Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - Matthew 26:1 - 26:75
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THUS JESUS ENTERS UPON HIS KINGDOM.
Before attempting to expound this most momentous section of the gospel history, we must make up our minds concerning the solution of the difficulties which are involved in some details in the account of the Supper. The supposed discrepancy between the narrative of the synoptists and that of St. John has exercised the minds of commentators from the earliest times unto the present, and enormous ingenuity has been expended in endeavouring to harmonize what are regarded as conflicting statements.
The two chief difficulties are these: According to the synoptists, as generally understood, our Lord and his apostles ate the Passover, i.e. the Paschal lamb, when he instituted the Holy Communion; according to St. John, the death of Christ took place before the Passover was celebrated. Hence arise the questions—Was the last Supper the regular Paschal meal? Was Christ crucified on the 14th of Nisan or on the 15th? In the time of our Lord, the festival commenced on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, originally the day of preparation, but now considered part of the feast. "Between the evenings" of this day—i.e. from the time of the sun's decline to its setting—the lambs were killed in the temple courts. The 15th, commencing on the evening of the 14th, and lasting till the evening of the 15th, was the great day of the feast. All the accounts agree in stating that our Lord was crucified on Friday, the day before the sabbath, but the day of the month is not so clearly defined. The year seems to be settled as A.U.C. 783, A.D. 30, the sixteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius. In this year, astronomers tell us, the 14th of Nisan fell on a Friday; and as for typical reasons at least we should expect that Christ would die at the hour when the Paschal lamb was slain, we at once see the fitness of this date and day, if they can be safely maintained It is incredible that the events immediately preceding and accompanying the execution of Christ should have occurred on the actual feast day; it is also incredible that, as some critics suppose, the Pharisees altered the legal day in order that they might be free to accomplish their wicked design. These considerations lead us unhesitatingly to adopt the account given by St. John (himself an eyewitness, and certain to have noted and remembered the exact date of this stupendous event), and to assume that Christ was crucified on the 14th of Nisan, dying at the hour when the lambs were legally slain. The notes of time afforded by St. John are found in Joh_13:1, Joh_13:29; Joh_18:28; Joh_19:14, Joh_19:31. 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 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.
Mat_26:1, Mat_26:2
Final announcement of the approaching Passion. (Mar_14:1; Luk_22:1.)
Mat_26:1
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 (Jn 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.
Mat_26:2
Ye know. He speaks of a fact well known to his hearers—the day of the Passover Feast. And they had been forewarned of his death (see Mat_20:17-19). After two days; μετα Ì δυ ì ο ἡμε ì ρας: post biduum. These words are ambiguous, as it is not certain how the time is reckoned—whether the current day is included or not. If, as is most probable, they were spoken on Wednesday, the phrase means the next day but one, which commenced on the afternoon of Friday. Jesus appears to have passed this day in peaceful seclusion, either in Bethany or its neighbourhood. Is the Feast of the Passover; το Ì Πα ì σχα γι ì νεται: the Passover cometh; Pascha fiet. The lambs were slain during the first evening of the 14th of Nisan, and were eaten within twelve hours. The word Pascha is the Greek form of the Hebrew Pasach, denoting "the passing over" of the destroying angel, when he destroyed the Egyptians, but left untouched the houses of the Israelites, on whose door posts was sprinkled the blood of the lamb (Exo_12:1-51.). Etymologically, it has nothing to do with πο ì σχω, and the Latin patior, passio, etc, though pious writers have seen a providential arrangement in the apparent similarity of the words (see the possible paronomasia in Luk_22:15). Pascha (Pasach) is used in three senses:
(1) the transit of the angel;
(2) the Paschal lamb;
(3) the Feast of the Passover.
It is in this last signification that it is here employed And (equivalent to when) the Son of man is betrayed (delivered up, Revised Version) to be crucified. Christ connects his own death with the Passover, not only as indicating the day and hour, but to mark the typical meaning and importance of this solemnity, when he, our Passover, should be sacrificed for us. The present tense, "is betrayed," denotes the imminence and certainty of the event. He sees the event as actually present.
Mat_26:3-5
Conspiracy of the Jewish rulers. (Mar_14:1; Luk_22:2.)
Mat_26:3
Then. While Christ was announcing his approaching death, the rulers were plotting its accomplishment. He was certain; they were in doubt and perplexity about it. The chief priests (see on Mat_16:21). The office of high priest had originally been held for life; but of late the civil power had often deposed one and appointed another, so that there were at times many who had held the post, and who, as well as their deputies, and the heads of the courses, claimed the title of chief priest. These were all members of the Sanhedrim And the scribes, These words are omitted on very good authority by many modern editors. They are not found in the Vulgate, though they occur in the parallel passages in the other synoptists. If genuine, they, in connection with "elders" and "priests," would signify that all the elements of the Sanhedrin were present at this council. The palace ( αὐλη Ì ν) of the high priest. This, then, was not a formal meeting, or it would have been held in the hall Gazith, "the hall of hewn stones," on the south side of the court of the priests. It was assembled in the court of the high priest's house, because it comprised persons who were not Sanhedrists, such as temple officials, and connections of the high priest, forming what was known as the priestly council, which was the official medium between the Roman authorities and the people. Who was called Caiaphas. Josephus ('Ant.,' 18.2. 2) speaks of him as "Joseph, who is also Caiaphas;" hence the way in which he is introduced in the present passage. He had been elevated to his high post by the Romans, who found in him a submissive tool. His father-in-law. Annas had been appointed by Quirinius, but after nine years had been deposed; he was succeeded in turn by Ismael, Eleazar son of Annas, Simon, and fourthly by Caiaphas, who superseded his immediate predecessor by the favour of the procurator Valerius Gratus, the tenant of the office before Pontius Pilate. The ex-high priest, Annas, was counted still by some rigorists as holding the office, and he appears to have possessed high authority (see Joh_18:13; Act_4:6).
Mat_26:4
By subtilty. They had decided to put Jesus to death; the question was how to get possession of his Person when there would be no attempt at a rescue, nor any tumult in his favour. The original is literally, They took counsel in order that they might take, etc. They seem scarcely to have reckoned on any legal trial; once they had him quietly in their hands, they would find means to dispose of him.
Mat_26:5
Not on the feast day; ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ : during the feast; i.e. during the eight days of the Passover celebration. The assembled multitudes did not leave the city until the close of the octave, so the danger of a rising was not removed till then. The rulers well knew the stern temper of Pilate the procurator, who was prepared to crush any popular movement with the strong hand, and at festival times had always his soldiers ready to hurl upon the mob at the slightest provication, and to deal indiscriminate slaughter. Hence arose the plan of a clandestine apprehension. It was, indeed, the custom to execute great criminals at the time of the chief festivals, in order to impress the spectacle of retribution upon the greatest number; but in the case of Jesus, after what had occurred during the last few days, and when Jerusalem was filled with Galilaeans, who might naturally favour their countryman's pretensions, it was deemed dangerous to make any open attack. Their fears were relieved in the most unexpected manner by the appearance of Judas among them (Mat_26:14).
Mat_26:6-13
The anointing at Bethany. (Mar_14:3-9; Joh_12:1-8.) This parenthetical episode is introduced by the two synoptists out of its chronological order, with the view of indicating the immediate cause of Judas's resolution to betray his Master, the issue of which they proceed to narrate (see on Mat_26:14). This anointing must not be confounded with that related by St. Luke (Luk_7:37, etc.), where the scene, the time, and the actor were different, and the significance was of a very inferior nature.
Mat_26:6
When Jesus was in Bethany. St. John tells us that the incident took place six days before the Passover, i.e. on the Saturday preceding Palm Sunday. It is St. Matthew's custom to describe events not always in their historical sequence, but according to some logical or spiritual connection which in his mind overrides considerations of time or place. (For Bethany, see on Mat_21:1.) Simon the leper. Not that he was a leper now, but either the appellation was hereditary, in reference to some such malady inflicted on his family, or he himself, having been cured by Christ, retained the name in memory of his cleansing. So St. Matthew is called "the publican" after he had relinquished his obnoxious business (Mat_10:3), and the revived man is termed "the dead" (Luk_7:15). The frequency of the name Simon among the Jews rendered the addition of a surname expedient; thus we have Simon the Cananite, Simon the tanner, Simon Bar-john, etc. Nothing certain is known about this person. Tradition makes him father of Lazarus or husband of Martha. That he was connected with the holy family of Bethany, either by relationship or close friendship, seems to be well established.
Mat_26:7
A woman. St. John identifies her as Mary the sister of Lazarus and Martha. Why the synoptists omit her name is not known; it is equally uncertain why St. John makes no mention of Simon. None of the synoptists notice Lazarus, though St. Luke names Martha and Mary (Luk_10:38, Luk_10:39). It may have been at the time a matter of prudence or delicacy not to draw attention to them by name. But there is no discrepancy. One narrative supplements the other, and it is best to be thankful for what we have, and not to be over curious concerning points not explained. An alabaster box ( ἀλα ì βαστρον). A cruse or flask made of alabaster, which is a white calcareous spar resembling marble, but setter and more easily worked. These cruses were generally round shaped, with a long narrow neck, the orifice of which was sealed. It may be the breaking of this seal to which St. Mark refers in his account (Mar_14:3), when he says that "she brake the box." Very precious ointment ( μυ ì ρου). St. Mark calls it "pistic nard," rendered in our version "spikenard." The word in our text seems to be used for any salve or ointment which contained myrrh as one of its ingredients. Nard is found in Syria, the Himalayas, and other parts of India. From its root a strong scented unguent was made, which, being imported from a long distance, was very costly. Poured it on his head. It is to be noted that in the original there is no "it" after "poured;" so there is nothing to imply that the whole was poured upon his head. This helps to reconcile this account with that of the fourth evangelist (Morison). St. John tells that she anointed his feet, which was unusual; she first anointed his head, and then his feet, wiping the latter with her long flowing hair. Anointing the head was not an uncommon way of honouring distinguished guests; but Mary had another thought in her mind which the Lord discerned (verse 12). As he sat at meat; as he reclined at table. The Jews had adopted the Roman mode of eating (comp. Mat_22:10, where the word rendered "guests" is "the recumbent"). St. Matthew does not mention that a special supper was arranged for him (Joh_12:1), as if to do him honour.
Mat_26:8
When his disciples saw it. St. John states that the objection came originally from Judas. Doubtless, when it was once made, many concurred in it, not, indeed, from Judas's selfish motive (Joh_12:6), but because they did not clearly apprehend the Divinity of Christ, nor the unspeakable sacredness of that body which was about to be the instrument of man's redemption. To what purpose is this waste ( ἀπω ì λεια)? Wordsworth notes that Judas is called υἱο Ì ς ἀπωλει ì ας (Joh_17:12). A fitting question truly for him to ask! The objectors saw no practical usefulness in the expenditure of this costly substance. If it was thought proper to show respect to their Master, a much inferior oil would have equally effected this purpose, or a few drops of the more precious unguent would have sufficed. So nowadays one hears complaints of money being expended in the rich decoration of churches, etc., when there are starving multitudes whom it would have relieved. But God himself has sanctioned the use of precious materials and of exquisite workmanship in temples built in his honour, and in the accessories of his public worship; the interests of the poor are not overlooked in such expenditure; they who give of their substance for such purposes are just those who feel all their responsibilities, and know that they serve Christ in ministering to his needy members.
Mat_26:9
Might have been sold for much. According to St. John, Judas had accurately estimated the value of the ointment at 300 denarii, equal to about £9 of our money. When we remember that one denarius represented the daily wages of a labouring man (Mat_20:2), we see that the cost was very large. Given to the poor. And this "much" given to the poor. But piety is not shown only in giving alms; the honour of God has a superior claim. And Mary was rich, and quite able to afford this offering without neglecting her almsgiving. "How often does charity serve as a cloak for covetousness! We must not neglect what we owe to Jesus Christ under pretence of what we owe his members. Men count as wasted what is expended in the outer worship of God, when they love neither God nor his worship. Jesus Christ authorizes it by accepting it at the very instant in which he was establishing religion by a worship the most spiritual and inward" (Quesnel).
Mat_26:10
Understood it. Either their murmurs reached Christ's ears, or he divined their thoughts, and proceeded to defend Mary's action and to give a new lesson. Why trouble ye the woman? The disciples, observed Bengel, were really acting offensively to Jesus in thus censuring Mary; but he passes over this, and blames them only in respect of their conduct towards her. Doubtless, their remarks had reached Mary's ears, and annoyed and embarrassed her. For she hath wrought a good work upon ( εἰς ) me. A work that proved her zeal, reverence, and faith. Mary had always been devout, contemplative, loving. She had learned much at the grave of Lazarus; she was full of gratitude at the wonderful restoration of her brother's life; she had often heard Christ speak of his decease, and knew that it was close at ham], realizing that which the chosen apostles were still slow to believe; so she was minded to make this costly offering. And Christ saw her motive, and graciously accepted it.
Mat_26:11
Ye have the poor always with you. St. Mark adds, "and whensoever ye will ye may do them good." This was in strict accordance with the old Law: "The poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy in thy land" (Deu_15:11). The existence of poor gives scope for the exercise of the graces of charity, benevolence, and self-denial; and such opportunities will never be wanting while the world lasts. Me ye have not always; i.e. in bodily presence. When he speaks of being with his Church always to the end, he is speaking of his Divine presence. His human body, his body of humiliation, was removed from the sight and touch of men, and he could no longer be received and welcomed and succoured as heretofore. In a different and far more effectual mode he would visit his faithful servants by a spiritual presence which should never fail or be withdrawn. To the objectors he would say, "You will no longer have opportunity of honouring me in my human form; why, then, do you grudge the homage now paid me for the last time?"
Mat_26:12
On my body, she did it for my burial ( προ Ì ς το Ì ἐνταφια ì σαι με, to prepare me for burial). This doubtless was in some sort her intention (see on Mat_26:10). She desired to offer what she could (Mar_14:8) of the offices and attentions due to the corpse of a beloved and revered Friend. Christ interpreted her act, and gave it a solemn significance. By this effusion of the precious unguent site anticipated the embalming of the Lord's body; she showed her reverence for that body which was to be given for the life of the world not many days hence. The full meaning of the mystery of which she was the instrument Mary did not comprehend, but what she had consciously done received a wonderful commendation from the Lord, which has no parallel in the Gospel history.
Mat_26:13
Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached. This weighty promise and prediction is introduced by the emphasizing formula, Verily I say unto you. The gospel is the story of the incarnation of Jesus—his life, teaching, death, resurrection, which implies written documents as well as oral exposition. Our Lord had already (Mat_24:14) intimated that the gospel of the kingdom should be published throughout the world; he here affirms that Mary's deed shall be enshrined therein for all time. There shall also this, that this woman hath done ( λαληθη ì σεται και Ì ὁ Ì ἐποι ì ησεν αὑ ì τη, that also which this woman did) be told for a memorial of her. The history which records the grudging remonstrance of the disciples contains this remarkable approval of Mary's act, associating her forever with the Passion of the Lord. We may here quote the eloquent comment of Chrysostom, who, however, unreasonably identifies Mary with the sinner who previously anointed Jesus. "Who then proclaimed if, and caused it to be spread abroad? It was the power of him who is speaking these words. And while of countless kings and generals the noble exploits, even of those whose memorials remain, have sunk into silence; and having overthrown cities, and encompassed them with walls, and set up trophies, and enslaved many nations, they are not known so much as by hearsay, nor by name, though they have both set up statues, and established laws; yet that a woman who was a harlot poured out oil in the house of some leper, in the presence of ten men,—this all men celebrate throughout the world; and so great a time has passed, and yet the memory of that which was done hath not faded away, but alike Persians and Indians, Scythians and Thracians, and Sarmatians, and the race or the Moors, and they that inhabit the British Islands, spread abroad that which was done secretly in a house by a woman" ('Ham. 80. in Matthew').
Mat_26:14-16
Compact of Judas with the Jewish authorities to betray Jesus.
Mat_26:14
Then. The time referred to is the close of Christ's addresses, and the assembling of the Jewish authorities mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, Mat_26:6-13 being parenthetical. It is reasonable to suppose that the loss of the three hundred denarii, at which he would have had the handling, and the reproof then administered, gave the final impulse to the treachery of Judas. This seems to be signified by the synoptists' introduction of the transaction at Bethany immediately before the account of Judas's infamous bargain (see preliminary note on Mat_26:6-13). One of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot. That he was one of the twelve, the chosen companions of Christ, emphasizes his crime, makes it more amazing and more heinous. To witness the daily life of Christ, to behold his miracles of mercy, to listen to his heavenly teaching, to hear his stern denunciations of such sins as covetousness and hypocrisy, and in spite of all to bargain with his bitterest enemies for his betrayal, reveals a depth of perverse wickedness which is simply appalling. Well may the evangelist say that Satan entered into Judas (Luk_22:3); it was the devil's work he was doing; he followed this evil inspiration, and thought not whither it would lead him. Went unto the chief priests. Their hostility was no secret. Judas and everybody knew of their hatred of Jesus, and of their attempts to get him into their power; he saw his way to carrying out his purpose, and making of it some pecuniary gain. We are not to suppose that this miserable man sank all at once to this depth of iniquity. Nemo repente fit turpissimus. Though the descent to Avernus be easy, it is gradual; it has its steps and pauses, its allurements and checks. Modern criticism has endeavoured to minimize the crime of Judas, or even to regard him as a hero misunderstood; but the facts are entirely in favour of the traditional view. We can trace the path by which the apostle developed into the traitor, by studying the hints which the Gospels afford. He was probably at first fairly sincere in attaching himself to Christ's company. Being a man of business capacity and skill in the management of money matters, he was appointed treasurer of the little funds at the disposal of Christ and his followers. Half-hearted and self-seeking, his undertaking this office was a snare to which he easily fell a victim. He began by petty peculations, which were not discovered by his comrades (Joh_12:6), though he must often have felt an uneasy apprehension that his Master saw through him, and that many of his warnings were directed at him (see Joh_6:64, Joh_6:70, Joh_6:71). This feeling lessened the love for Jesus, though it did not drive him to open apostasy. He had admitted the demon of covetousness to his breast, and he now adhered to Christ for the hope of satisfying greed and worldly ambition. The teaching and miracles of Christ had no marked influence on such a disposition, softened not his hard heart, effected no change in his evil and selfish desires. And when he saw his hopes disappointed, when he heard Christ's announcement of his speedy death, which his knowledge of the rulers' animosity rendered only too certain, his only feeling was hatred and disgust. The transient expectations raised by the triumphal entry were not fulfilled; there was no assumption of the earthly conqueror's part, there were no rewards for Christ's followers, nothing but enmity and threatening danger on every side. Judas, seeing all this, perceiving that no worldly advantage would be gained by fidelity to the losing side, determined to make what profit he could under present circumstances. Not with the mistaken idea of forcing Christ to declare himself, and to put himself at the head of a popular movement, nor with any notion of Christ miraculously saving himself from his enemies' hands, but simply from sordid love of gain, he made his infamous offer to the chief priests. It was just when they were in perplexity, and had determined on nothing except that the arrest and the condemnation were not to take place during the feast, that Judas was introduced into the assembly. No wonder "they were glad" (Mar_14:11); here was a solution of the contemplated difficulty; they need have no fear of a rising in favour of Christ; if among his chosen followers some were disaffected, and one was ready to betray him, they might work their will, when he was once quietly apprehended, without any danger of rescue and disturbance (see on Mat_27:3).
Mat_26:15
What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? There is no disguise in this vile question. Judas unblushingly reveals his base motive in offering such a bargain; and to enhance its value he, as it were, forces his personality into prominence; as if he had said, "I who am his trusted adherent, I who know all his haunts and habits, will do this thing." They covenanted with him; ἐ ì στησαν αὐτῷ: they weighed unto him. The verb might mean "appointed;" constituerunt ei (Vulgate); and St. Mark has "promised," St. Luke "covenanted;" but there is no doubt that some money was at once paid to Judas, as he seems to have returned it (Mat_27:3) without any further interview with the Sanhedrin, though they may have given him a portion at once, and sent him the balance on the success of his attempt. Thirty pieces of silver; τρια ì κοντα ἀργυ ì ρια. Thirty shekels of the sanctuary, equivalent to £3 15s. of our money. This was the legal price of a slave gored by an ox (Exo_21:32), and must have been considered by the traitor but a poor reward for his crime. He found the rulers as covetous as himself, and disposed to treat both him and his Master with the utmost contempt. Christ had taken upon him the form of a bondservant, and was here reckoned as such. The transaction had been typically shadowed forth when another Judas sold his brother Joseph for twenty pieces of silver (Gen_37:27, Gen_37:28); when Ahithophel gave counsel against David, his familiar friend (2Sa_16:1-23.); and when Zechariah wrote, "I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed [ ἐ ì στησαν, Septuagint] for my price thirty pieces of silver" (Zec_11:12). St. Matthew alone of the evangelists mentions the exact price agreed upon. It may have come naturally to the "publican" to observe the pecuniary aspect of the transaction.
Mat_26:16
From that time. As soon as he had made his bargain. Opportunity. "In the absence of the multitude," St. Luke adds. The Sanhedrin no longer thought it necessary to wait for the termination of the festival (verse 5). Judas would enable them to seize Christ in his most secret retirement, and at the most opportune moment.
Mat_26:17-19
Preparation for the Paschal Sapper. (Mar_14:12-16; Luk_22:7-13.)
Mat_26:17
The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread; literally, on the first day of Unleavened Bread. We have arrived at the Thursday in the Holy Week, Nisan 13. Wednesday had been spent in retirement at Bethany, and no acts or sayings of Christ on that day are recorded. The festival actually began at sunset of the 14th which was called the day of preparation, because the lambs for the feast were slain in the afternoon of that day, preparatory to their being eaten before the morning of the 15th. Domestic preparation, involving the removal of all leaven from houses and the use of unleavened bread, began on the 13th; hence this was considered at this era "the first day of the Unleavened." Came to Jesus. As the Master of the family, who had the ordering of all the details of the Paschal celebration. They did not know the mind of Jesus on the subject, and desired his directions as in former years. Bethany was considered as Jerusalem for the purposes of the solemn meal, and the apostles thought that preparation was to be made at some house in that village. Prepare for thee to eat the Passover. The preparations were numerous: a proper room had to be found and swept and carefully cleansed from every particle of leaven; tables and couches had to be arranged, lights to be supplied, the lamb and all other necessaries (e.g. bread, wine, bitter herbs) provided. All these preparations took much time, so it was doubtless in the early morning that the disciples applied to our Lord. When they spoke of eating the Passover, they doubtless supposed that Christ meant in due course to celebrate the regular Paschal supper on the appointed day, i.e. on the evening of Friday. But his intentions were different from what they expected.
Mat_26:18
The city. Jerusalem. Jesus was at Bethany. St. Luke says that he sent Peter and John, now first joined together without James. To such a man ( προ Ì ς το Ì ν δεῖνα). The other synoptists mention certain signs by which they were to recognize the man. At the entrance of the city they would meet a man bearing a pitcher of water; they were to follow him to the house whither he went, and then give their message to the master of the house. There is a great similarity between this mission and that concerning the ass before the triumphal entry. The foreknowledge and the precision in directions are quite analogous. The "good man" was doubtless a disciple, though at this festival all strangers were freely received by any householder who had accommodation. Dr. Edersheim supposes that he was father of Mark, who was the "young man" arrested by the company that took Jesus (Mar_14:51). The secrecy observed in the above-mentioned arrangement was intended to keep the knowledge from Judas, and thus to secure immunity from interruption at the solemn meal. The traitor seems to have sneaked out from the last Supper, and disclosed Christ's retreat to the Jewish authorities, and conducted them to the house; but, finding that Jesus had left the room, he led them to Gethsemane, whither he knew that Jesus often resorted (Joh_18:1, Joh_18:2). The Master. A disciple would know who was meant by this title (comp. Mat_23:8, Mat_23:10; Joh_11:28). Whether any previous arrangement had been made with him, we cannot tell; most probably Christ speaks from prevision and his providential ordering of events. My time is at hand. The time of my suffering and death. This fact would make the request more imperative. But the expression was mysterious and indefinite. I will keep ( ποιῶ , I keep) the Passover at thy house. The Passover which the Lord was to keep was not the usual Paschal meal, as the lamb could not be legally killed till the 14th, but a commemorative anticipatory feast in which he himself was the Lamb—"the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world." Of that Lamb the apostles did mystically eat when Christ gave them the bread and wine with the words, "This is my body;" "This is my blood." This Supper, which was virtually the new Passover, seems traditionally to have become confounded with the usual Paschal solemnity; hence the language of the synoptists assumes a form which is applicable to the regular Jewish feast. This explanation, if it seems to derogate somewhat from the precise verbal accuracy of the evangelists, would probably be confirmed if we were better acquainted with the customs then prevalent, and with the current meaning of the language employed. The ambiguity in the accounts may be divinely intended to call attention to the fact that the last Supper was not the Jewish Passover, but the Christian Passover—not the sacrifice on the cross, but an anticipation thereof. We may observe in passing that there is no mention of the lamb in the celebration; Peter and John were not enjoined to provide one, nor are they said to have visited the temple—which, indeed, on the 13th would have been useless: and yet to obtain the lamb in any other way would have been a breach of the Law, which we cannot suppose Christ would sanction. We may also notice that the word "feast" ( ἑορτη ì ) is nowhere applied to the last Supper, though it is always employed in reference to the Jewish solemnity. St. Paul, in his account of the institution of the Holy Communion (1Co_11:1-34.) makes no mention of any Paschal solemnities or associations, but merely states that it was appointed on the night in which Jesus was betrayed. With my disciples; i.e. the twelve apostles; none but these, not even the master of the house, were present at this solemn scene.
Mat_26:19
Made ready the Passover (see on Mat_26:17). They got the room ready, provided unfermented bread, wine, bitter herbs, sauce, and some dishes necessary for the feast. They would not eat the Paschal lamb at the legal time tomorrow, so the Lord ordained a commemorative and anticipatory solemnity, in which he appointed a rite which should take the place of the Jewish ceremony. We learn from the other synoptists that the householder was not satisfied with offering Christ and his friends the use of the common hall, which they would have had to share probably with other guests; but he assigned to them his best and most honourable chamber, "a large upper room," already properly arranged and furnished for the feast. Tradition has maintained that this apartment was that afterwards used by the apostles as a place of assembling, and where they received the effusion of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost.
Mat_26:20-25
The last Supper. Jesus announces his betrayer. (Mar_14:17-21 Luk_22:14, Luk_22:21-23; Joh_13:21-30.)
Mat_26:20
When the even was come; i.e. according to Jewish reckoning, the beginning of the 14th of Nisan; with us, the Thursday evening—the eve of Good Friday. He sat down; he was reclining at table. Originally, the Passover was ordered to be eaten standing, in reference to the circumstances of its first institution (Exo_12:11); but after the settlement in Canaan the posture had been changed to that of reclining in token of rest alter a weary pilgrimage. The rule that obtained concerning the number in one company of partakers of the Paschal feast was that it never should be less than ten, nor more than the lamb would suffice to feed, though a morsel of the flesh was considered to satisfy all requirements.
Mat_26:21
As they did eat. The details of the Paschal feast are expounded by rabbinical authors, though there is little in St. Matthew's account to lead us to conclude that our Lord observed them on this occasion. The ceremonial usually practised was as follows: The head of the family, sitting in the place of honour, took a cup of wine and water mixed ("the first cup"), pronounced a thanksgiving over it, and, having tasted it, passed it round to the guests; the master washed his hands, the others performing their ablutions at a later part of the service; the dishes were placed on the table; after a special benediction had been spoken over the bitter herbs, the master and the rest of the company took a bunch of these, dipped it in the appointed sauce, and ate it; an unleavened cake was broken and elevated with a prescribed formula; the second cup was filled, the history of the festival was proclaimed, Psalm 113-118, were recited, and the cup was drunk. Now began the proper Paschal meal with a general washing of hands; the lamb was cut into pieces, anda portion given to each, with a bit of the unleavened bread and bitter herbs dipped in the sauce, called by St. John (Joh_13:26) "the sop." At the end of the meal, which was supplemented by other viands (which, however, were probably eaten before the lamb), the third cup, named by St. Paul (1Co_10:16) "the cup of blessing," was drunk, and the solemn grace after meat was uttered. It would be necessary to examine St. John's Gospel to see how the ritual fitted into the actual details of the last Supper; we have to deal with St. Matthew's account. Verily I say unto you. Christ thus prepares the apostles for the incredible statement which he is about to make. One of you; εἶς ἐξ ὑμῶν . One out of your number, my chosen companions. He had before spoken vaguely of his betrayal (see Mat_17:22; Mat_20:18; Mat_26:2). By thus showing his knowledge of the coming treachery, and yet declining to denounce the traitor by name, he may have given Judas a last chance of repentance before the final act. St. Matthew omits the washing of the disciples' feet, and the strife about pre-eminence.
Mat_26:22
Exceeding sorrowful. Such an announcement filled them with amazement and grief; they scarcely dared suspect one another, but began to doubt their own constancy, though at the time conscious of their integrity. Is it I? Μη ì τι ἐγω ì εἰμι; Numquid ego sum? It is not I, is it? where the negative answer is expected. It is remarkable that the real character of Judas had never been discovered by the fellow disciples who for three years had mixed with him in closest companionship. Either he was a consummate hypocrite, or the other apostles were too simple-minded, good, and charitable to think evil of any one. Thus his peculations passed unnoticed, and the greed and. avarice which wrecked his spiritual life were entirely unsuspected.
Mat_26:23
He that dippeth (dipped) his hand with me in the dish. Even now Jesus does not identify the traitor. Many had put their hands into the dish along with Christ. Judas was one of those who had done so. The fact of eating together made in the Easterns' view, the treachery more monstrous. "Mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (Psa_41:9). The dish was one of large dimensions, from which each guest took his portion with his fingers. It was truly a common meal in which all shared. Our Lord's words were spoken in answer to John's question, "Lord, who is it?" (Joh_13:25). The beloved apostle's position at table, "lying on Jesus' breast," enabled him to ask this without being overheard. There is a mistake commonly made concerning the shape of the table used on such occasions. It was not of a horseshoe form, but oblong. The couches were arranged round three of its sides, and it extended a little way beyond the divans. The Master's seat was not at the top or middle couch, but at the side; and from what occurred we should infer that John sat on the right of Jesus at the end of the couch, and Judas on the left of Jesus, the strife about precedency having been thus settled.
Mat_26:24
The Son of man goeth ( ὑπα ì γει departeth). It is thus that Christ alludes to his approaching death (Joh_7:33; Joh_8:21, Joh_8:22; Joh_13:3, etc.), declaring thus the voluntary nature of his sufferings. As it is written of him. Every minute detail of Christ's Passion enunciated by the prophets was fulfilled. "The prescience of God," says Chrysostom, "is not the cause of men's wickedness, nor does it involve any necessity of it; Judas was not a traitor because God foresaw it, but he foresaw it because Judas would be so." Woe unto that man by (through) whom the Son of man is betrayed! παραδι ì δοται is being betrayed. Judas could hear this and the following sentence, and yet retain his iniquitous purpose! It had been good for that man if he had not been born; literally, it were good for him if that man had not been born. Jesus says this, knowing what the fate of Judas would be in the other world. There is no hope here held out of alleviation or end of suffering, or of ultimate restoration. It is a rayless darkness of despair. Had there been any expectation of relief or of recovery of God's favour, existence would be a blessing even to the worst of sinners; for they would have eternity still before them in which to enjoy their pardon and purification; and in such case it could not be said of them that it were better for them never to have been born. On one side of the mysterious problem connected with Judas and such-like sinners we may again quote St. Chrysostom ('Hom. 81, in Matthew'), "'What, then,' one may say, 'though Judas had not betrayed him, would not another have betrayed him?… Because if Christ must needs be crucified, it must be by the means of some one, and if by some one, surely by such a person as this. But if all had been good, the dispensation in our behalf had been impeded.' Not so. For the All wise knows how he shall bring about our benefits, even had this happened. For his wisdom is rich in contrivance, and incomprehensible. So for this reason, that no one might suppose that Judas had become a minister of the dispensation, he declares the wretchedness of that man. But some one will say again, 'And if it had been good if he had never been born, wherefore did he suffer both this man and all the wicked to come into the world?' When thou oughtest to blame the wicked, for that, having the power not to become such as they are, they have become wicked, thou leavest this, and busiest thyself and art curious about the things of God, although knowing that it is not by necessity that any one is wicked."
Mat_26:25
Answered and said, Master, is it I? Μη ì τι ἐγω ì εἰμι; It is not I, is it? as Mat_26:22. Judas probably had not been one of those who put this question before, and now, availing himself of his proximity to Jesus (see on Mat_26:23), 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, Mat_26:49) 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 Mat_26:64.
Mat_26:26-29
The institution of the Lord's Supper. (Mar_14:22-25; Luk_22:15-20; 1Co_11:23-25.) The endless controversies which have gathered round the Holy Eucharist, for opposite views of the meaning and purpose of which men have fearlessly met death, render it a difficult matter to expound the text succinctly and yet with due regard to clearness and precision. If I do not expatiate upon the diverse opinions which have been held on this momentous subject, it is not because I have neglected to weigh and examine them, but because it is more conducive to edification to have a plain statement of what appears to the writer to be the truth, than to confuse a reader with a multitude of interpretations which in the end have virtually to be surrendered. The points to be specially remembered before trying to expound the section are these:
1. He who institutes the ordinance is Almighty God made man, who is able to set aside one observance and to substitute another in its place.
2. The new ordinance had an analogy with that which it superseded.
3. It was intended to be the one great service and means of grace for all Christians.
4. The interpretation is to he connected with the great discourse of Jesus in the sixth chapter of St. John, where Christ speaks of himself as the Bread of life that came down from heaven, and his flesh and blood as the nourishment of his people.
Mat_26:26
As they were eating. Before the supper was quite ended, and before the third cup of wine (see on Mat_26:21) was drunk. Jesus took bread ( το Ì ν ἀ ì ρτον, the bread, according to the Received Text). The special unleavened cake prepared for the Paschal meal. The four accounts agree in this detail, and seem to indicate a formal action or elevation, like the wave offering in the old Law. We see here the "High Priest after the order of Melchizedek" bringing forth bread and wine like his great prototype (Psa_110:4), and by anticipation offering himself as victim. And blessed it. The Received Text here and in St. Mark has εὐλογη ì σας, which in some manuscripts has been altered to εὐχασιστη ì σας, in conformity with the wording in St. Luke's and St. Paul's accounts. We find a similar interchange of the words in the miracles of the loaves. Virtually, the two expressions are identical; the thanksgiving is a blessing, the blessing is a thanksgiving. The usual blessing uttered by the master over the unleavened cake is said to have been, "Blessed be he who giveth the bread of earth." From this benediction on the elements, and the thankful remembrance of Christ's death and the benefits thereof herein connoted, the Holy Communion has from the earliest times been called the Holy Eucharist. And brake it. The fraction of the bread was so important and essential a part of the institution, that it gave its name to the whole rite, and "breaking of bread" represented the cele bration of the Holy Eucharist, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving (see Act_2:42, Act_2:46; 1Co_10:16, etc.). Under the old Law the fraction represented the sufferings endured by the chosen people; in Christ's new institution it symbolized his death, when his feet and hands were pierced with the nails and his side with the spear. Gave it ( ἐδι ì δου, was giving) to the disciples. He gave to each of them a portion of the cake in their hand. If they had risen from their couches at the solemn benediction, as we may well suppose they did, they were still standing when the Lord distributed the consecrated bread. That they received it reclining in an easy posture seems unlikely. Take (ye), eat (ye). The two words are given only in our Gospel; St. Mark has "take ye" ( φα ì γετε being there an interpolation). St. Luke and St. Paul omit them altogether. We should infer that Christ did not himself partake of the bread or wine (which would have confused the deep significance of the ordinance), but gave it to his apostles, that by such participation they might be identified with the sacrifice represented by the broken bread, thus transforming the Levitical rite into a new sacrament which did not merely commemorate his death, but conveyed its benefits to faithful receivers. This is my body. "This" in the Greek is neuter ( τοῦτο ), and therefore is not in agreement with "bread" ( ἀ ì ρτος), which is masculine. It is to be explained as "This which I give you, this which ye receive." The copula "is" would not be expressed in the Aramaic, which Christ spoke; and yet what a world of controversy has hung on this ἐστι ! Some take it as absolutely identifying subject and predicate; others regard it as equivalent to "represents;" others, again, would modify it in some manner, so that it should not logically express the agreement of the two terms of the proposition. It was doubtless a startling statement to those who then heard it for the first time, but it came upon them not wholly unprepared. In his momentous discourse on the Bread of life, after the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus had spoken of himself as the Food of his people, and then proceeded to make the amazing assertion, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (Joh_6:53). The meaning of this mysterious warning was not further explained. Now as the Lord distributed to the apostles the blessed morsels with those solemn words, they learned what he meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, how he put it in his servants' power to fulfil the injunction. In what sense could "this" be his body? He was there before their eyes in human form, perfect Man; and yet he gives something else, not that which was standing before them, as his body. Stupendous mystery, past finding out! There is no room here for metaphor or figure. He is not figuratively describing himself or his office or his work, as when he calls himself the good Shepherd, the Door, the Vine, the Way: he directs attention to one part of his nature, his body, and that as toed to be eaten. He shows the mode by which we may be participators of this his lower nature, that as, joined to Adam, we die, so thus united to Christ, we live. We must, as before observed, remember that he who said these words was God incarnate, and that he designed to give his Church a means of realizing and receiving those stupendous blessings set forth in his Eucharistic discourse as depending upon due reception of his body and blood. It is obvious that the apostles could not understand the terms literally, but, believing in his Godhead, believing that he could bring to pass that which he said, they apprehended them in a supernatural, mystical sense; they had faith to know that in these holy elements, blessed by their Lord, they received him, ate his flesh and blood, to their soul's health. This was no mere commemorative rite, not simply a way of remembering Christ's death and Passion, but it was a sacrament, an outward sign of an inward reality, something from without entering the recipients and imparting to them that which before they had not. How the outward and inward are joined together we cannot tell. It is, and will always remain, an unfathomable mystery. The presence of Christ's humanity in the Holy Communion is beyond, above, the ordinary conditions of man's nature; it is supernatural, miraculous, even as was his incarnation, which joined manhood and Deity. The substance, indeed, of the elements remains as before, their nature is not changed, but they have a new relation and use and office; they serve as a means of communicating Christ's body and blood, and they are so called before reception, so that the receiver's faith does not make them to. be such, but Christ's own word with power. Attempts to explain this Divine matter hopelessly fail. Hence the Romanist with his transubstantiation, or change of substance; the Lutheran with his consubstantiation, or confusion of substance; the Zuinglian with his irreverent virtualism, alike fall into error and depart from pure doctrine. The only right attitude is to leave all such efforts alone, to believe Christ's word simply but wholly, and to use the sacrament in full faith, that by and through it to the faithful recipient are imparted incalculable benefits. To the words, "This is my body," St. Luke adds, "which is being given ( διδο ì μενον) for you;" and St. Paul, "which is [broken;? genuine] for you." Thus the Lord, before he actually suffered, offered himself as a Victim voluntarily undergoing death, and showed it forth by the broken bread and the poured wine. We are told that the master of the household, when he distributed the pieces of the lamb, said solemnly, "This is the body of the Paschal lamb." Christ transformed this formula to a new use, but in neither case did it introduce a mere symbol of something absent.
Mat_26:27
He took the cup. Many good manuscripts have "a cup," and some modern editors omit the article; but this cup was the only one on the table at the time; so the reading matters not. This was probably the third cup at the close of the Paschal meal (see on Mat_26:21). The wine of the country is what we call a red wine (compare "the blood of grapes," Gen_49:11); it was mixed with a little water when used at the table. This third cup was termed "the cup of blessing" (cf. 1Co_10:16), because over it was spoken a special benediction, and it was regarded as the principal cup, following, as it did, the eating of the lamb. Gave thanks ( εὐχαριστη ì σας). The thanksgiving was a blessing (see on Mat_26:26). The celebration of Christ's death and the remembrance of the incalculable blessings obtained thereby may well be termed the Holy Eucharist, the great sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Gave ( ἐ ì δωκεν) it to them. The aorist here used would imply strictly that he gave the cup once for all, herein differentiating the action from that employed in distributing the bread. St. Luke's expression, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves," refers to an earlier stage of the supper. In the present connection he nearly agrees with the other synoptists. It is possible that the cup was passed from hand to hand after it had been blessed by Christ. Drink ye all of it. St Mark adds, "And they all drank of it." Strange it is that, with these words written in the Scripture, any Church should have the hardihood to deny the cup to any qualified Christian. The Romanist's assertion that the cup is for priests alone, as it was given to the apostles only, and was destined for them and their sacerdotal successors, would apply equally to the consecrated bread, and then what becomes of the general use of the ordinance? If we would have life in us, we must not only eat Christ's flesh, but drink his blood. We need to be refreshed as well as strengthened in the battle of life, and it may well be that the mutilation of the sacrament carries with it spiritual effects that impede the soul's health.
Mat_26:28
For. Yes, drink ye all hereof, for it is unspeakably precious. This ( τοῦτο , as before, Mat_26:26) is my blood. This which I here give you. The blood separated from the body represents Christ's death by violence; it was also the sign of the ratification of a covenant. Of the new testament; διαθη ì κης: covenant. The adjective"new" is omitted by some good manuscripts and modern editors, but it gives the sense intended. The Vulgate has, novi testamenti. The old covenant between God and his people had been ratified at Sinai by the blood of many victims (Exo_24:5-8; Heb_8:8-13; Heb_9:15, etc.); the blood of Christ shed upon the cross ratifies "the new or Christian covenant to the world and the Church, and the same blood sacramentally applied ratifies the covenant individually to each Christian" (Sadler). The evangelical covenant supersedes the Judaic, even as the sa