Matthew 26:25

26:25 Judas referred to Jesus as Rabbi, while the other disciples call him “Lord” (26:22). • “You have said it”: This enigmatic statement affirmed that Judas was the betrayer.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 26:25.[1125] Ῥαββί, Master) It is not recorded in Scripture that Judas ever called Jesus, Lord.—σὺ εἶπας, thou hast said) A formula of replying affirmatively, first to those who affirm, thence also to those who enquire, when the interrogation is taken away (as though it were a mode) and the sentence is left categorical.[1126] The question is asked, “JUDAS is the traitor?” the interrogation is taken away, and the categorical reply remains: “Judas IS the traitor.” A similar form of expression is found in Exo 10:29, כן דברת, So it is as thou hast said;[1127] cf. 1Ki 20:40, and Gnomon on Mat 26:64.

[1125] μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι) Is it I? [Surely it is not I?] Hypocrites counterfeit by imitation that which the sincere-hearted speak under the influence of genuine love.—V. g.

[1126] i.e. a simple and absolute affirmation.—(I. B.)

[1127] S. V. Εἴρηκας thou hast said.—E. V. Thou hast spoken well.—(I. B.)

Categorical, naked, and absolute, as opposed to a sentence in which there is a “modus,” i.e. some accompanying expression of feeling, thanksgiving, a prayer, or such like. See Append. on Sermo Modalis.—ED.

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

Mat_26:25. This final direct intimation regarding the betrayer (ὁ παραδιδούς), and addressed to this latter himself, is at variance with Joh_13:26 ff., where Mat_26:29 presupposes that it had not been given. Mat_26:25 is an outgrowth of tradition, the absence of which from the older narrative of Mark is unquestionably correct.

σὺ εἶπας] a Rabbinical formula by which an emphatic affirmation is made, as in Mat_26:64. See Schoettgen. There is no such usage in the Old Testament or among classical writers. At this point in the narrative of Matthew, just after this declaration on the part of Jesus, we must suppose the withdrawal (mentioned at Joh_13:30) of Judas (who, notwithstanding the statement at Luk_22:21, was not present at the celebration of the last supper; see on Joh_13:38, Remark) to have taken place. Matthew likewise, at Mat_26:47, presupposes the withdrawal of the betrayer, though he does not expressly mention it; so that his account of the matter is less precise. The objection, that it was not allowable to leave before the Passover lamb was eaten, is sufficiently disposed of by the extraordinary nature of the circumstances in which Judas found himself; but see on Mat_26:26.

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.

Whose head was about nothing then but to betray him.

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

Verse 25. Judas - said, Master, is it I?] What excessive impudence! He knew, in his conscience, that he had already betrayed his Master, and was waiting now for the servants of the chief priests, that he might deliver him into their hands; and yet he says, (hoping that he had transacted his business so privately that it had not yet transpired,) Master, is it I? It is worthy of remark, that each of the other disciples said κυριε, LORD, is it I? But Judas dares not, or will not, use this august title, but simply says ραββι, TEACHER, is it I?

Thou hast said.] συ ειπας, or אתון אמריתון atun amaritun, "Ye have said," was a common form of expression for YES. IT IS so. "When the Zipporenses inquired whether Rabbi Judas was dead? the son of Kaphra answered, Ye have said," i.e. He is dead. See Schoettgen. Hor. Hebr. p. 225.

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

(25) Then Judas, which betrayed him . . .—The words appear to have been spoken in the spirit of reckless defiance, which St. John indicates by saying that “after the sop Satan entered into him” (Joh_13:27). Did his Master (he calls Him by the wonted title of honour, Rabbi) indeed know his guilt? It would appear from St. John’s narrative (Joh_13:29) that the dread answer, “Thou hast said;” was not heard by all. All that they did hear was the command, “What thou doest, do quickly;” and some at least, probably the rest who were not in the secret of the signal, thought that that command referred to some matter connected with his customary work as the bursar of the company. He was to buy what was needed for the feast (i.e., probably, the customary solemn meal, or Chagigah, of the day that followed on the Paschal Supper), or to give alms to the poor. He, however, understood the meaning of the words, and straightway went out (Joh_13:27-30). It follows, from this view of the sequence of events, that though he had eaten bread with his Master, he did not partake of the bread and the cup that were to be the signs of the New Covenant. At this stage St. John inserts the words as to the new commandment, “that ye should love another,” which was embodied in that act of fellowship.

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

25. Thou hast said] This is a formula of assent both in Hebrew and Greek, and is still used in Palestine in that sense. These words seem also to have been spoken in a low voice inaudible to the rest.

The special mention of Judas is omitted by St Mark and St Luke.

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.

And as they were eating,.... The paschal lamb, and just concluding the whole solemnity, which was done by eating some of the (k) lamb: for

"last of all he (that kept the passover) eats of the flesh of the passover, though it be but the quantity of an olive, and he does not taste anything after it; and at the same time he eats the quantity of an olive of unleavened bread, and does not taste anything after it; so that his meal endeth, and the savour of the flesh of the passover, or of the unleavened bread, is in his mouth; for the eating of them is the precept.

So that the paschal supper was now concluded, when Christ entered upon the institution of his own supper:

Jesus took bread; which lay by him, either on the table, or in a dish. Though this supper is distinct from the "passover", and different from any ordinary meal, yet there are allusions to both in it, and to the customs of the Jews used in either; as in this first circumstance, of "taking" the bread: for he that asked a blessing upon bread, used to take it into his hands; and it is a rule (l), that "a man does not bless, , "until he takes the bread into his hand", that all may see that he blesses over it.

Thus Christ took the bread and held it up, that his disciples might observe it:

and blessed it; or asked a blessing over it, and upon it, or rather blessed and gave thanks to his Father or it, and for what was signified by it; and prayed that his disciples, whilst eating it, might be led to him, the bread of life, and feed upon him in a spiritual sense; whose body was going to be broken for them, as the bread was to be, in order to obtain eternal redemption for them: so it was common with the Jews, to ask a blessing on their bread: the form in which they did it was this (m):

"Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, the king of the world, that produceth bread out of the earth.

What form our Lord used, is not certain; no doubt it was one of his composing, and every way suitable to the design of this ordinance. It was customary also when there were many at table, that lay down there, however, as Christ and his disciples now did, for one to ask a blessing for them all; for so runs the rule (n),

"if they sit to eat, everyone blesses for himself, but if they lie along, , "one blesses for them all".

Moreover, they always blessed, before they brake:

"Says Rabba (o), he blesses, and after that he breaks:

this rule Christ likewise carefully observes, for it follows,

and brake it. The rules concerning breaking of bread, are these (p),

"The master of the house recites and finishes the blessing, and after that he breaks:--no man that breaks, is allowed to break, till they have brought the salt, and what is to be eaten with the bread, before everyone--and he does not break neither a small piece, lest he should seem to be sparing; nor a large piece, bigger than an egg, lest he should be thought to be famished;--and on the sabbath day he breaks a large piece, and he does not break, but in the place where it is well baked: it is a principal command to break a whole loaf.

Christ broke the bread, as the symbol of his body, which was to be broken by blows, and scourges, thorns, nails, and spear, and to be separated from his soul, and die as a sacrifice for the sins of his people: and having so done, he

gave it to the disciples; which being a distinct act from breaking the bread, shows that the latter does not design the distribution of the bread, but an act preceding it, and a very significant one: and which ought not to be laid aside: according to the Jewish (q) usages,

"He that broke the bread, put a piece before everyone, and the other takes it in his hand; and he that breaks, does not give it into the hand of the eater, unless he is a mourner; and he that breaks, stretches out his hand first and eats, and they that sit, or lie at the table, are not allowed to taste, until he that blesses, has tasted; and he that breaks, is not allowed to taste, until the Amen is finished out of the mouth of the majority of those that sit at table.

And said, take, eat, this is my body; in Luke it is added, "which is given for you", Luk 22:19; that is, unto death, as a sacrifice for sin; and by the Apostle Paul, Co1 11:24, "which is broken for you"; as that bread then was, and so expressive of his wounds, bruises, sufferings, and death, for them. Now when he says, "this is my body", he cannot mean, that that bread was his real body; or that it was changed and converted into the very substance of his body; but that it was an emblem and representation of his body, which was just ready to be offered up, once for all: in like manner, as the Jews in the eating of their passover used to say (r) of the unleavened bread,

, this is "the bread of affliction", which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt.

Not that they thought that was the selfsame bread, but that it resembled it, and was a representation of the affliction and distress their fathers were in at that time: to which some think our Lord here alludes: though rather, the reference is to the passover lamb, which is frequently, in Jewish writings, called "the body" of the lamb: thus mention being made of the bringing of the herbs, the unleavened bread, and the sauce "Charoseth", with other things to the master of the house, it is added (s):

"and in the sanctuary (whilst that stood) they bring unto him, , "the body of the lamb".

Again, elsewhere (t) it is said,

"they bring a table furnished, and on it the bitter herbs and other greens, and the unleavened bread, and the sauce,

"and the body of the paschal lamb".

And a little further (u),

"he recites the blessing, blessed art thou O Lord, &c. for the eating of the passover, and he eats, , "of the body of the passover".

And now it is, as if Christ had said, you have had "the body" of the lamb set before you, and have eaten of it, in commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, and as a type of me the true passover, quickly to be sacrificed; and this rite of eating the body of the paschal lamb is now to cease; and I do here by this bread, in an emblematical way, set before you "my body", which is to be given to obtain spiritual deliverance, and eternal redemption for you; in remembrance of which, you, and all my followers in successive generations, are to take and eat of it, till I come. The words, "take, eat", show that Christ did not put the bread into the mouths of the disciples, but they took it in their hands, and ate it; expressive of taking and receiving Christ by the hand of faith, and feeding on him in a spiritual manner,

(k) Maimon. Hilch. Charnetz Umetzah, c. 8. sect. 9. Vid. Bartenora in Misn. Pesach. c. 10. sect. 8. (l) Levush hattecheleth Num. 167. sect. 3. & Shlchan Aruch in Buxtorf. Exercit. de Coena Dominic. Thes. 45. (m) Haggadah Shel. Pesach. fol. 249. 2. Ed. Basil. Misn. Beracot, c. 6. sect. 1. (n) Ib. sect. 6. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 42. 2. & 43. 1. (o) T. Bab. Berncot, fol. 39. 2. (p) Maimon. Hilch. Beracot, c. 7. sect. 2, 3, 4. T. Bab. Berncot, fol. 47. 1. (q) Ib. sect. 5. (r) Haggadah Shel Pesach, p. 4. Ed. Rittangel. fol. 242. 2. Ed. Basil. (s) Misn. Pesach, c. 10. sect 3. (t) Maimon. Chametz Umetzah, c. 8. sect. 1. (u) Ib. sect. 7.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

25 Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.

Ver. 25. Master, is it I?] Desperate impudency! debauched hypocrisy! Had he the face to ask such a question? He could not but know that Christ knew all; yet hoped he, perhaps, that of his wonted gentleness, he would conceal him still, as he had done for certain days before. But incorrigible and incurable persons are no longer to be borne with. He heareth, therefore, "Thou hast said it," that is, Thou art the man I mean. Thus Christ pulls off his vizor, washeth off his varnish, and maketh him to appear in his own colours, a covetous caitiff (wretch), an impudent dog, a breathing devil, as Chrysostom hath it, a mischievous monkey; which creature hath the gravest countenance of any other, but is incessantly doing mischief. Talis res est avaritia, amentes, stolidos, impudentes, canes pro hominibus, et daemones ex canibus facit. (Chrys.)

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.

Thou hast said - That is, thou hast said the truth. It is so. Thou art the man. Compare Mat 26:64 with Mar 14:62.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Is it I, Rabbi? After the other disciples had put their questions, and after our Saviour had finished speaking, Judas at length ventures to inquire if himself. With his usual hypocrisy, he wishes to cloke his wicked designs by asking a similar question with the rest. (Origen) --- It is remarkable that Judas did not ask, is it I, Lord? but, is it I, Rabbi? to which our Saviour replied, thou hast said it: which answer might have been spoken in so low a tone of voice, as not perfectly to be heard by all the company. (Rabanus) --- Hence it was that Peter beckoned to St. John, to learn more positively the person. Here St. John Chrysostom justly remarks the patience and reserve of our Lord, who by his great meekness and self-possession, under the extremes of ingratitude, injustice, and blasphemy, shews how we ought to bear with the malice of others, and forget all personal injuries.

The Institution of the Holy Sacrament.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

25. Master, is it I? — After Jesus gave Judas the sop, which was the sign of guilt, then Judas, as out of due season, and quite mechanically, repeats the question. Thou hast said — This is an affirmative answer, and identifies the traitor to himself. The gradual exposure is brought to the final point.

He is the man. And John tells us that the traitor forthwith arose and went out into the congenial darkness of surrounding night.

Ingenious men have in modern times exerted their skill in framing apologies for Judas, and discovering innocent motives in his case. He might, forsooth, have expected that our Lord would deliver himself by miracle. He might have purposed to compel our Lord to declare himself openly as king of the Jews, and set up his government. Very plainly this is not the view of the Saviour or the evangelists. Reserved as the sacred writers are in declaring the character of the various men whose acts they describe, they speak very plainly of Judas. Whatever his previous character was, in process of time he was “a devil,” “a thief, and carried the bag.” A hypocrite in feigning care for the poor, he hastened, under the immediate impulse of resentment for a trifling offence, to join the Saviour’s enemies. But impetuous passion so blended with cold calculation that he gratified revenge and avarice together. He seems not to have calculated upon our Lord’s miraculous interference, or his asserting his royalty. He simply meant to obtain a price by surrendering his life to his enemies. Hence our Lord’s terrible woe upon him, and the terms of detestation with which the apostles uniformly load him. His repentance was wrung by divine compulsion from him, in order to place on record the testimony of Christ’s vilest enemy to the innocence of his character. It was not a repentance like that of Peter, restoring him to holiness and apostleship; but the repentance of the devils, by which, in the agony of remorse, they throw out their involuntary testimony for God and goodness. And the fact of this final attestation of the innocence of Jesus justifies the remark, that the truth of Christianity is not more sustained by the life of Paul than by the death of Judas.

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

Answered and said, Master, is it I? Mhti egw eimi ; It is not I, is it? as ver. 22. Judas probably had not been one of those who put this question before, and now, availing himself of his proximity to Jesus (see on ver. 23), he has the inconceivable effrontery to make this inquiry privately, as if to assure himself whether Christ was conscious of his treachery or not. It is remarked that he does not call Jesus "Lord," as the other apostles, but "Rabbi," a coldly ceremonious title (so in the garden, ver. 49) The gentle Jeans reproaches him not, but answers him in low tones unheard by the rest. (Joh_13:28, Joh_13:29) Thou hast said. A common formula, equivalent to "yes." So ver. 64.

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

Thou hast said - That is, it is as thou hast said.

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

25. Thou hast said. In other words, “Thou art the traitor.” John says that Jesus then said to Judas, “What thou doest, do quickly” and that he “immediately went out, and it was night.” Judas, therefore, left before the Lord's Supper was instituted.

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.

25. Σὺ εἶπας. This is a formula of assent both in Hebrew and Greek, and is still used in Palestine in that sense. These words seem also to have been spoken in a low voice inaudible to the rest.

The special mention of Judas is omitted by St Mark and St Luke.

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.

25.] I cannot understand these words (which are peculiar to our Gospel) otherwise than as an imperfect report of what really happened, viz. that the Lord dipped the sop, and gave it to Judas, thereby answering the general doubt, in which the traitor had impudently presumed to feign a share. If the question μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι; before, represented ἔβλεπον εἰς ἀλλήλους ἀπορούμενοι, and was our author’s impression of what was in reality not a spoken but a signified question,—why now also should not this question and answer represent that Judas took part in that ἀπορία, and was, not by word of mouth, but by a decisive sign, of which our author was not aware, declared to be the traitor? Both cannot have happened;—for (Joh 13:28) no one knew (not even John, see note there) why Judas went out; whereas if he had been openly (and it is out of the question to suppose a private communication between our Lord and him) declared to be the traitor, reason enough would have been furnished for his immediately leaving the chamber. (Still, consult the note on Luke, vv. 24-30, where I have left room for modifying this view.) I am aware that this explanation will give offence to those who believe that every part of each account may be tessellated into one consistent and complete whole. Stier (Reden Jesu, vi. 46) handles the above supposition very roughly, and speaks of its upholders in no measured terms. Valuable as are the researches of this Commentator into the inner sense of the Lord’s words, and ready as I am to acknowledge continual obligation to him, I cannot but think that in the whole interpretation of this part of the Gospel-history, he and his school have fallen into the error of a too minute and letter-serving exposition. In their anxiety to retain every portion of every account in its strict literal sense, they are obliged to commit many inconsistencies. A striking instance of this is also furnished in Mr. Birks’s Horæ Evangelicæ, p. 411: where in treating of this difficulty he says, “If we suppose St. Matthew to express the substantial meaning of our Lord’s reply, rather than its precise words, the two accounts are easily reconciled. The question of Judas might concur with St. John’s private enquiry, and the same sign which revealed the traitor to the beloved disciple, would be an affirmative reply to himself, equivalent to the words in the Gospel—‘Thou hast said.’ ” Very true, and nearly what I have maintained above: but the literal harmonizers seem to be quite blind to the fact, that this principle of interpretation, which they use when it suits them, is the very one against which they so vehemently protest when others use it, and for the use of which they call them such hard names. On σὺ εἶπας, see below, ver. 64, note.

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

(E) 25. And Judas, who delivered Him up, answered and said. Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him, Thou hast said.] The verse is not in Mk. Mt., who has understood ὁ ἐμβαπτόμενος as marking out the traitor in an indirect way, adds here a clause to make his identity still clearer.—σὺ εἶπας] For the tense. see Moulton, p. 140. The clause is an evasive or ambiguous affirmative, and is quite in the Semitic manner. For Rabbinic parallels. see Dalm. Words, 309 ff. But cf. Chwolsen, Das Letzte Passamahl, p. 88, who denies that it is a Rabbinic formula of affirmation. So also Merx, in loc.: “Du hast es gesagt ist keine rabbinische Formel.” But the passages quoted by Dalman seem sufficient to show that “thou hast said” is in harmony with the Jewish spirit. where an indirect affirmation is required. In the present instance it is needless to ask whether it can or cannot express a direct affirmative. because such a direct affirmative would mar the spirit of the whole narrative, as Mt. has well understood. Christ had stated the terrible fact that one of His chosen friends. who was at that very moment sharing with him in a common meal. would betray Him into the hands of His enemies. They answer Him in indignant words which are half-interrogative, half-negative, It is not I? And Judas amongst the others put the same question. Now it is inconceivable that Christ should have answered him with a simple affirmative. Such a statement made publicly could only have provoked an outburst of fury against Judas, and perhaps for a time at least have frustrated his purpose. If intended only for the ear of Judas, it was the sort of thing which could not have been said under the circumstances. It would only have led to angry denial. What was required was just what σὺ εἶπας expresses, an ambiguous affirmative, suggesting to the traitor himself the certainty that his treachery was known; to others, if they overheard it, a half uncertainty as to what was meant, and leaving opportunity to Judas of withdrawing from his course of treachery before its absolute and final exposure. See Gould on Mar 14:20.

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

Which betrayed [ο παραδιδους] . The article with the participle has the force of an epithet : The betrayer.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.