article31

§26 The Final Evening (Matt. 26:1–75)

The Passion narrative is the account of the suffering and death of Jesus. It normally includes all the events beginning with the garden scene in Gethsemane and finishing with the burial. The centrality of the cross in early Christian preaching is reflected in the major emphasis given to it in each of the four Gospels. Matthew 26 records the events of Wednesday and Thursday of the final week of Jesus’ life.

26:1–5 / When Jesus finished saying all these things (probably the content of chaps. 23–25) he told his disciples that in two days it would be time to celebrate the Passover and that at that time the Son of Man would be handed over to be crucified. Paradidōmi (“to hand over”) was a technical term in court meaning “to hand over into the custody of” (cf. BAGD, p. 614). Reference to the Passover as two days away suggests that it was Wednesday of Holy Week.

The chief priests and elders (Mark and Luke say “teachers of the law”) got together at the palace of the high priest … Caiaphas, and plotted how they might capture Jesus in some subtle way and kill him. In an earlier period the office of the high priest was hereditary and lasted for the entire life of the incumbent. During the Roman period high priests came and went at the whim of their secular masters. Caiaphas held office from A.D. 18 to 36 (Josephus Ant. 18.29–35). Acts 4:6 refers to Annas as high priest (cf. Luke 3:2), although he had been officially deposed in A.D. 15. This indicates the significant influence that Annas continued to exercise among the priestly hierarchy in Jerusalem.

To do away with Jesus during a religious festival posed a special problem. It could incite a riot on the part of the many worshipers, who had flocked to Jerusalem for the Passover and would be in sympathy with Jesus. Mē en tē heortē (not during the Feast) probably means “apart from the festal crowd” rather than “not during the time of the feast” (See Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, p. 48).

26:6–13 / During the Passover season Jesus apparently spent his evenings in the town of Bethany, located on the southeast slope of the Mount of Olives on the Jericho road less than two miles from Jerusalem. On this occasion he was staying with Simon the Leper (obviously cured earlier but still designated by the epithet). A parallel account in John places the scene in the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus (John 12:1–8). It may be that Simon was the father of Lazarus and his sisters. A woman came to Jesus with an alabaster jar of very expensive ointment (myron was a fragrant oil or perfume) and poured it on Jesus’ head while he was at table. The disciples were indignant and questioned the act as unnecessarily wasteful. Rather self-righteously, they noted that the ointment could have been sold at a good price and the money given to the poor.

Jesus, who was aware of what they had said (probably among themselves), declared that what the woman had done was a beautiful thing (v. 10). What the disciples saw as waste Jesus interpreted as a preparatory anointing for burial. The broken vase (cf. Mark 14:3) portrayed his body, soon to be broken, and the poured-out ointment anticipated the burial that would follow. The disciples failed to see this deeper meaning in the generous act of the woman and reacted accordingly. The pouring of the oil on Jesus’ head could also be taken as the anointing that declared him as king (see, e.g., 2 Kings 9:6). Wherever this gospel (the story of Jesus’ redemptive death) is told throughout the world, the part played by the woman, and its deeper meaning, would be included in her honor.

26:14–16 / Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples, went to the chief priests and asked how much they were willing to pay if he would deliver Jesus into their hands. The motive behind Judas’ treachery is not completely clear. Perhaps he felt that since Jesus had “failed” to take command as a militant messiah it was time for Judas to separate himself from the movement and get what he could out of what appeared to be a lost opportunity. He may have acted out of greed (cf. John 12:6), except that thirty silver coins (the amount assessed for a bull having gored a slave, Exod. 21:32) is a paltry sum for such an act (cf. Zech 11:12). The suggestion least damaging to Judas is that he was simply trying to force Jesus’ hand and never intended that the scheme would bring about his death. Whatever the motive, the act stands in dramatic contrast to the generous outpouring of the ointment in the previous pericope. The chief priests carefully weighed out (estēsan means “placed [on the scales]”) the required amount and gave it to Judas. From that point on Judas kept looking (ezētei is imperfect) for an opportunity to betray Jesus.

26:17–25 / On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread Jesus’ disciples asked him where he wanted them to prepare for the Passover meal. According to Exodus 12 (the institution of the Passover), a lamb was to be slaughtered on the fourteenth day of the first month (Nisan) at twilight (vv. 2, 6) and eaten on the same night (v. 8). This was followed by a seven-day feast in which no leavened bread was to be eaten (vv. 15–20). Apparently the Jews, over a period of time, began to remove the leaven a day early, and this gave rise to the improper designation of Nisan 14 as the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. A famous controversy centers around the fact that the Synoptics present the Last Supper as a Passover meal whereas John (18:28; 19:14, 31, 42) places the crucifixion on the day before Passover. Some writers hold that the apparently contradictory passages may be harmonized; others think that John adjusted his material to emphasize the theological point that Jesus was the Lamb of God slain for the sins of mankind.

The disciples are told to go into the city to a certain man and tell him that the Teacher has said that his appointed time is near and that he will celebrate the Passover with his disciples at the man’s house. The appointed time (v. 18; Gk. kairos) that has drawn near is the time of the redemptive death of the Son of Man. All history pointed to that crucial moment when the kingdom of God was to be established by the sacrifice of the Son. The disciples did as they were instructed and prepared the Passover meal. In addition to the lamb, it would be necessary to secure saltwater, bitter herbs, harosheth (a broth of mashed nuts and fruit), and wine.

When evening came Jesus was reclining (anekeito, imperfect) with his disciples at table. In earlier days the Passover was eaten standing up (cf. Exod. 12:11), but by New Testament times it was served like other meals on low tables around which those who took part reclined on cushions. During the meal Jesus made the startling announcement that one of them would betray him. The disciples were “sick at heart” (v. 22, Rieu) and began to say one after the other, Surely not I, Lord? The form of the question in Greek indicates that a negative response is expected, although the possibility that it could be affirmative cannot be ruled out entirely (i.e., “I am not the one, Lord, am I?).

The betrayer is one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with Jesus. In Eastern cultures, the sharing of a meal established a bond of intimate fellowship. To betray that relationship would be treachery of the worst sort. The bowl (Gk. tryblion) was a deep dish containing the broth into which the guests dipped pieces of bread or meat. The seriousness of the betrayal is seen in Jesus’ statement that although the Son of Man will go as foretold in Scripture, woe to that man who betrays him! It would be better for him if he had not been born. Divine predestination does not alleviate human responsibility. Judas, who was to betray him, asked the same question as the others (cf. vv. 22, 25) but refers to Jesus as Rabbi rather than “Lord.” The change of address is significant (cf. 23:8) and reveals an attitude that corresponds to what we are learning about Judas the man. Jesus answered sy eipas (lit., “you have said it”), which the NEB translates, “the words are yours.”

26:26–30 / While they were still at table Jesus took bread, gave thanks (he did not “bless the bread”) and broke it, and handed it to his disciples saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” This departure from the normal Passover pattern took place just before the final cup. Hill notes that in Aramaic there would be no connecting verb in the phrase this is my body, although it would be implied, and adds that “to insert is suggests a relationship of identity which there is no reason to assume, whereas the rendering ‘represents’ may convey only a purely figurative suggestion” (p. 339).

Then he took the cup and, after giving thanks, passed it to his disciples, directing them to drink it. It is the blood of Christ, poured out for all (many is a Semitism for “everybody”) for the forgiveness of sins. The pouring out of blood portrays violent death (cf. 23:35; Rev. 16:6). The blood of the covenant recalls Exodus 24:8 (rather than Jer. 31:31), in which the sprinkling of the blood was a sign that the people were included within the covenant relationship. Jesus then tells his disciples that he will not drink again of the wine until the day he drinks it new with them in his Father’s kingdom (v. 29). He looks beyond the scene in which his obedience will take him to the cross and pictures a joyous banquet in the fully realized kingdom in which once again he will share the intimacy of table fellowship with his disciples. Then, after they had sung a hymn (following the order of the Passover it would be the second half of the Hallel, Pss. 115–118), they went out to the Mount of Olives.

26:31–35 / On the way to the Mount of Olives (east of Jerusalem across the Kidron valley), Jesus tells his disciples that that very night they will desert him (skandalizomai, “find a cause of stumbling,” Rotherham). Their failure is described by the prophet Zechariah, who wrote, “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered” (Zech. 13:7). Both Matthew and Mark change the imperative (of the MT and LXX) “strike” to the first person future (I will strike), which marks God as the one who takes the action. However, after Jesus has risen he will go ahead of them into Galilee. Proagō (“to go before”) may be taken in the sense of time (i.e., he will return to Galilee before they do; cf. 28:16) or, in this instance, may be a continuation of the shepherd image and mean that, when they are together again in Galilee, he will take his place at the head of the flock (Palestinian shepherds lead their sheep) and guide them (see the promise in 28:20).

Peter vehemently declares that he will never desert Jesus. Even though the others are “scandalized,” he will remain true (v. 33). Not so, responds Jesus. This very night, before cockcrow (no article before “cock”), you will deny me three times. In New Testament times the night was divided into four watches, the third being designated as the “cockcrow” (midnight until three a.m.). Some think that the reference is to the trumpet call that marked the end of the third watch, although as dawn was approaching it could well mark the time when roosters began to crow. The point is that even before morning dawned Peter would deny Jesus three times. The compound aparneomai means “to deny completely.”

26:36–39 / Crossing the Kidron (the deep ravine to the east of Jerusalem) Jesus goes to a garden (cf. John 18:1) called Gethsemane. The name is from the Aramaic and means “oil press,” indicating the location is an olive orchard. Well-to-do citizens of Jerusalem maintained groves on the west slope of the Mount of Olives. In Matthew’s account it was there that Jesus would within a few hours be separated from his disciples until they would meet again in Galilee following the resurrection (Matt. 28:16ff.). How typical of human weakness to be unavailable when needed most! The scene in the garden has profound implications for our understanding of Jesus’ perfect humanity. Leaving the eight disciples (Judas had left the group by then) at a spot perhaps near the entrance of the garden, Jesus took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee a bit farther to be near him while he prayed (see 17:1–8 for the same group).

A great sense of grief and dismay laid hold of Jesus. To the three disciples he acknowledged that his heart was at the point of breaking with sorrow. The GNB aptly translates, “The sorrow in my heart is so great that it almost crushes me” (v. 38). The words reflect Psalms 42:5–6 and 43:5. To the three, Jesus says, “Wait here and stay awake with me” (Rieu). He then went a bit farther and fell prostrate in prayer. To “fall on one’s face” is a biblical expression indicating an earnest attitude of serious prayer (see Gen. 17:3; Num. 14:5). Luke adds that he was “in anguish” and that “his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground” (Luke 22:44). To God, his Father, he asks that if possible, the cup be taken from him. In the Old Testament the cup is a metaphor for punishment and suffering (Ps. 75:8; Isa. 51:17). The agony of Jesus in Gethsemane was not the anticipation of the pain and cruelty of the crucifixion but the awful truth that he was the Lamb about to be sacrificed for the sins of the world. It would appear that even in this crucial moment Satan was tempting him to draw back from the cross. His complete and final commitment to the redemptive plan of God is seen in the words, “Not my will but yours be done” (Norlie).

26:40–46 / Returning to the three disciples, Jesus finds them sleeping. Although addressing his question to Peter, he speaks to all three (ischysate is second person plural: the NIV amplifies the Greek text to read you men). Didn’t any of you have the strength to stay awake with me for just one hour? As able-bodied fishermen they had toiled all night without sleeping, but here they were unable to resist the comfortable heaviness of approaching slumber. The answer to the question of how sleeping disciples would know what Jesus had said in his prayer is that they undoubtedly were listening for a time before they dozed off. They were close enough to hear. This adds to their culpability. While Jesus was in the agony of prayer they went to sleep. Jesus warns them to watch and pray (present imperatives emphasizing continuing action) that they may be spared the coming trial (of fidelity). Their failure in the approaching crisis stemmed from their halfhearted commitment to prayer. Even at a time like this, when Jesus needed the support and human sympathy of his closest companions, he could offer an explanation for their thoughtless conduct: the spirit is willing, but the body is weak (v. 41). Human nature cannot always measure up to the noble aspirations of the spirit. In the most central conflict of human existence Jesus exhibited the victory of the spirit over the flesh while the disciples displayed the victory of the flesh over the spirit (Fenton, p. 421).

Jesus returned a second time to his place of prayer. Mark reports that he “prayed the same thing” (Mark 14:39), but Matthew’s wording suggests a growing acceptance of the cross as God’s determined will (cf. v. 42 with v. 39). May your will be done carries out the essential commitment that Jesus taught his disciples in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:10). Returning, he finds the disciples sleeping once again. “This time he went away without disturbing them” (v. 44, Knox). After a third session alone in prayer, he comes to the disciples and asks in pained surprise, Are you still sleeping? The crucial hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of sinners. Jesus has to rouse the disciples in order to tell them that the betrayer is approaching (note the same verb [ēngiken] in both v. 45 and v. 46: not only the critical hour but the traitor as well “has drawn near”).

26:47–56 / While Jesus was still speaking, Judas arrived accompanied by a large crowd armed with swords and clubs. The mob (which included both Roman soldiers and temple guards; see John 18:3) was sent from the chief priests and the elders (Luke 22:52 indicates that some of the religious leaders went along as well). Judas (who by the time of the writing of the Gospel had become known as the betrayer) had told the crowd that he would identify Jesus for them by greeting him with a kiss. Going directly to Jesus, he said, “Hail, Rabbi!” and kissed him. Kataphileō (a compound of the verb “to love/to kiss” and the intensive pronoun) suggests an elaborate show of affection. It is used in Luke 15:20 of the father’s embrace of the prodigal son and in Acts 20:37 of the affection of the Ephesian elders for Paul. According to rabbinic tradition, it was wrong for a disciple to greet his master first. Not only was the kiss a way of letting the mob know whom they should seize, but it was also a “studied insult” (Albright-Mann, p. 329). Earlier, Jesus had told his disciples that they should not be called Rabbi (23:8). In Matthew’s Gospel only Judas uses the title for Jesus, here and in 26:25.

There is a question as to whether Jesus’ response in verse 50 should be taken as a command or as a question. The Greek is elliptical (eph’ ho parei), which requires that we supply words intended but not provided. If it is taken as a question (“Why are you here?” RSV) it should be understood as a method of bringing out into the open what was already quite obvious. Most modern translations take it as a command (Do what you came for, NIV; “Be quick about it,” GNB).

When Jesus was seized by the crowd, one of the disciples drew his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. John’s Gospel identifies the disciple as “Simon Peter” and the servant as “Malchus” (John 18:10). Jesus orders Peter to put his sword back in its place and adds that all who draw the sword will die by the sword. This appears to be a proverb (cf. Gen. 9:6 and Rev. 13:10) and therefore must be interpreted with careful attention to the context. It is not a general rule that forbids defensive action at any time whatsoever.

Jesus did not need the help of a few relatively harmless disciples, because he had at his disposal (had he chosen to take the route of personal defense) a vast army of angels. Twelve legions would be in excess of 72,000 (a Roman legion numbered 6,000 infantry plus 120 cavalry). However, if he called upon God for angels to defend him against the mob, the Scriptures that said that everything must take place as it did would then go unfulfilled.

The covert and cowardly nature of the actions of Judas and his mob is brought out by Jesus’ query as to why they came out at night as they did to seize him as if he were leading a rebellion (the Greek lēstēs in this context means “revolutionary” or “insurrectionist”). After all, he sat daily with them in the temple courts (note that ekathezomēn in v. 55 is imperfect), and they did not arrest him there. But all this is happening in fulfillment of prophetic Scripture. The boldness of Jesus, in spite of his being in the hands of the mob, was more than his disciples could endure. In the moment of trial they deserted him and fled. Abandoned by his closest friends, he had to suffer the remaining hours of his earthly life without human support.

26:57–61 / Jesus was led off under arrest to the house of Caiaphas, the high priest. The trial of Jesus involved three separate steps. First, there was the preliminary gathering at night in which a charge was developed against Jesus (26:57–68). The following morning, a second meeting was held, at which time the religious leaders “met in conference to plan the death of Jesus” (27:1, NEB). The so called “civil” trial before Pilate (27:11–26) was the final step in the proceedings. Because the Gospel accounts of the trial are at odds with Pharisaic jurisprudence as reported in the Mishnah, some commentators have held that they are therefore unreliable. This judgment reflects a failure to realize that Sadducean practice in New Testament times may not have corresponded to later Pharisaic rules for procedure (cf. Marshall, NIDNTT, vol. 1, p. 364). This same attitude toward the reliability of the biblical text surfaces in the opinion that Matthew was influenced by theological considerations that led him to minimize the Roman government’s involvement in the death of Jesus and emphasize the culpability of the Jewish leaders.

When Jesus arrived at the house of Caiaphas, the group had already gathered. Peter, who had been following along at a distance, entered the courtyard and sat down with the guards “to see the end of it all” (NEB). At this point he had not fully understood the promise of the resurrection (see v. 32). Filson says the scene suggests “hopeless despair and dogged loyalty” (p. 283). Although it was night, the whole Sanhedrin had met in an attempt to secure evidence that could lead to Jesus’ death. The imperfect tense in verse 59 (ezētoun, “were looking”) suggests that they were sifting through evidence already provided by various witnesses. The word false may be an early scribal insertion: the council would not be looking for false evidence, but for evidence that would effectively bring about the death of Jesus. Such action was inconsistent with the legitimate role of the Sanhedrin, which was to maintain custom and ensure justice. This 71-member council, chaired by the high priest, was made up of leading priestly officials, leaders of the lay aristocracy, and a number of scribes.

Although many accusers presented their allegations against Jesus, nothing was found that would warrant the death sentence. On the basis of Deuteronomy 17:6 a person could not be put to death except on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Finally two stepped forward to report that Jesus had claimed to be able to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. But Jesus had never said that he would destroy the temple, only that the temple would be destroyed (Matt. 24:1–2). Furthermore, the “temple” of which Jesus spoke in John 2:19 was “his body” (note John 2:21).

26:62–68 / The high priest asked Jesus if he had any answer to the accusation made against him, but Jesus remained silent. This impressive refusal to speak on his own behalf moved the high priest to put Jesus under oath and demand that he acknowledge whether or not he was the Christ, the Son of God. It was against all the procedures of Jewish law to require a person to incriminate himself. The answer, “You have said so” (v. 64, RSV; Gk. sy eipas), has been variously interpreted. The parallel in Mark (a straightforward “I am,” 14:62) suggests that we not look for subtle innuendos. Gundry says that the response of Jesus “stoutly affirms that the questioner himself knows the affirmative answer as obvious” (p. 545). Jesus is saying to Caiaphas that his assumption that Jesus may be the Messiah is correct. What’s more, from that time on, he will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One (lit., “the Power,” a Jewish periphrasis for “God”) and coming on the clouds of heaven. Though Green holds that “the two images are parallel and express the same truth” (namely, the immediate glorification of the Son of Man, p. 217), a reference to the Parousia is quite clear. The first clause is from Psalm 110:1 and the second from Daniel 7:13. Gundry distinguishes between a “mental seeing” of the glorified Christ and a “literal seeing” of his coming on the clouds of heaven (p. 545). This majestic statement of Jesus forms the “Christological climax” (Green, p. 216) of the Gospel. A new era of human history has begun, and God’s redemptive purpose in Christ is being fulfilled.

According to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6.5) a judge is to tear his garments if he hears blasphemy. The high priest would not consider Jesus’ messianic claim to be blasphemous but would understand his statements about sitting on God’s right hand and returning in clouds of heaven as tantamount to an assertion of deity. So he exclaims blasphemy! (v. 65). Witnesses are no longer necessary. The claim of deity can be made to imply political power and thus be presented as a threat to Roman rule. Turning to the council, the high priest asks, “What is your verdict?”

The obvious response is that he deserves to die (the penalty for blasphemy according to Lev. 24:16). Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists (kolaphizō is derived from kolaphos, “knuckles/closed fist”). Although Matthew does not specifically identify those who abused Jesus in such a degrading manner, the context would lead us to understand that it was the members of the Sanhedrin who are intended by the pronoun they in verse 67. In the Marcan parallel, however, it was the guards who “took him and beat him” (Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63 says that it was “the men who were guarding Jesus” [in the courtyard, 22:55ff.] who mocked and beat him). To spit in a man’s face was a gesture of contempt. Matthew assumes Mark’s reference to Jesus being blindfolded (Mark 14:65) when he tells of the cruel game of blind man’s buff, in which Jesus was slapped in the face and asked to prophesy who it was who hit him. For the religious authorities to lower themselves to such abuse reveals the depth of their hatred for the one whose life and testimony laid bare their hypocrisy.

26:69–75 / Earlier in the chapter, we learned that Peter followed (although at a distance) the mob that arrested Jesus and sat down with the guards in the courtyard to see how it would all turn out (v. 58). The houses of the well-to-do in first-century Palestine were built around open courtyards. Mark’s reference to Peter being “below” in the courtyard (Mark 14:66) indicates a prominent building of more than one story. One of the servant girls of the high priest challenged Peter with the allegation that he also (as well as others) had been with Jesus of Galilee. Peter openly denied that he knew what she was talking about. Leaving the fire (John 18:18), Peter moved to the gateway (probably a covered enclosure that would be less well lighted and provide easier access to the street). There he is accosted by another girl (Mark 14:69 seems to say it was the same maid), who informs the bystanders that “this fellow certainly was with Jesus the Nazarene!” (Montgomery). Again Peter denies the charge, this time with an oath (v. 72).

A bit later (Luke 22:59 says “about an hour later”), the men who were standing there came to Peter and said Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away. The more Peter denied, the more he gave himself away. Galileans spoke Aramaic with an accent that was considered uncouth by those who lived in Jerusalem. Barclay says their accent was so ugly that they were not allowed to pronounce the benediction at synagogue services (vol. 2, p. 346). Recognizing that he was now inescapably cornered, Peter began to call down curses on himself, and swore for a third time that he did not know the man (an expression of contempt). Immediately a rooster crowed, and Peter remembered Jesus’ prediction (26:34) that before a cock crows (no definite article before alektora) Peter would deny him three times (one denial for each failure to remain awake and pray; cf. 26:36–46). The drama of the scene is heightened by Luke’s mention that at that very moment “the Lord turned and looked straight at Peter” (Luke 22:61). Apparently this happened just as Jesus was being led down from the chambers where he had been declared guilty and humiliated by the Sanhedrin.

Peter leaves the courtyard with an unbearable heaviness of heart. Going out, he wept bitterly. His remorse was unlike that of Judas, who went out and hanged himself (Matt. 27:5). Paul speaks of a “godly sorrow” that “leads to salvation and leaves no regret” as contrasted with a “worldly sorrow [that] brings death” (2 Cor. 7:10). Whatever else may be said of Peter, he was not a coward. Apart from John (who was known by the high priest and allowed to enter the courtyard; cf. John 18:15), all the disciples except Peter fled into hiding. At this moment, however, he was anything but the “rock” (cf. 16:18) on which Christ would build his church. Yet godly sorrow brought him to repentance, and repentance to restored fellowship and usefulness.