cup from the hand of Almighty God. Thou knowest well that all comes from God, ordered or overruled by Him.

IV. Again, no trouble is too small wherein to see the will of God for thee. Great troubles come but seldom. Daily fretting trials—that is, what of thyself would fret thee—may often, in God’s hands, conform thee more to His gracious will. They are the daily touches whereby He traces on thee the likeness of His Divine will. There is nothing too slight wherein to practise oneness with the will of God. "Father, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." So hath our Lord sanctified all the natural shrinkings of our lower will. He vouchsafed to allow the natural will of His sacred manhood to be amazed and very heavy at the mysterious sufferings of the Cross, to hallow the "mute shrinking" of ours, and guide us on to the all-holy submission of His will. It is a great word which He lets us take into our mouths, "Not what I, but what Thou." I and Thou stand, as it were, over against each other. I, this worm of the earth, yet endowed with what even God will not break, this fearful gift, the will; Thou, the fountain of love, of wisdom, overflowing goodness. Give but thy will to God, and I and Thou become one. Choose but the will of God, and thou wiliest with His wisdom, thou choosest with His all-perfect choice, thou enterest into His councils, thou lovest with His love.

E. B. Pusey, Sermons for the Church’s Seasons, p. 67.

I. "I will" is the most sublime phrase that man is capable of uttering. In that one short expression is contained the true secret of his highest greatness. The will which man possesses is not only the reflection of the Divine image within him, but it is also the essential expression of his personality or real self.

II. For what purpose was this stupendous gift given us? What is the true use to which God would have us turn it? To this question only one answer is possible. God, almighty and self-existent from eternity before all worlds, could only out of pure love have created all things to reflect Himself in them, could only have created man for His own glory. "The Lord hath made all things for Himself." And so when God made man in His own image, He did not wish to make a mere machine, but He gave him the Divine gift of free will, that man might be able to choose God for himself. That, then, was the purpose for which will was given to man,—that man might freely give it back to God. As then the powerful will is the reflection of God’s image, so the act of willing should be the reflection of God’s will. As face answereth to face in the glass, so should the will of man be in complete correspondence with the will of God.

III. How is it then, we may ask with wonder, that the experience of mankind is so different? How is it that the will of man is not subject to the will of God? It is because there exists a counteracting force. The will implies a struggle and a mystery, a deliberately setting before us two courses, and a choice of one. A choice, then, lies before us between God’s will and all that is opposed to God’s will. To make the right choice is the struggle that God requires from each of us. Here, then, is the most important question we can put to ourselves: Am I choosing God, or that which is opposed to God? This is the test question by which we must try every action of our lives. Have I obtained that complete self-mastery, which enables me to dedicate all the actions of my life to God’s glory? The key to self-mastery is self-knowledge; and the way to self-knowledge is self-examination.

W. Baker, Penny Pulpit, new series, No. 707.

References: Mat 26:39.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. i., p. 292; Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 82; W. Baker, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 35; G. Dawson, Sermons on Disputed Points, p. 129.

Mat 26:39, Mat 26:42

Submission a Progress.

To enter fully into the mystery of Christ’s agony is not given to the living. But even the faint distant glimpse which we catch of it causes to rise upon this life of ours a marvellous light. The mourner has felt it so, and the sinner has felt it so, and the tempted has felt it so, and the disconsolate and solitary man has felt it so, and the dying man has felt it so. Consider the example, the model, the type of suffering, which is here set before us in Christ.

I. All sorrow, all suffering, even if it be anguish, even if it be agony, is a cup. It is something definite—something of a certain size, measure, and capacity—something which may be compared to the contents of a vessel; and that vessel prepared, presented, administered, by the hand of God Himself.

II. Again, concerning the cup itself, you may pray. Though it is of God’s sending, yet He will be inquired of, He will be applied to, He will be entreated, concerning it. If ever there was a cup which could not be prayed against, it was the cup of the sinbearing. And yet Christ prayed even against it.

III. But how pray? In what spirit, Christ being still our Teacher? (1) As to a Father. "O My Father." Never is a childlike spirit so needful as in regard to suffering, and in regard to prayer concerning it. (2) Again, with an "if." If it be possible. Then it may not be possible that the Gup should pass. And you must recognise this possible impossibility. (3) Once more, with an earnest confession of the comparative value of two wills—your will and God’s. If the two clash, have you made up your mind to wish, cost what it may, that God’s should prevail?

Our Lord’s second prayer asks not at all for the removal of the cup. The first was prayer with submission; the second is submission without even prayer. There was progression, even in this solemn hour, in the discipline of the Saviour’s obedience. He was learning obedience. Beyond the submission of the will lies the silence of the will; beyond the desire to have only of God’s will the desire that God only may will, whether I have or have not. The first prayer, the former text, was the one; the second prayer, the latter text, was the other. All of us have wishes, have desires. How shall these pass into our entire good, into our final perfection? (1) We must turn them into prayers; (2) we must pray in the spirit of submission.

C. J. Vaughan, Last Words at Doncaster, p. 165.

References: Mat 26:39, Mat 26:42.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xiv., p. 283. Mat 26:40.—H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. i., p. 20;—Ibid., Plymouth Pulpit Sermons, 5th series, p. 187.

Mat 26:40-41

I. How gently, yet how earnestly, does Christ call upon us to watch and pray, lest we enter into temptation. To watch and to pray; for of all those around Him some were sleeping and none were praying; so that they who watched were not watching with Him, but against Him. In our careless state of mind the call to us is to watch; in our over-busy state the call is to us to pray; in our hard state there is equal need for both. And even in our best moods, when we are at once sober and earnest and gentle, then not least does Christ call upon us to watch and to pray, that we may retain that than which else no gleam of April sunshine was ever more fleeting; that we may perfect that which else is of the earth earthy, and when we lie down in the dust will wither and come to dust, too.

II. "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." How great is the lovingkindness of these words! how gently does Christ bear with the weakness of His disciples! But this thought may be the most blessed or the most dangerous thought in the world: the most blessed if it touches us with love, the most dangerous if it emboldens us in sin. There may be some here who may go on grieving Christ and crucifying Him afresh for as much as seventy years; and He will bear with them all that time, and His sun will daily shine upon them, and His creatures and His word will minister to their pleasure, and He Himself will say nothing to them, but to entreat them to turn and be saved. But as these years pass on Christ will still spare us, but His voice of entreaty will be less often heard; the distance between Him and us will be consciously wider. From one place after another, where we once used sometimes to see Him, He will have departed; year after year some object which used once to catch the light from heaven will have become overgrown, and will lie constantly in gloom; year after year the world will become to us more entirely devoid of God. The increased weakness of our flesh has destroyed all the power of our spirit, and almost all its willingness; it is bound with chains which it cannot break, and indeed scarcely desires to break.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iv., p. 174.

These words of our Lord in the garden, when He came from His agony and found the Apostles asleep, are very sorrowful and touching. They show an ineffable depth of tenderness and compassion. He made the disciples’ defence for them; His very warning taught them how to plead with Him; and by teaching it He acknowledged the truth of the plea "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak!" Let us consider these words.

I. By the "spirit" is to be understood what we call the heart or will, illuminated by the grace of God; by the "flesh" is to be understood our fallen manhood, with its affections and lusts, so far as they still remain even in the regenerate. (1) We may trace the weakness of our nature in the great fluctuations of our inner state. (2) We may take as another example of this weakness the speedy fading away of good impressions even in those that live lives of real devotion. (3) This same weakness which besets our imperfect nature, is the reason why we fall so far short, in effect, of our aims and resolutions; and, in a word, of the whole law and measure of obedience.

II. Do not be out of heart at the ever-present consciousness of the weakness of your moral nature. It is well known, and better understood, and more closely scanned by Him to whose perfection you are mystically united. It is the very condition of the regenerate, and the law which governs the knitting together of His mystical body, and the educing of a new creation out of the old, that it should be gradual; imperfection passing into perfection, death being slowly swallowed up of life, sin through long striving cast forth by holiness. Moreover, we know not what mysterious purpose in the spiritual world may be fulfilled even in our weakness; how the glory of the Son of God, and the abasement of sin, may be perfected in our infirmity. And once more, as there seems to be some great purpose in the permission of our weakness, so does there also appear to be as deep a design in permitting the infirmities of the saints to cleave so long and closely about them. We must be made partakers of the humiliation of Christ, and therefore we are left girded with the burden of our fallen nature. It is by learning the depth of our fall and of the evil that dwells in us that we are to be fully abased. Our weakness and faults are left to abide in us that we may learn the perfection of hating what God abhors. They are as a purifying fire, which eats through us with a sleepless pain, and an anguish which cleanses the soul. Our soils and our sins lie so deep, they must needs be long in the refiner’s fire. Pray rather that, if need be, you may be tried seven times, so that all may be clean purged out.

H. E. Manning, Sermons, vol. i., p. 223.

In the precept, "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation," there is enjoined a feeling of apprehension and alarm. It is equivalent to saying, "Do not suffer yourself to be at ease." Beware of quietly enjoying your life. You are lost if you live without fear. As to moral and spiritual dangers, the greater number seem to have determined to indulge in a careless and almost unlimited confidence. As a natural consequence, they are overrun and spoiled and ruined by what they so little dread and guard against—that is to say, by temptations.

I. "That ye enter not into temptation." The words seem to say very pointedly: Beware of the beginning, for it is in fatal connection with the next ensuing, and yet connects what is behind. And since temptation is sure to be early with its beginnings, so too should watching and praying; early in life; early in the day; early in every undertaking. "Enter not"—that is, that we be cautious of venturing into anything which we have reason to believe or suspect may soon become temptation. It may be fair and harmless at the outset; but how far on? "Enter not"—that is, that we be considerate how a thing may become temptation. This demands an exercise of discerning foresight.

II. "That ye enter not"—that is, that we may be quickly alarmed at the indications that a thing is becoming temptation. "Here a questionable effect is beginning upon me; nay, but it is a bad effect. Certain principles of truth and duty are beginning to slacken their hold on me." Beware of becoming so partial to a thing that this circumstance shall become a trifling matter. You may have seen such examples; uneasiness has been felt for a while; there may have been a questioning whether to relinquish the object; but the heart grew faster to it. Be cautious of pursuing an evident good in a way in which there must be temptation. Be specially fearful of that where, if there be good to be obtained, the good is to come afterwards, but the temptation first. If the temptation coming first shall blind my discernment of the good—cool my zeal or destroy my relish of it—I should stop with the temptation and abandon the good. Beware of the kind of companionship that directly leads into temptation. But let no man be beguiled to think that he is safe against temptations at the times when his only companion is himself. The whole tempting world may then come to him through the medium of the imagination. The great deep of his own evil heart may be broken up. In this solitude may come that tempter that came to our Lord in the desert. In truth, unhappily there is no situation or employment in which temptation is not to be apprehended.

J. Foster, Lectures, vol. i., p. 42.

References: Mat 26:41.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iii., p. 418; J. H. Thom, Laws of Life after the Mind of Christ, p. 114; F. W. Farrar, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxviii., p. 60; J. Pott, A Course of Sermons for the Lord’s Day, vol. i., p. 346. Mat 26:42.—H. Allon, Three Hundred Outlines from the New Testament, p. 30.

Mat 26:45

Too Late.

In these words our Lord means: "It is too late. The opportunity is lost and gone. The time for watching and praying is over; you have let it escape you. You may as well sleep now. Alas! there is now nothing to be done; you must now enter, as you may, into temptation." If this be the true account of the words as first spoken, we shall readily think of ways in which they come home to us.

I. They have a direct bearing upon the whole subject of temptation. Christ, who loves us, bids us watch and pray, lest we enter into temptation. This, beforehand. The traitor was not yet in sight with his band and his weapons. The high priest’s servants, who were to be the human tempters, were themselves sleeping unconscious. This is the time for watching and praying—before the temptation comes. Mark that well. It is the moral of the whole. Remember there is a prayer which comes too late; there is a prayer which even contradicts itself in the asking; there is a prayer which asks to be kept safe under the temptation which we are going in quest of.

II. "Sleep on now, and take your rest." The words have a meaning also as respects opportunity. God gives us all a multitude of opportunities, and with respect to all He says to us, "Watch and pray;" "Occupy till I come." We will not, we never see, never feel the sacred aspect of these things. Each opportunity as it is towards God, is also, as towards man, a possibility of selfishness. There is not a relation in which we stand one to another, which may not be taken as a selfishness and refused as an opportunity. One by one, these are withdrawn. He who once said, "Watch and pray," says at last, "Sleep on now, and take your rest."

III. This saying, which is so true and so solemn as to the several opportunities which God here gives us, is not less so in its bearing upon that total sum of all opportunities which is the life. When Christ at last comes, and finds us still sleeping; then He is compelled to say—else He could be trifled with, else He were not the Judge, He were not the Faithful One and the True—He is compelled to say, "Sleep on now, and take your rest." The time is gone by. "The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved."

C. J. Vaughan, Lessons of the Cross and Passion, p. 1.

Mat 26:45-46

The Parabolical Language of Christ.

I. Our Lord’s habitual language was parabolical. I use the word in a wide sense, to include all language which is not meant to be taken according to the letter. This seems to have been, if I may venture to say so, the favourite language in which He preferred to speak; but when He found that He was not understood, then, according to the nature of the case, He went on in two or three different manners. (1) When He saw that the misunderstanding was wilful, He made His language more and more figurative. (2) When He found not a disposition but yet a profound ignorance of His meaning He broke off the conversation, and adopted another method of instruction. (3) When He was speaking to His own disciples, to whom it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, He generally explained His meaning—at least so far as to prevent practical error when He found that they had not understood Him.

II. Note the general lesson conveyed by our Lord’s words in the text. How truly do we deserve the reproof; how thankfully may we accept the call! Are we to take the words of reproof literally? May we really sleep on and take our rest? Oh, vain and wilful folly, so misunderstood! But lest we should misunderstand, let us hear our Lord’s next words: "Rise, let us be going," and that instantly; the time and opportunity already lost is far more than enough. Rise, let us be going," so Christ calls us; for He has still other work for us to do, for Him and with Him. The future is yet our own, though the past be lost. There will be a time when we might strike out the words, "Rise, let us be going," they will concern us then no more. It is only said, "Sleep on now, and take your rest;" all your watching time is wasted, and you can now watch no more; there remains only to sleep that last sleep, from which we shall then never wake to God and happiness, but in which we shall be awake for ever to sin and misery.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iv., p. 266.

References: Mat 26:47-55.—Parker, Inner Life of Christ, vol. iii., p. 226.

Mat 26:50

The Last Pleading of Love.

Note:—

I. The patience of Christ’s love. If we take no higher view of this most pathetic incident than that the words come from a man’s lips, even then all its beauty will not be lost. There are some sins against friendship, in which the manner is harder to bear than the substance of the evil. It must have been a strangely mean and dastardly nature, as well as a coarse and cold one, that could think of fixing on the kiss of affection as the concerted sign to point out their victim to the legionaries. Many a man who could have planned and executed the treason would have shrunk from that. But what a picture of perfect patience and unruffled calm we have here, in that the answer to the poisonous, hypocritical embrace was these moving words. Surely if there ever was a man who might have been supposed to be excluded from the love of God, it was this man. Surely if ever there was a moment in a human life when one might have been supposed that ever open heart would shut itself together against anyone, it was this moment. But no, the betrayer in the very instant of his treason has that changeless tenderness lingering around him, and that merciful hand beckoning to him still.

II. The pleading of Christ’s patient love. There is an appeal to the traitor’s heart, and an appeal to his conscience. Christ would have him think of the relations that have so long subsisted between them, and He would have him think too of the real nature of the deed he is doing, or perhaps of the motives that impel him. The grave, sad word by which He addresses him is meant to smite upon his heart. The sharp question which He puts to him is meant to wake up his conscience; and both taken together represent the two chief classes of remonstrance which He brings to bear upon us all—the two great batteries from which He assails the fortress of our sins.

III. The possible rejection of Christ’s patient love. (1) Even that appeal was vain. Man can frustrate the counsel of God. (2) Judas held his peace—no more. There was no need for him to break out with oaths and curses—to reject his Lord with wild words. Silence was sufficient. And for us no more is required. (3) The appeal of Christ’s love hardens where it does not soften. That gentle voice drove the traitor nearer the verge over which the fell into a gulf of despair.

A. Maclaren, Sermons preached in Manchester, 3rd series, p. 305.

References: Mat 26:52;—W. F. Hook, Sermons on the Miracles, vol. ii., p. 241; S. Macnaughton, Real Religion and Real Life, p. 134. Mat 26:55, Mat 26:56.—A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 469. Mat 26:56.—Christian World Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 127; Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 87.

Mat 26:56

The Fickleness of Friends.

I. "Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled." The cruelty of all this it would be hard to exaggerate. For three years and upwards their Divine Master had been building up their faith and binding them to Himself by a thousand heavenly arts. They had witnessed His miracles; they had heard His discourses; they had experienced His favours; they had been made the objects of His priceless love. Behold, the end is at last approaching—the end of life. The extremity of suffering and the severest brunt of the conflict with the unseen world is even now at hand. He has washed their feet; He has made them partakers of His body and of His blood; He has prepared them for danger: more than that, He has made them privy to His own mysterious need of support and consolation, even of their human sympathy; He has exposed to them His secret sense of loneliness and desertion: "What, could ye not watch with Me one hour?" I have no wish to exaggerate the faithlessness of the eleven Apostles, or to detract from the severity of their trial. Our wisdom is rather to behold in their conduct an image of what would assuredly have been our own, had we been there. We are spectators, not judges; and we should be silent and sorrowful, if we would profit by what we are permitted to see of the transactions of the last night in the earthly life of the Son of Man.

II. A lesson of patience towards one another. A lesson of kindness and forbearance and long-suffering towards those whom we call our friends. This is the teaching of the incident we are now considering. We claim so much; any token of wavering constancy, any want of faithfulness to ourselves in our hour of need—how prone we are to revenge it with coldness, and rebuke, and indignant displeasure! It is often the sign of a warm and faithful spirit which cannot brook in another what it especially would shrink from being guilty of itself. But, however we may explain it—however palliate the offence—an offence it is, and an offence against the Spirit of Him whom we serve, and whose holy name is called upon us. Let us be more patient, more long-suffering and less ready to take offence and rail against the world and its ways; remembering that thou hast bound no one on the earth’s surface to thee—nor canst bind—as Christ bound the eleven, who, when they beheld Him apprehended in the garden, at once forsook Him and fled.

J. W. Burgon, Ninety-one Short Sermons, No. 38.

References: Mat 26:30-34.—Expositor, 3rd series, vol. ii., p. 132. Mat 26:31, Mat 26:32.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xiv., p. 242. Mat 26:31-46.—Parker, Inner Life of Christ, vol. iii., p. 215.

Mat 26:57-58, Mat 26:69-75

Peter’s Denial of Jesus.

Although Peter’s denial of his Lord shocked all witnesses as a sudden, unaccountable, disconnected thing, it was in reality but the last act in a succession of acts, one growing out of another.

I. Think of this deed in connection with a certain weakness in which it began. Who denied the Lord? Was it that supreme scoundrel, Judas? No—infinitely pathetic tale to tell!—it was Peter! There was nothing artful, nothing subtle, nothing indirect, nothing mean in that man. Look at him. His very eyes tell the truth, his very blunders show his honesty; yet it was he who told the lie. Peter had many strong points, but one weak one; and that one, undetected by himself, was at the beginning of this disaster. It was the weakness of excessive constitutional impulsiveness. Impulse is beautiful and good, but impulse is only like steam in the works of a factory, or wind in the sails of a yacht. Impulse is a good servant of the soul, but a bad master.

II. Think of this act of Peter in connection with his entrance into the temptation to commit such an act. "Enter not into temptation," said the Lord, but Peter seems to have heard what was expressly meant for him without a ripple of emotion, or a rising of alarm. He could depend on his own self-protective instinct. Peter thought himself an iron man; but there was a flaw in his iron, though he knew it not until he had entered into a trial for which he was not fitted; then the iron broke.

III. Think of Peter’s denial of Christ in connection with its three occasions. As is often the case with a man whose life has been passed in the country, when off his guard he talked in his broadest native dialect, so that all knew the poor chatterer to be from Galilee. A young saucy face turned on him suddenly, and its owner said, "Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee." Impulse has no dominion over the critical instances of life; impulse prompted his first lie; in his terror, and before he was aware, Peter said, "Woman, I know Him not."

IV. Think of Peter’s denial in connection with the treatment that Christ was receiving at the time. Just in the anguish of the Master’s trial was the culmination of the servant’s sin.

V. Think of Peter’s denial of Christ in connection with Christ’s act of restoring love. He turned upon Peter with a look. The curse only drew forth love, and the love went out with that look—so melting, so mournful, so pathetically expressive. We may not imagine what this look was like, but we know what effect it had upon the disciple. He flung himself out into the night. In anguish almost unendurable, in a torture of tenderness, and with love wrought into a storm of passionate remorse, he felt himself to be lost. Some structures can only be saved by being ruined. The Athenian said, "I should have been lost, if I had not been lost." With what deep meaning and mighty emphasis might the glorified Peter now say the same.

C. Stanford, The Evening of Our Lord’s Ministry, p. 237.

Reference: Mat 26:57.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. i., p. 292.

Mat 26:58

I. Like the rest of the disciples, Peter no sooner saw the capture of the Lord than he forsook Him and fled. He has scarcely fled when he turns to follow—but he follows afar off, as one who would disguise even while he yields to the impulse. In the very midst of the high priest’s servants, he seats himself, hoping by the parade of confidence to disarm suspicion. But he had miscalculated his own powers. He was too good a man to be a good actor. The part was overplayed. He had rushed into unnecessary danger, and he could neither tell the truth bravely, nor utter a falsehood quietly. He had come to see the end, and yet that natural impulse was dangerous for him. It had temptation in it. It brought him to the edge of that fall which might have been his ruin. But for that determination to see the end, Peter might have been as Matthew, might have been as Andrew, almost as Thomas—doubter, not denier; if deserter, yet not rebel. It was the sight of Christ on His trial, which gave possibility to the blasphemy: "I know not the man."

II. There is responsibility in seeing the end, to us, as well as for Peter. It is possible so to see as to see not for the better but for the worse. This is so, when we either contemplate the cross carelessly, or turn its very grace into a licence for sin. It is possible—who shall gainsay it?—to make Christ crucified (as St. Paul expresses it) the minister of sin, to say, or to live as though saying, "Saved by grace; let me continue in sin that grace may abound." Thus we give occasion to the enemy to blaspheme, and take out of the salt of grace its whole savour of blessing. The preaching of the cross is no power, unless it sanctifies; it is no power, unless it saves from sin. The end is also a beginning; the death is also a life.

C. J. Vaughan, Temple Sermons, p. 353.

References: Mat 26:58.—H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Waterside Mission Sermons, 2nd series, No. 10; H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvii., p. 220; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xvi., p. 138.

Mat 26:63

When our Lord was upon earth, the measure of the fulness of His revelation to men was conditioned by their disposition towards Himself, and by their general moral character. This explains His silence to Caiaphas, to Herod, and to Pilate. In like manner the Scriptures are silent to some and full of heavenly wisdom for others. That which a man will get out of the Bible depends on what he brings to the Bible. The eye can see only what it brings with it the power of seeing.

I. Prejudice, whatever be its source, gets nothing out of the Scriptures. If you bring a full pitcher to a spring you can get nothing from that spring.

II. Habitual indulgence in sin will also prevent us from getting any answer to our inquiries from Scripture. Hardened sinners find nothing good in the Bible, because their moral sens is so hardened that they do not know good when they see it. The Herods of today get no answer from Christ.

III. The influence of scepticism makes the Scriptures silent. Pilate did not believe there was any truth, and if there was it could not be known. He belonged to the school of the elder Pliny, who said, "There is no certainty, except that nothing is certain." I do not wonder that philosophers who have adopted this philosophy can find nothing in the Bible. They must first believe that truth is, and then Christ will tell them what it is.

W. M. Taylor, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxix., p. 47.

References: Mat 26:63.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 103; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iii., p. 289. Mat 26:64.—Ibid., vol. xix., p. 276; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii., No. 1364.

Mat 26:69-75

Peter’s Denial.

Note:—

I. The precursors of Peter’s fall. (1) Among these we give a prominent place to self-confidence. It will not do to speak of Peter as insincere in his protestations of attachment to the Lord. We must not forget either that he was the only one of the eleven, save John, who followed Jesus into the palace of the high priest. The others had forsaken their master altogether for the time, and so, in a sense, Peter’s greater guilt than theirs was owing to his greater love. But the root of the evil in him was that he trusted in his own heart. His self-confidence threw him off his guard, and made him think that he had no need to pray for strength, and so he fell an easy victim to the tempter’s stratagems; (2) another precursor of this denial was rashness. Peter had cut off the ear of Malchus. Misplaced bravery is very often, as in this instance, the forerunner of cowardice. If by our folly we put ourselves in jeopardy, we are on the highway to falsehood in order to get ourselves out again; (3) another precursor of these denials was distance from the Lord. "Peter followed afar off." If we are going to follow Jesus at all, the easiest as well as the safest way to do so is to follow Him fully. Decision wards off attack.

II. The aggravations of these denials. These were many. (1) For one thing, Peter had been well warned of his danger. (2) Another aggravation of Peter’s denials was connected with the time at which they were uttered. It was with Jesus Himself the hour and power of darkness. If for no other reason than because so many others had forsaken him, the Apostle whom he had so loved and honoured ought to have been firm. (3) Further, these denials were aggravated in Peter’s case by the fact that the Lord had given him many special tokens of His regard. (4) These denials were aggravated by the manner in which they were made.

III. The sequel of the denials. Peter lived on his Master’s look—a mingling of reproof, of tenderness, and of entreaty—till the Master met him after the resurrection; and the thought of the prayer ("I have prayed for thee that Thy faith fail not") kept him from despair. Had it not been for these things, he, too, might have gone, like Judas, and hanged himself. Note one or two important inferences from this subject: (1) Great prominence in Christ’s service does not keep us from peril; (2) our greatest danger does not always lie where we are weakest, but is sometimes where we are usually strongest; (3) if Peter’s fall be a warning against over-confidence, his restoration ought to be an antidote to all despair.

W. M. Taylor, Peter the Apostle, p. 138.

References: Mat 26:69-75.—A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, pp. 469, 489. Mat 26:74, Mat 26:75.—W. Bull, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xx., p. 149. Mat 26:75.—Plain Sermons by Contributors to "Tracts for the Times," vol. viii., p. 33; J. Pott, A Course of Sermons for the Lord’s Day, vol. i., p. 363; E. Garbett, The Soul’s Life, p. 249. Mat 27:1-19.—Parker, Inner Life of Christ, vol. iii., p. 237. Mat 27:1-54.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 153.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Several things are here observable; as, 1. The persons conspiring against our blessed Redeemer’s life, namely, the chief priests, and scribes, and elders, that is, the whole sanhedrin, or general council of the Jewish church: these lay their malicious heads together, to contrieve the destruction of the innocent Jesus. Here was a general council of them, consisting of priests, doctors, and elders, with the high priest their president, yet erring in a point of doctrine concerning the Messiah, not believing Jesus to be the Son of God, notwithstanding all the convincing miracles which he had wrought before them.

Observe, 2. The manner of this conspiracy against our Saviour’s life; it was clandestine, secret, and subtile: They consulted how they might take him by subtilty and kill him.

Learn hence, That Satan makes use of the subtilty of crafy men, and abuseth their parts as well as their power, for his own purposes. Satan never sends a fool on his errand.

Observe, 3. The time when this conspiracy was managed; at the time of the passover. Indeed at first the chief priests did not incline to that time, fearing a tumult and uproar among the people; but Judas presenting them with a fair opportunity to apprehend him, they changed their purpose, and accordingly at the feast of the passover our Saviour suffered. This was not without a mystery, that Christ the true Lamb of God, whom the paschal lamb typified and represented, should be offered up at the feast of the passover: signifying thereby, that he was the true paschal Lamb, and that the legal shadow ought to cease in the exhibition of him.

Learn hence, That not only the death of Christ in general, but all circumstances relating to it, were fore-ordained by God himself; as the place where, at Jerusalem; the time when, at the feast of the passover; that time did God devise best for this Lamb to be a sacrifice.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXVI. Jesus Predicts His Death].

CXVI. JESUS PREDICTS, THE RULERS PLOT FOR, AND JUDAS BARGAINS FOR HIS DEATH. (Mount of Olives, Bethany, and Jerusalem. Tuesday after sunset, which Jews regarded as the beginning of Wednesday.) aMATT. XXVI. 1-5, 14-16; bMARK XIV. 1, 2, 10, 11; cLUKE XXII. 1-6.

c1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. b1 Now after two days was the feast of the passover and the unleavened bread: a1 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. [We may regard Jesus as having entered the temple Tuesday morning, and as having taught there until the evening. * He then retired to the slopes of Olivet and delivered the discourse which occupies Sections CXIII.-CXV., The discourse finished, it is likely that he arose about or a little after sunset (which the Jews reckoned as Wednesday) and proceeded on his way to Bethany, where he remained until late Thursday afternoon. On his way to Bethany he spoke the words of this section. The two days mentioned are Wednesday and Thursday. The passover was eaten Thursday night after sunset, which the Jews reckoned as Friday. For a full discussion of the time when the Passover was eaten, see Andrews' "Life of Christ," pp. 423-460.] 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 c2 And [641] sought bhow athat they might take Jesus by subtlety, and chow they might put him to death; akill him. [This council may have begun on the evening of Tuesday and continued until the beginning of Wednesday, Jewish time. It seems to have been a formal rather than an informal conference. The court where they met was the open space enclosed by the palace of the high priest. Caiaphas had been appointed high priest in A. D. 26 by the Procurator Valerius Gratus and was deposed A. D. 38. Ishmael, Eleazar, and Simon held the office between the deposition of Annas and the appointment of Caiaphas (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2. 2). See also p. 64.] 5 But { b2 for they said, Not during the feast, lest haply there shall be a tumult aarise among bof people. cfor they feared the people. [They knew that there were many at the feast from Galilee, and other sections of the country where Jesus ministered; and, judging by the demonstration made at the triumphal entry, they felt that there were plenty to take arms in Jesus' behalf. The sense of their council, therefore, seemed to be that if Jesus could be taken by subtlety--i. e., arrested privately--he might be taken during the feast. But if he had to be arrested publicly, then it was better to postpone his apprehension until after the feast. The treachery of Judas caused them to adopt the former course. At this place Matthew and Mark insert the account of the supper given to Jesus in the house of Simon the leper. They do this because the treacherous determination of Judas was formed at it and dates from it. The rebuke of the Lord then administered, or the desire to reimburse himself for the price of the ointment, which Mary expended, and which he felt that he ought to have had, or some other reasons, evidently induced him at that time to decide upon our Lord's betrayal. Since then he had been seeking opportunity to betray the Master.] 3 And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. { bhe that was one of the twelve, [See pp. 226, 391, 392.] a14 Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, bwent away unto the chief priests, that [642] he might deliver him unto them. cand communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might deliver him unto them. a15 and said, What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you? [It is probable that the proposal to sell his Master was made by Judas to individual members of the Sanhedrin, and that this proposal was one of the moving causes leading to the assembling of the council. The language implies that Judas appeared before the council and bargained openly with it.] b11 And they, when they heard it, were glad, and promised cand covenanted to give him money. aAnd they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver. [There had been coined shekels since the time of Simeon, or 143 B. C., before that the money was weighed. It is likely that the term "weighed" survived the practice and became a synonym or equivalent for "paid." The amount paid him was about fifteen dollars of our money. It was indeed a low price for so base a deed, but from the language used it may be fairly implied that it was but the earnest money of a larger sum. But Judas evidently hardened himself, and shut out all thought as to anything save the actual labor involved. Viewed thus, his task was neither difficult nor dangerous.] c6 And he consented, a16 And from that time he sought opportunity to deliver him bhow he might conveniently deliver him unto them. cin the absence of the multitude. [He soon found his opportunity. He bargained on Tuesday night and fulfilled his contract on Thursday night. Or, as the Jews reckoned time, he agreed in the beginning of Wednesday and fulfilled his covenant on the beginning of Friday.] [643]

* NOTE.--If this had been Tuesday, he would have said "after three days," as is the case of the resurrection. In all such expressions the remaining part of the present day was counted as one.--J. W. McG.

[FFG 641-643]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1. Had finished all these words. The discourses recorded in the three preceding chapters. The time was Tuesday night, after the Jewish Wednesday began; that is, after sunset. Compare Mark 14:1–11; Luke 22:1–6; John 12:1–8.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

This is the beginning of a new part of the story that tells of Jesus' crucifixion, death, and resurrection. Here he tells his disciples how he will suffer and die.

It came about that when

"After" or "Then, after." This phrase shifts the story from Jesus' teachings to what happened next.

all these words

This refers to all that Jesus taught starting in Matthew 24:3.

the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified

This can be stated in active form. AT: "some men will take the Son of Man to other people who will crucify him" (See: Active or Passive)

the Son of Man

Jesus is speaking about himself in the third person. (See: First, Second, or Third Person)

translationWords

Jesus

word

disciple

day

Passover

Son of Man

deliver

crucifyhis phrase shifts the story from Jesus' teachings to what happened next.

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

1–5. WEDNESDAY, NISAN 12. THE APPROACH OF THE PASSOVER. JESUS AGAIN FORETELLS HIS DEATH. THE SANHEDRIN MEET

Mar 14:1-2; Luk 22:1-2

Cp. Joh 11:55-57, where we read that ‘the chief priests and Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.’

That Jesus should be able for so many days to ‘speak openly in the Temple,’ and shew Himself to the people without fear of capture is a proof of the deep hold He had taken on the enthusiasm and affection of His fellow-countrymen. The words of St John (quoted above) imply a combination of the priestly and aristocratic party—the Sadducees—with the democratic Pharisees, against the despised Galilæan, and yet it requires treachery of the deepest dye and a deed of darkness to secure Him.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.