MATTHEW 26(i)
It is difficult to know how to describe the way both Jews and Gentiles treated the Lord Jesus before He was crucified. There were so many illegal acts on the part of Israel, and a gross miscarriage of justice by the Gentiles, that it is flattery to call any of the proceedings a trial. The “princes of this world”, 1 Corinthians 2:8 made their decisions on the basis of prejudice, ignorance, envy and cowardice.
Prejudice, because the chief judge on the Jewish side had said a few days before, “it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not”, John 11:50. John makes it clear that he was referring to Christ. How can a trial be just when the judge believes the accused ought to die? How can it be right for those in charge of the proceedings to seek for witnesses “against Jesus to put Him to death”, Mark 14:55. Leaving aside the fact that witnesses should not be sought, but should come forward of their own will, they should come to witness impartially, not against the accused, and should certainly not come with the intention of making sure the accused is put to death. Nor should the Sanhedrin have taken counsel “to put him to death”, Matthew 27:1. They should have taken counsel to discover the truth.
They were marked by ignorance of who He really was. This was wilful ignorance, for He had given ample proof as to His person by His character as He lived before them, His works as He did miracles, and His words as He spake as none other did. As He Himself said, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without a cause'”, John 15:22-25. Such was the clarity of His teaching, the power of His works, and the holiness of His character, that to hate Him was to show themselves up as hardened and hateful sinners.
Their decisions were also on the basis of envy, as Pilate realised, for Matthew tells us that “he knew that for envy they had delivered him”, Matthew 27:18. They saw Christ as a threat to their position and power. The people flocked to hear Him, but hated them.
As for Pilate, three times he declared that Christ was without fault as far as the law was concerned, (on the third occasion after he had scourged Him, which was only done to those who were condemned), but still he decreed that He be crucified. Sadly, he put favour with Caesar before favour with God, for when the chief priests saw that he was wavering, and was seeking to release Him, they said, “If thou let this man go, thou art not Ceasar’s friend”, John 19:12. At that point he sat on his judgement seat and delivered the Lord Jesus to be crucified. This was gross injustice on the basis of cowardice.
Survey of the chapter
This is a long chapter, and it may be divided up as follows:
| (a) | Verses 1,2 | Matthew’s time notice |
| (b) | Verses 3-5 | Consultation as to how to arrest, try, and execute Christ |
| (c) | Verses 6-13 | Mary anoints His head |
| (d) | Verses 14-16 | Judas agrees to betray Him |
| (e) | Verses 17-25 | The passover supper with Judas present |
| (f) | Verses 26-29 | Institution of the Lord’s Supper |
| (g) | Verses 30-35 | Conversation on the mount of Olives about denial |
| (h) | Verses 36-46 | Christ’s prayers in Gethsemane |
| (i) | Verses 47-56 | The betrayal and the arrest |
| (j) | Verses 57-68 | Christ before Caiaphas |
| (k) | Verses 69-75 | Peter’s three-fold denial |
(a) Verses 1,2
Matthew’s time notice
26:1
And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,
And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples- this is the fifth time that we have come across this phrase, or a similar one, and it serves to divide the Gospel into seven sections, as follows:
Section 1 1:1- 4:25
The King and His preparation.
Critical events leading up to the beginning of Christ’s ministry after the imprisonment of John the Baptist.
Section 2 5:1-7:29
The King and His precepts.
“And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine”, 7:28.
Section 3 8:1-10:42
The King and His power.
A series of ten miracles, the “powers of the world to come”.
“And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to preach and to teach in their cities”, 11:1.
Section 4 11:1-13:53
The King and His parables.
A series of seven parables about the kingdom.
“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence”, 13:53.
Section 5 13:53-18:35
The King and His previews.
The preview of kingdom-glories is followed by forecasts of the building of the church.
“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan”, 19:1.
Section 6 19:1-25:46
The King and His prophecy.
The King presents Himself formally to the nation as their King, and then foretells what will happen to them if they reject Him.
“And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings”, 26:1.
Section 7 26:1-28:20
The King and His parting.
Events which take place as the King leaves His nation, having been rejected by them, and crucified. He rises from the dead, however, ready to reign over them in a day to come. God has raised up Christ to sit on the throne of His father David, Acts 2:30.
Christ’s teaching ministry as far as Matthew’s gospel is concerned, is over, and has concluded, fittingly, with the Son of man sitting on the throne of His glory when He comes to earth to reign. This brings to a close the “son of David” section of the gospel, and we embark now on the “son of Isaac” part, see Matthew 1:1. The one ended with a throne of glory, the other will end with a cross of shame, but He will rise again from the dead so that He may sit on the throne of David for ever, Acts 2:30. We now begin to be told about the events which will lead up to the crucifixion.
26:2
Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.
Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover- the first sixteen verses of the chapter are not in chronological order. Matthew puts various events together to build up a picture of what the nation’s response to their king was. He contrasts it with the attitude of His believing followers.
We know from John 12:12 that Christ’s entry into Jerusalem was on the day after Mary anointed Him, but Matthew records the anointing in connection with two things. First, the plan of the chief priests to kill Him, 26:3, and second, the agreement with Judas that he would betray Him. So the loving act of anointing Him is recounted in between these two acts of hatred. So when verse 6 says “when Jesus was in Bethany”, it refers to an event four days earlier.
And the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified- the authorities had agreed to arrest Him, but not on the feast day, verse 5, but the Lord knows that their plans will be frustrated. Everything is working to God’s timetable, not man’s, for the four hundred and eighty three years of Daniel’s vision are about to come to an end, and Messiah will be cut off, Daniel 9:25,26.
(b) Verses 3-5
Consultation as to how to arrest, try, and execute Christ
26:3
Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas- these are the three categories of ruler in Israel, with the chief priests continuing the Aaronic priesthood, the scribes substituting for the prophets, and the elders ruling instead of the kings in Israel. The whole of the hierarchy of the nation is ranged against Christ, who is their true prophet, priest and king, if they only received Him.
When on his deathbed, Jacob looked down the years to what would befall his sons in the last days, Genesis 49:1. When he spoke of Levi and Simeon, who had murdered men to avenge their sister, he said, “Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall”, verses 5,6. This is now coming to pass, and Levi’s representatives are holding a secret counsel. (the idea behind Jacob’s word “secret”), and are having their assembly. Soon it will be evident that instruments of cruelty are in the houses of the high priest Caiaphas and Annas, for Christ will be ill-treated there.
26:4
And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.
And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him- it had been way back in Matthew 12:14 that “the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him”, and now their plans are being finalised.
Note the word “subtilty”. If the ideas of secret counsel and assembly remind us of the end of the book of Genesis, then this word reminds of the beginning, where we read that the “serpent was more subtil”, 3:1. Behind the serpent was the Ancient Serpent himself, plotting against God, and using subtlety to try to accomplish it. Now he is at work again, using those whom both John and Christ had called the generation of vipers.
Notice the purpose of the consultation; not to discuss His claims and assess His ministry, but simply to kill Him. Just as daring and callous as that.
26:5
But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.
But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people- they were afraid of public opinion, and “the fear of man bringeth a snare”. Jerusalem was crowded with tens of thousands of pilgrims from around the known world, who would be very curious if a fellow Israelite was crucified. They would want to know why. The rulers must have viewed with dismay the crowds that lined the roadside when He rode into Jerusalem. They knew that popular feeling was on His side. They are not so much afraid of an uproar, (although Pilate would take a very unfavourable view if one happened), but they feared the damage to their prestige and position in Israel.
(c) Verses 6-13
Mary anoints His head
26:6
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper- it is against the dark background of the scheme to kill Christ, and thus totally reject His claim to be King and Messiah, that Matthew puts his account of the anointing of Christ. The authorities should have been preparing to anoint Him as their Messiah, but it is left to Mary to do this on the eve of His entry into Jerusalem, when He was formally presented to Israel as their King-Messiah. The title “Anointed One” is used sparingly in the Old Testament, but one of its occurrences is in Daniel 9:25, where the angel speaks of “Messiah the Prince”, and His subsequent cutting off in death. Mary is hailing Him as such at the very end of the period of time that was predicted to elapse before He presented Himself to the nation as their king.
How typical of Him to be found in the house of a leper! If Bethany was a small community, they may have agreed together to honour the one they had got to know through His lodging in the house of Martha. It is very likely that Simon had been healed by Christ, and this is one way of thanking Him. He would hardly be likely to hold a feast in his house if he was not cured, and there was only one way to get cured at that time, namely through Christ. No doubt healed by him at some point, Simon now repays in some little measure the favour showed to him. Would John have told us Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table if it was his house, and he was head of it?
After he had seen a vision of the holiness of the Lord of hosts, Isaiah thought of himself as a man of unclean lips, and as one who dwelt in the midst of a people of unclean lips. This may simply mean, of course, that what they said was tainted by sin. But on the other hand, the leper in Israel was to have a covering on his upper lip, and cry “Unclean! Unclean!” How significant that the anointing of Christ should be done in the house of one who had been a leper, but was now cleansed, a token of what the nation could have experienced if they had recognised Him as the King.
Matthew does not tell us who else was at this supper, but John does. There is Lazarus, the resurrected man having communion with Christ, sitting at the table with Him; Martha, the serving saint, no doubt helping out, especially if Simon was unmarried or a widower; and there was Mary, the worshipper and anointer, John 12:1-9. Of course, the twelve apostles were there as well.
John emphasises that the supper was at Bethany, “where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead”, and the sequel is given by John as “Much people of the Jews…came not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead”. So the three-fold mention of the raising of Lazarus emphasises the work that is the climax to Christ’s miracle-ministry.
Matthew names no-one but the healed leper, a figure of what the nation could have been if they had allowed Him His rightful place.
26:7
There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment- the fact that she came would confirm that she did not live in the house. We know from John’s account that this is Mary of Bethany. We also know from John that the ointment was spikenard. Spikenard is a pleasant perfume obtained from a type of Valerian shrub found in the Himalayas, The “spike” part of the word is from the Greek word “pistikos”, meaning faithful, trustworthy, and genuine. This was true of Mary’s ointment, for it was genuine nard, but it is so appropriate for the one upon whom it was poured, for this was His character too.
It had cost Mary a lot of money to purchase this ointment, and John appreciates the fact that she had expended it upon the Lord and not herself. Sadly, however, another disciple knew its value, but thought only in terms of how he might have gained an advantage from it.
And poured it on his head, as he sat at meat- Matthew and Mark say she anointed His feet, and the Lord said she anointed His body, for she had anointed Him from head to toe. It is not her place to anoint Him with oil officially, for the Father had anointed Him, not with literal oil, but with what the oil symbolised, the Holy Spirit. He could say “the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, for He hath anointed Me”, Luke 4:18.
She anointed His head because she believed Him to be the Messiah, God’s anointed, Daniel 9:25. She anointed His feet because she believed Him to be Messiah the prince, and her proper place was worshipping low before Him. The authorities, by conspiring against Him, rejected Him on both counts.
Mark tells us she brake the box, so it would never be filled with ointment to pour upon another, for Christ has no rival.
John tells us that Mary wiped His feet with her hair. Spikenard was often used to give the hair a fragrance and an attraction, but Mary uses her hair, (which is her glory, 1 Corinthians 11:15), to wipe His feet. She is prepared to let her glory be a towel, such is her devotion to Him.
The fragrance excluded everything else in the room, according to John, just as the sweet savour of Christ’s life had filled the heart of the Father during His movements in this polluted world. In the previous chapter there was the stench of death, (for it was said of Lazareth that “he stinketh”, for he was corrupting in a grave), but here is the fragrance of a special life. All the disciples would have this fragrance clinging to them as well, such is the effect of the worshipful exercise of this woman. It is good that believers convey the savour of Christ, as the apostle Paul did, for he could write, “Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of His knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish”, 2 Corithians 2:14,15.
26:8
But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? Matthew speaks of all the disciples making this comment, whereas John tells us that Judas was the spokesman. His cynical attitude to Mary’s action began to affect the way the other eleven thought of it, for “evil communications corrupt good manners”, 1 Corinthians 15:33. The writer to the Hebrews warned them against letting roots of bitterness spring up and trouble them, for thereby many would be defiled, Hebrews 12:15.
It is a sad thing when believers think that an act of devotion involving a costly perfume is a waste. If they had had Mary’s appreciation even in small measure, they would not have spoken like this, for it was contrary to Christ’s evaluation of what she had done.
26:9
For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
For this ointment might have been sold for much- this ointment was very precious, and therefore very costly, being worth three hundred pence, as John tells us, and by thinking this he shows he appreciated Mary’s sacrifice. Judas thought of it too, but saw it as a lost opportunity to add to the communal bag, from which he stole, being a thief. A penny was the wage of a labourer for a day in those times, as we know from the parable of the workers in the vineyard, Matthew 20:2. So leaving aside visits to the temple, a man could work for six days a week for fifty weeks of the year, and earn three hundred pence. A man working for three hundred days in the United Kingdom can earn at least twenty five thousand pounds. This gives us some idea of the greatness of Mary’s gift. Although it must be remembered that it is how much is left after we have given that is the critical thing. The Lord valued the widow’s mite because she gave of her penury, and cast into the treasury all her living, whereas others who gave of their abundance had plenty left over to spend on themselves, Luke 21:1-4.
And given to the poor- it was customary at passover time to give to the poor so that they could purchase a passover lamb. We see an example of this when the disciples thought that when Judas went out from the upper room that he was going to give something to the poor, John 13:29.
The objection began with Judas, who was a thief, and did not care for the poor, John 12:6, for those who steal show clearly that they are only interested in themselves, and care not if others suffer as a result of their crimes. We know from the next chapter that when Judas went out from the upper room the other disciples thought he might be going to give something to the poor, 13:29. This shows that Christ and the true apostles had no interest in gaining for themselves. Peter could say a few weeks later, “Silver and gold have I none”, Acts 3:6.
Contact with Christ, the one who became poor, who sought not His own things, who went about doing good, should have been an influence on Judas. Alas! it was not so.
The apostle Paul wrote, “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth”, Ephesians 4:28. So the one-time thief, when he is converted, has a responsibility not just to cease from stealing, but also to make amends for the wrong he has done to others. He may not be able to repay the particular people he robbed, but he must make a special effort to give to the needy over and above what would normally be expected. We see this worked out in practice in Zaccheus, who vowed to give half of his goods to the poor, and to repay fourfold any he had defrauded, Luke 19:8. Far from having this attitude, Judas saw in his position of trust an opportunity to make gain at the expense of others.
26:10
When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? The Lord moves to defend Mary from the charge of not spending money wisely. He deals with two matters. First, in this verse, the hurt caused by the words of the disciples, and the implication in the word “waste” that they used to describe her action, suggesting that Mary had a faulty assessment of things. The needs of the poor are dealt with in the next verse.
Perhaps this rebuke was the last thing that caused Judas to switch sides, and go out from this incident and make his bargain with the chief priests. As suggested in connection with the feeding of the five thousand, and Christ’s refusal to be made king, Judas began to think it his duty to replace Christ with someone more in harmony with his nationalistic thinking. This is hinted at by John when he concludes the incident by writing, “Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him”, John 6:71.
Yet the command to not trouble Mary was perfectly justified, and it was directed at the other disciples who had complained as much as Judas. The giving of believers is not to be subject to the dictates of others. Suggestions as to worthy causes may be given, and collections may be arranged, but it is up to the individual before the Lord as to what and where to give.
For she hath wrought a good work upon me- Matthew emphasises that what Mary did was a good work, for she virtually anointed Israel’s king, and it is Matthew’s purpose in his gospel to get us to see that Christ is the king. Mark in his gospel of the Servant highlights that Mary had learnt to serve by doing good works. He joins with John to emphasise that it was done in view of His burying. So there is no discrepancy between the idea of an anointed Messiah and a Messiah in a grave, for He will rise again from the grave to die no more, so that His kingdom can be an everlasting kingdom, never interrupted by death.
26:11
For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
For ye have the poor always with you- sadly, there are always those who, through no fault of their own, are poor, and those who are able should love their neighbours as themselves and seek to relieve their poverty. It is a Christian thing to remember the poor, Galatians 2:10. A reading of 2 Corinthians chapters 8 and 9 should convince us of the importance of doing this.
But me ye have not always- He would soon be back in heaven, It is important to not delay helping those in need, for in various ways the opportunity might be lost. Think of the regret Mary would have had if she had delayed, and the Lord had gone back to heaven. Of course, she could have then given to the poor, but it was important that the believing remnant should anoint Him, and this Mary did. Some might argue that Judas was right, that the pouring out of it was a waste, but the spiritual mind discerned that just as Mary chose the better part by sitting at His feet, so she also decided that the better thing was to anoint Him. Who can tell what encouragement came to Christ even on the cross when He remembered her devotion?
From 1 Timothy 6:18 we learn that we should be ready to distribute, where the word “ready” has the idea of being liberal. A scant and miserly response to God’s rich giving to us is hardly appropriate. We should be like those of Macedonia, who, although poor, gave out of their deep poverty, so that Paul can commend them for the riches of their liberality, 2 Corinthians 8:2. They had clearly appreciated the way in which the Lord Jesus, although rich, had become poor for them. The Corinthians, on the other hand, although full of promises and good intentions, had failed to contribute as they should and could. Would it not be a good exercise to ask ourselves whether we are Macedonian or Corinthian in our giving? There are third-world evangelists in desperate need of bicycles to take them to preach in outlying villages, so do we really need such luxurious limousines? Christian parents in Pakistan whose children have to make bricks all day to help the family finances, so do we really need that expensive holiday? Destitute children on the streets of many a city who could be enjoying the care of a Christian orphanage, so is our extravagant lifestyle justified?
Not only should we be ready or liberal in our distribution, but willing also. This involves being alert to the needs of others, and prompt in our response to those needs. Is there anything we meant to support but never did? It is not too late to make amends in some way.
The end result of obeying these injunctions is that we shall lay up in store for ourselves, for, paradoxically, those who become poor become rich, those who empty their barns, fill them. And moreover, the emptying only lasts for time, the filling lasts for eternity. In 2 Corinthians 9:9 the apostle quotes from Psalm 112:9 in connection with the giving of a righteous man. “He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever”. Righteous actions performed now will remain in the memory of God, and be to the praise of God, for all eternity.
Let us remember the exhortation given to the apostle Paul, “Remember the poor”. Let us remember, and imitate, his response, “The same which I also was forward to do”, Galatians 2:10.
26:12
For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.
For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body- she did not break the box to anoint her brother when he died, and she did not keep it to sell when she became old, but had a higher view of things, and performed a spiritually delightful act which was much appreciated by the Lord. Sadly, however, the disciples by their reaction showed their carnality.
Note that the anointing was not just of His head, but His feet, too, John 12:3, justifying the use of the expression “my body”. The anointing of His feet would suggest an appreciation of His pathway on earth at His first coming; the anointing of His head anticipates Him coming again to reign.
She did it for my burial- Mary had sat at His feet and learned of Him, so knew that He would be crucified. But she also knew that He would rise again, so she neither went to the sepulchre with the others to anoint Him, nor to the sepulchre to see that He was risen. Her faith had laid hold of His word, and she did the better thing by anointing Him, not when He was dead in the tomb, but in view of His burial, when He was alive to appreciate it. Perhaps she also knew that, being sinless, His body would not corrupt anyway, so the stench of death did not need to be counteracted.
26:13
Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her- so her action becomes a constant reminder to us of how we should order our priorities. Note that in preaching the gospel, such incidents as this are to be made known, for they emphasise the preciousness of Christ as to His person, and His death, burial and resurrection, as to His work. It is a memorial of her, but a reminder of Him.
(d) Verses 14-16
Judas agrees to betray Him
26:14
Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests- how hard this man’s heart must be, going straight out of a setting where Christ is owned and appreciated, into the presence of those who hate Him.
26:15
And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? No name is mentioned, but the priests know exactly who Judas means. He has gone out from a place where a very costly box of ointment has been lavished upon Christ, where Mary said in effect, “How much can I give Him?” But Judas is saying “What will you give me?” As his namesake said, “What profit is it if we slay our brother…come, and let us sell him”, Genesis 37:26,27. The profit motive has always been strong with the Jew, (which name comes from the word “Judah”). The betrayer and the chief priests are combining together to form a picture of the state of the nation. Later, Matthew will interweave the suicide of Judas with the betrayal of Christ by handing Him over to the Gentiles.
And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver- this was the valuation put upon a wounded slave under the law, Exodus 21:32. The word push used in that verse means to butt or gore, indicating some harm had come to the slave rendering him unable to work. A wounded slave was a useless slave, and this is the value that Israel put upon Jehovah’s Servant. Zechariah referred to this when he spoke of Israel valuing his prophetic ministry as worth only thirty pieces of silver. God’s verdict was that it was a “goodly price”, pouring scorn on their estimate of Zechariah’s labours. But worse still, it was the valuation they put upon Jehovah Himself, Zechariah 11:12,13. History is repeating itself, for He who is God manifest in flesh is being valued at the same price, even though His ministry was far more meaningful even than Zechariah’s.
26:16
And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him- the passover lamb was to be watched for four days prior to the passover, in order to make sure it was suitable to be sacrificed. Judas, however, is watching Christ so as to betray Him.
(e) Verses 17-25
The passover supper with Judas present
26:17
Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him- there are those who believe that the Lord Jesus partook of the passover supper the evening before the passover, so that it could be said that He died at the same time as the passover lambs were being slain in the temple. But the death of Christ also fulfilled the Day of Atonement, as the Epistle to the Hebrews makes clear, but He did not die in the seventh month. It is clear that the disciples do not think there is anything irregular about this passover supper, such as would be the case if it was being celebrated early.
We see from this verse that “the passover” can mean the passover supper. In Mark 14:1 we read, “And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover”. So the passover can mean the passover lamb.
In Luke 22:1 we read, “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the passover”. So it can mean the festival of passover, including the connected festival of unleavened bread. This is confirmed by the words of Pilate, when he said, “But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover”, John 18:39, so it was ongoing at that point.
Certainly the Lord would have eaten the passover meal the evening before, for He would have obeyed the instruction, “they shall eat the flesh in that night”, and “ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning”, Exodus 12:8,10. The Hebrew day had two evenings, the first was when the sun began to decline at about the ninth hour, and the second was when it was possible to see three stars in the sky, about the twelfth hour. It was between those two points that the Passover lamb was to be killed. The command was “the whole congregation of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening”, Exodus 12:6. In the evening meant in the period from 3pm to 6pm.
The passover was to be eaten that night, and nothing left till the morning. Hence in Deuteronomy 16:6 the instruction is to eat the passover “at the going down of the sun”, And “at the season thou camest forth out of Egypt”. Then they were told to “turn in in the morning, and go unto thy tents”, verse 7. Far from doing this, the chief priests turned out in the morning, in order to condemn the True Passover Lamb.
Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? They take it for granted that they will eat with Him, and that He will act as the head of the household. And this despite the fact that some, if not all of them, would be head of their own houses. The arrangements for the eating of the passover lamb were precise, and the correct food and wine must be set on the table in readiness.
26:18
And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples- there is no information in this instruction that Judas might use to arrange Christ’s arrest. This disposes of the notion that Christ arranged His own betrayal so as to appear to fulfil scripture.
Luke gives us more details: “And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover”, Luke 22:8-13.
It is good to know that there were a few in Jerusalem who were sympathetic to Christ, even to the extent of giving up their guestchamber for Him, when there were so many other pilgrims in the city at passover season.
26:19
And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them- we are not told when the lamb was purchased and taken to the temple to be slaughtered, no doubt to preserve the uniquenss of the Lamb of God Himself. But if Peter and John were given this task, they would have first bathed all over in the pool outside the temple walls, and then when they entered the temple courts would have washed their feet in the stone troughs provided for the purpose. They would have understood the teaching of Christ given later that evening about being washed all over, and only afterwards needing to wash the feet.
And they made ready the passover- this would involve preparing the lamb and cooking it, providing the spices and unleavened bread for the meal, and ensuring that the four cups of the supper were filled with wine. They would also ensure that there was a bason for water, and a towel, so that the guests might have their feet washed. Perhaps they did no realise at this point that the water, the bread and the wine were soon to take on fresh meaning
26:20
Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve- the second evening of the day has arrived, and the first three stars have appeared in the sky. Whilst He sat down with the twelve, we know that when they left the upper room, He went with only eleven, for Judas had left. He was present, no doubt, for the passover meal, but not for the institution of the Lord’s Supper. We know this is the case because the ones who partook of the Lord’s Supper were the ones who would be in the kingdom, verse 29, and Judas will not be in the kingdom, but in perdition.
26:21
And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me- this must have been a shock to all of them. To the eleven, that one of their number should do such a thing; to Judas, that the Lord knew he was the betrayer.
Disloyalty is dealt with first here, and defilement first in John’s account. Both are in view in 1 Corinthians 11 where the reminder of the betrayal and the need for self-examination are both indicated, if the Lord’s Supper is going to be eaten worthily, 1 Corinthians 1:23,28.
26:22
And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?
And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? If Judas is included in the “every one of them”, then he must have hypocritically used the word Lord. In fact he did not recognise Christ as Lord. Perhaps the others do not realise the seriousness of betraying Him, or else they would have hesitated in thinking that they were capable of such an evil deed. Satan had to enter into Judas before he could carry out the deed. But the Lord said, “one of you is a devil” a year before, John 6:70, anticipating what would happen.
26:23
And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.
And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me- in John’s account the Lord quotes the words of a psalm, “He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me”, John 13:18, a quotation from Psalm 41:9.
This statement does not identify Judas to the other disciples, but indicates that the traitor was having fellowship with Christ by eating out of the same dish, yet was in fact partaking of the table of demons, 1 Corinthians 10:
From John we learn that Christ gave “the sop” to Judas, and he then went out of the upper room, John 13:26,27. The sop was a piece of the lamb wrapped in unleavened bread, and with bitter herbs, dipped in the bowl of vinegar that was on the table, and handed to a favoured guest. This is yet another appeal from Christ to Judas to draw back from what he intended, and to assure him that there was a return to faithfulness was possible. Sadly, he rejected this overture, and immediately Satan entered into him, to enable him to do his evil deed.
26:24
The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
The Son of man goeth as it is written of him- so it is not Satan and Judas who are controlling the agenda. The scriptures had foretold that the Messiah would be betrayed by one who could be described as “his own familiar friend”, Psalm 41:9. The scriptures themselves were inspired by the Spirit of God, equal with the Father and the Son in the Godhead, and therefore privy to the eternal and determinate counsel of God which ordained Christ’s betrayal.
It was after He had taught in the treasury, that the Lord said, “I go my way”, John 8:21. The significance of the treasury was that it was that part of the temple courts that had the council room of the Sanhedrin nearby. They might plot His death there, but He could say “I go my way”.
But woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! The Old Testament does not name Judas as the traitor, so it was not inevitable that it should be Judas. The woe consists not only of the place of perdition to which he went, but also the infamy attached to his name ever after.
It had been good for that man if he had not been born- does this not show that Judas was a real person before he was actually born, since it was a man that was born? Scripture does not entertain the idea that a baby in the womb is not a real person.
26:25
Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? Note that the hypocritical “Lord” of verse 22 is now replaced by “Master”, or “Rabbi”, a title which did not signify that Christ was uniquely Lord. No man can genuinely say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost, 1 Corinthians 12:3. Judas is asking the question to find out if the Lord really knows what he is intending to do. A low estimate of Christ’s Lordship will tend towards betrayal.
He said unto him, Thou hast said- this is not an evasive answer. When Christ was asked if He was the Christ, the Son of God, He replied “Thou hast said”, in Matthew, but Mark gives the equivalent to this in the words, “I am”, Mark 14:61.
Judas now knows that the Lord is fully aware he is the traitor. Should not this fact, showing as it did Divine insight, have been a check to Judas? Will he really go ahead and betray one who is God? Only if he allows Satan to enter into him can he do this.
(f) Verses 26-29
Institution of the Lord’s Supper
26:26
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
And as they were eating- that is, during the eating of the passover supper. We shall see from verse 29 that Judas was not present at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, for it is reserved for believers. Whilst John does not tell us about the Supper in his account, he does show that Judas went out immediately after the sop had been given to him, John 13:26-30, and Matthew has already told us about this in verse 23.
Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples- this is a re-enactment of the Lord’s life. He took bread, just as He had taken a body in incarnation, Hebrews 10:5. He lived a life of deep thankfulness to God for all His goodness to Him, and blessed God at all times. He suffered Himself to be crucified, and His body, soul and spirit were separated in death, just as the bread was broken. This separation in death was so that those who believe on Him could have a share in the benefits of what He did at Calvary, just as He gave the loaf to the disciples.
And said, Take, eat; this is my body- we should remember that the Lord Jesus held the loaf that He described as His body in His hands as He spoke these words. We should also remember that He described the cup of wine as the fruit of the vine after He had said that it was the new covenant in His blood, Matthew 26:27,28. If, on the night of the institution of the Supper, and with the Lord Jesus officiating, the bread and wine did not change, why should it be thought they change when mere mortals officiate?
There is a grammar rule in the Greek language to indicate when a statement is to be taken literally or figuratively. The rule is as follows: “When a pronoun is used instead of one of the nouns, and the two nouns are of different genders, (Greek words are either masculine, feminine, or neuter), the pronoun is always made to agree with that noun to which it is carried, and not to the noun from which it is carried, and to which it properly belongs”.
The nouns in this instance are ‘bread’ and ‘body’, and ‘this’ replaces the noun ‘bread’. The pronoun ‘this’ is neuter. The noun ‘bread’ is masculine. The noun ‘body’ is neuter. If the statement were literal, then the pronoun would be masculine. As the pronoun is neuter, and agrees with the word body, which is neuter, then the statement is figurative and not literal.
These words have been mis-interpreted and mis-used to make them mean that the physical elements of the bread are changed into the actual body of Christ during the service of the Catholic Mass. This is called transubstantiation, and is a device used to gain power over the souls of the superstitious and unthinking, seeking to convince them that the priest, who alone has the supposed power to change bread into flesh, has their eternal destiny in his hands.
The language of Pope Pius the 10th is as follows:
“The sacrifice of the mass is substantially that of the cross, in as far as the same Jesus Christ who offered Himself on the cross is He who offers Himself by the hands of the priests His ministers on our altars”.
Be in no doubt that this is wicked blasphemy.
Their belief is that “Through the priestly act of consecration, the substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, so that what lies upon the altar is no longer bread and wine but Christ, and what the priest offers to God is nothing less than Christ Himself”.
These statements are in direct and flagrant conflict with the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially chapters 9 and 10, which insist that the sacrifice of Christ is once-for-all in character. Is it significant that these chapters are missing from the Codex Vaticanus, the manuscript found in the Vatican library?
This use of the words priest and altar betrays a failure to appreciate that when the Lord Jesus died He rendered obsolete the Old Testament rituals, together with their sacrificing priests and altars. Those who have not grasped this simple and important truth forfeit their right to instruct others on the matter. To claim that “The sacrifice of the Mass is substantially that of the Cross”, comes perilously close to “Crucifying afresh the Son of God”, of which Hebrews 6:6 speaks.
The application of the teaching of John 6 to the Lord’s Supper is wrong. The “bread which is his flesh” John 6:51 is not the bread with which the multitudes were fed the previous day, but rather the Bread which came down from heaven, even Himself. The whole passage is to be interpreted in the light of the Lord’s words in verse 63, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”. In other words, He definitely warns against taking His words literally. In confirmation of this, verse 57 says, “As the Living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, shall live by me”. If we say that eating Christ means eating a piece of literal bread, then we shall have to say also that Christ literally ate His Father. Quite clearly, what He in fact did was nourish His soul on His Father’s will. He Himself said to His disciples, “I have meat to eat that ye know not of”, John 4:32. The teaching of chapter six had obviously not been given at that point. When the disciples queried His remark He replied, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work”, verse 34. When He was physically hungry in the wilderness, He was spiritually full, as He fed upon God as revealed in His Word, for He quoted the words of Deuteronomy 8:3 which read, “man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God doth man live”. The true believer does this too.
The apostle Paul made no reference to any supposed change in the loaf and the cup, but he did write about “discerning the Lord’s body”, 1 Corinthians 11:29. So although the bread and wine do not change, such is the power of the symbol, that as we think upon them we are given vivid and true-to-life impressions of Christ.
It is interesting to note that the Jews referred to the flesh of the roast lamb on passover night as “the body of the lamb”. And also, that after AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the temple services, they began calling the loaf “the lamb”.
26:27
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them- just as He took a body in incarnation, so He became a partaker in flesh and blood, Hebrews 2:14. The wine was already poured into the cup at the start of the proceedings, for the life or soul of the flesh is in the blood, Leviticus 17:11, and Christ poured out His soul unto death, Isaiah 53:12.
Saying, Drink ye all of it- by this is meant that all the eleven apostles present had a right to drink of the cup. They were not expected to drink all of the wine in the cup, for Mark’s account is, “and they all drank of it”, Mark 14:23. The point is that they all shared the same cup in fellowship with one another. As the apostle Paul will write later, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” 1 Corinthians 10:16. “The cup of blessing” was one of the four cups at the passover supper.
When reinforcing these things to the Corinthians, the apostle writes, “Likewise the cup after supper”, thus emphasising that the Lord’s Supper and the passover supper are distinct. But it does raise the question as to whether the Lord used the cup that was left undrunk at the passover to institute the new Supper. That cup was called the “Cup of wrath”, which was why it was left untouched. But He would drink the cup of wrath, and turn it into a cup of blessing for His people. Either that, or He used the cup of blessing of the passover supper.
26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
For this is my blood of the new testament- as godly Jews, the apostles were forbidden to eat or drink blood, Leviticus 317, and this ban extended into the present age, as we see from Acts 15:29. To suggest, then, that the wine becomes blood, and is then drunk, is to disobey God. But in this scenario, it is Christ who is commanding to drink! Does Christ command what God prohibits? The answer is obviously in the negative.
The apostles would be familiar with the terms of the new covenant as set out in Jeremiah 31:31-34. This covenant will be with the nation of Israel in the future, but since the institution of the Supper is reaffirmed by the apostle Paul to a mainly-Gentile assembly, and the Lord’s words about the new testament are included, we learn that in principle the blessings of the new covenant are available to all believers. The apostle described himself and Timothy to that same assembly as “able ministers of the new testament”, 2 Corinthians 3:6. A reading of the quotation of Jeremiah 31 found in Hebrews 8 will show that the main features of the new covenant blessings are as follows: grace, not law; a real relationship with God as His people; the knowledge of God, which is the essence of eternal life, and the remission of sins on the basis of the work of propitiation. These are gospel blessings, and believers of this age already possess them.
Which is shed for many for the remission of sins- in Mark it is simply “shed for many”. In Luke it is “shed for you”. Matthew is the governmental gospel, and the remission of sins is an exercise of God’s governmental dealings with men. Mark is the ministerial gospel, and he emphasises the greatness of the task that Jehovah’s Perfect Servant undertook at Calvary. Luke is the personal gospel, so he emphasises the fact that the blood is shed for individual people. In Paul’s account the emphasis is not on sins, but on the remembrance of Christ.
26:29
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine- from this we learn what “the cup” consisted of, even the fruit of the vine. This is appropriate, for we read of “the pure blood of the grape”, Deuteronomy 32:14. Couple this with the fact that the Lord Jesus is the True Vine, we have a fit picture of His precious blood. We are nowhere told that the cup of the Lord’s Supper was fermented wine as such, simply that it was the fruit of the grape vine.
This statement by the Lord shows that even though He ate and drank with the apostles after His resurrection, Acts 10:41, He did not keep the Lord’s Supper with them, for that is reserved for the time of His absence, which is implied in the “till he come” of 1 Corinthians 11:26. Note He says “this fruit of the vine”, meaning the fruit of the vine in connection with the Supper, not “the fruit of the vine”, meaning wine generally.
Until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom- a reference to the kingdom that He will set up on earth when He comes again to reign. That this is a literal kingdom is proved by many things, not least by the fact that He speaks of drinking literal new wine in that day of joy and gladness. As Isaiah wrote, “And in this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined”, Isaiah 25:6. In that day believers will not have a sinful nature, so there will be no drunkenness.
Note that the coming kingdom of Christ on earth is His Father’s kingdom too, for Christ shall reign on behalf of His Father, and then hand over the kingdom to God, His work done, 1 Corinthians 15:24,28. The kingdom will then extend into eternity.
It is only Luke that tells us the Lord said, “this do in remembrance of me”, Luke 22:19. In the three gospels that record the institution of the Supper, the Lord referred to the coming kingdom. But whereas Matthew and Mark record it in connection with the Lord’s Supper, Luke puts the words after the finish of the passover supper, Luke 22:14-18. So where Matthew and Mark put a mention of the future kingdom, Luke puts the appeal of Christ that we remember Him. Remembrance of Him necessarily involves thinking of the past. This is repeated by the apostle Paul when he is writing of these matters. He says nothing about the kingdom, but he does add that when we eat the bread and drink the cup, we “do shew the Lord’s death till he come”, 1 Corinthians 11:26.
(g) Verses 30-35
Conversation on the mount of Olives about denial
26:30
And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
And when they had sung an hymn- this would refer to Psalm 118, which was not only sung publicly whilst the passover lambs were being slain in the temple, but was sung privately at the end of the passover supper, as if those in private houses were at one with those in the temple. How significant are the words at the end of that psalm, “bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar”, verse 27. It is true that the Lord is about to be bound by men at His arrest and trial, but in a real sense He was bound by His devotion to His Father’s interests.
They went out into the mount of Olives- Matthew mentions seven mountains in his gospel, in 4:8; 5:1; 14:23; 15:29; 17:1; 26:30 and 28:16. It is appropriate that Matthew’s kingdom gospel should mention seven mountains, for in scripture seven is the number of perfection and completeness, and a mountain is a symbol of a kingdom. Moreover, Matthew does not simply mention seven mountains as if he is describing the scenery, but tells us that the King went up into those mountains Himself, for He is the rightful king.
While it is true that Matthew mentions seven mountains, he only tells us the name of one of them, the mount of Olives. (The word mount is the same as mountain). Matthew always links his gospel with the Old Testament, and the mount of Olives features in Zechariah’s prophecy of the return of Christ to reign. He writes, “And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east…and the Lord shall be king over all the earth”, Zechariah 14:4,9.
Matthew, Mark and Luke do not give us the prayer that John records in his chapter 17. Nor are we told where that prayer was uttered. We know that during His upper room ministry the Lord said, “Arise, let us go hence”, John 14:31. We are not told by John where the Lord was located until, after He had spoken the words of His prayer, He crossed the brook Cedron, 18:1. This is entirely appropriate, for the Lord said in His prayer, “And now I am no more in the world”, John 17:11. For John to tell us where he was in the world would not suit that statement.
26:31
Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night- when they saw their Lord arrested and taken away, their hopes that He was the mighty King who would defeat His enemies would be dashed, and they would rush to distance themselves from Him.
For it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad- this is a reference to the words of Zechariah 13:7. The earlier part of the verse reads, “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts”. This is often taken to refer to God dealing with His Son in judgement at the cross, and the sword of Divine justice being unsheathed to smite Him on account of our sins. But bearing in mind the context in which the Lord quotes the second half of the verse, the reference must surely be to something that happened prior to the scattering of the flock.
God has placed a sword of justice in the hands of the rulers of this world. The apostle Paul wrote, “Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”, Romans 13:4. Couple with this the words of the Lord to Pilate, when he claimed to have power to crucify Him or to release Him, “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above”, John 19:11. Pilate three times over said that he found no fault in Christ. If he uses the sword in his hand aright, then he will release Christ, for He “did that which was good”. Also, if he uses that sword aright, he will crucify Barabbas, for Pilate was supposed to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”, and Barabbas did evil. But Pilate put good for evil and evil for good, and used his sword unjustly. But the point is that he did it only by Divine permission. Pilate had not been given the sword God to execute Christ, but God allowed him to do so to work out His purpose.
So, coming back to Matthew 26:31, we are learning that the Lord, being privy to the Divine conversation, knows that permission has just been granted by heaven for the authorities to set in motion a process which will end in Him being unjustly crucified. We know from Daniel 4:17 that Nebuchadnezzar’s period of madness was “by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones”, this being “the decree of the Most High”, verse 24. Political events are controlled and restrained by holy watchers in heaven. Later the Lord will tell Pilate that the power to crucify Him was given him from above, John 19:11.
Perhaps it is at this point that the arrest party is setting out. The sword of human justice is being allowed to awake, to stir into action, and it will smite the one who is God’s equal. It is in this context we should read the words, “I will smite the shepherd”, for what God allows to happen can be said to be what He does.
God’s ideal king is a shepherd king, and He was born at Bethlehem, and the scribes rightly applied the prophecy to Him which spoke of the one who would rule God’s people, Matthew 2:6, (where the word means “rule as a shepherd”), The “powers that be” were not allowed to touch Him at His birth, but now the purpose of God is that He should be arrested, tried and executed. When this process begins, it is no surprise to find that the disciples will forsake Him and flee, for they feared for their own lives too. They were scattered to their own homes. Still obsessed with the idea that He would defeat His enemies and immediately set up His kingdom, (an idea that persisted with them even after His resurrection, Acts 1:6), they showed their disillusionment by fleeing from Him.
26:32
But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.
But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee- far from being defeated by His enemies, the Lord would triumph over them in the most decisive way, routing the unseen forces of evil, and rising to exercise His Lordship in new ways. This should have strengthened the disciples, even if it did not, in the short-term, stop them from fleeing.
As we see from John 20, the apostles remained in Jerusalem for over a week. Then we find that they met up with Him on the shores of Galilee, for He had gone before them into Galilee. The true shepherd always goes before his sheep, to search out a safe place for them, and to feed them. Jerusalem was not a safe place for the disciples, and the Lord ensures they go to Galilee. Later He will send them back to Jerusalem to wait for the coming of the Spirit, for if the Lord directs His people to go to a certain place, they can count on Him to watch over them there.
Zechariah had gone on to write, “And I will turn mine hand upon the little ones”, meaning that God would enclose His vulnerable and frightened sheep of the flock with His protecting hand, and this He did when He went before them into the safety of a mountain in Galilee. He called them “children” in John 21:5, and perhaps this would correspond to “the little ones” of Zechariah’s prophecy.
26:33
Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.
Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended- these are strong statements, and the words of the apostle Paul come to our minds, “let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall, 1 Corinthians 10:12.
It seems that Peter vowed three times to be faithful to his Lord, and three times he was warned that he was about to deny Him. He said he was ready to go both into prison, and to death, Luke 22:33. He said he would lay down his life for the Lord’s sake, John 13:37. And here he is vowing to never be offended. Each time he was warned about denying the Lord three times.
26:34
Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice- we should distinguish between the actual cock crowing, and the end of the watch which was called “the cock crow”. Cocks often crow in the dead of night, and then crow to signal the end of the watch called “The cock-crow”.
26:35
Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.
Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples- Peter takes the situation to the extreme length, and asserts that even if he was about to be put to death for Christ’s sake, he would not deny Him. It is said that Peter suffered death by crucifixion, and insisted that he be crucified upside down, so as not to be confused with His Lord. So despite his denial, he made good his word eventually.
Likewise also said all the disciples- so all of the eleven remaining apostles said they would not deny Him, but only Peter did, which is why, on the shores of Galilee, (and by a fire the Lord had kindled and not the men of the world), the Lord asked him if he loved Him “more than these”, for they had not denied Him, but he had, John 21:15-17.
(h) Verses 36-46
Christ’s prayers in Gethsemane
26:36
Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.
Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane- John does not mention the name of this place, which means “the place of olive presses”. John is more concerned about Christ’s prayer to His Father as the Son, than His prayers to His Father as the man crushed by circumstances. Nonetheless the olive press yielded the fresh olive oil, figurative of the “spirit of Jesus Christ”, Philippians 1:9, who enables adverse circumstances to be overcome.
And saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder- there is no mention of disciples being with Him when He prayed in John 17, for they could not share His experience. Here, His own are not far away, so that Peter as an old man can describe himself as a witness of the sufferings of Christ, even though he did not stand by the cross, 1 Peter 5:1.
26:37
And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.
And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee- these three have indicated their determination to follow the Lord and suffer for His sake. James and John said they could drink His cup of martyr sufferings, and Peter said he would follow Him, even unto prison and death. They are now being prepared for those experiences by seeing the agony of Christ. They cannot say they were not forewarned. Perhaps to strengthen their faith in Him so that they did not deny Him, it was these three who were shown His power to raise the dead, Luke 8:51-56, and His coming kingdom-glory, Luke 9:28-36.
And began to be sorrowful and very heavy- the sorrows He is about to experience, and the weight of suffering He is about to endure, whether from men or from His God, bear down upon Him.
26:38
Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death- the prayer that John records is full of glory, with not a hint of suffering or sorrow. That is surely because it is spoken as if the cross is over, and then the suffering and sorrow will be over. This prayer is different in character, just as it was spoken in a different place. Hebrews 5:7 speaks of Him offering up “prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears”.
To be sorrowful unto death means that such was the vividness of the anticipation of the sufferings of Calvary, that they almost overwhelmed Him in death. Of course, all was under Divine control, and He laid down His life of Himself, not being forced to do so either by men or circumstances, but this does not take away from the reality of what He is suffering here in the garden.
Needless to say He is not sorrowful because sins have been laid upon Him already, as some seem to think. The apostle Peter is very clear that He “bare our sins in his own body on the tree”, 1 Peter 2:24. To say that Christ bore sins at any time before the cross is heresy, for bearing sins involves being forsaken of God, and He was not thus forsaken in His life, for He could say “the Father is with me”, John 19:32.
During His life He was the Man of Sorrows, for sorrow marked Him so much as He surveyed the ravages of sin all around Him. Now He is exceeding sorrowful, for His sorrows surpass what any other has experienced. So much so, that they produce a near-death experience in Him.
Tarry ye here, and watch with me- His true humanity is not only seen in His sorrow, but also in His wish that His three favoured disciples should be near at hand. He is the pre-eminently social man, taking solace from the company of His own. Sadly they do not afford this comfort on this occasion, but fall asleep. They had the practical task of watching out for the arrest party, but they failed in this.
26:39
And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed- in Mark 14:35 we read that He went forward a little, so He was not so far away that they could not witness His agony in prayer. In Luke He was withdrawn from them a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Luke 22:41. Is this so that the disciples, if they had kept awake, could alert Him of the coming of Judas and his arrest party by throwing a stone to fall near Him?
He had instructed the eleven disciples to sit and pray, Mark 14:32, so there are three postures in prayer here, sitting, (indicating calmness of spirit before God); kneeling, (speaking of reverence before God), and on the face on the ground, (the sign of total submission and surrender to the will of God). During the prayer of John 17, the Lord’s face was lifted up to heaven, which suggests He was standing whilst praying, which would indicate His consciousness of acceptance with the Father.
Saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me- it is customary to think of this cup as the cup of wrath which Christ was to drink at Calvary. The psalmist said “For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture; and he poureth out of the same: but the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them”, Psalm 75:8. The trouble with applying that scripture to Calvary is that the wicked drink from the same cup, whereas the sufferings of Christ are unique.
On passover night it is said that there were four cups on the table. There was the cup of thanksgiving, the cup of blessing, the cup of the kingdom, from which three cups all at the table drank, and then there was the fourth cup, which was left untouched, for it was called the cup of wrath.
The difficulty in saying that the cup spoken of in this prayer is the cup of wrath, is that when James and John were asked if they could drink of the cup Christ would drink, they said they were able, Matthew 20:22. We might have expected the Lord to reply that they could not drink of the cup. However, His response was, “Ye shall indeed drink of my cup”, verse 23. Given that James was killed by the sword of Herod, and John was exiled on Patmos by the Roman authorities, and calls himself “companion in tribulation”, Revelation :9, it seems that the cup in this passage is the cup of physical martyr sufferings.
It is true that in Mark’s account of Gethsemane the cup and the hour appear to be the same, see Mark 14:35,36. But it could well be that the hour in question is not the hour of the crucifixion, but the hour the Lord spoke of when He was arrested, saying, “this is your hour, and the power of darkness”, Luke 22:53. The forces of evil would hold Him in their power, and He would be crucified through weakness, 2 Corinthians 13:4, meaning He was crucified after passing through a period when He was powerless to avoid the sufferings inflicted upon Him before He was crucified, such as the beatings and the scourging. They had no value as to the putting away of sin, and they were not directly prophesied in the Old Testament, unlike the actual crucifixion.
If this interpretation is correct, then it would solve the dilemma that confronts us if we say the cup was the cup of Divine wrath. How can the one who is privy to eternal counsel, who knows He is the Lamb foreordained before the foundation of the world, ask for Calvary to be removed from Him? But if the cup is the martyr sufferings inflicted by men, He might well ask to not have to endure them, since He, as perfect man, and with His senses not dulled at all by sin, would be sensitive to pain as no other is.
Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt- the fact that He knew what was involved in the cup shows He is equal with God. The fact that in His extremity He asked for the cup to be removed shows He is truly Man, and submissive Man. No sensible person invites pain, but seeks to avoid it. As one who has, by coming into manhood, subjected Himself to the Father’s will, (for “the head of Christ is God”, 1 Corinthians 11:3), He is prepared for His inclination in this matter to be over-ruled by His Father.
26:40
And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep- Luke tells us they were sleeping for sorrow, Luke 22:45. They really should have tried to keep awake, for their sorrow because of what He had told them in the upper room about Him going away was as nothing compared to His sorrow in the garden. In any case, He had told them in the upper room, “If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, ‘I go to the Father'”, John 14:28.
And saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Peter is singled out for the rebuke because he was the one who protested most strongly that he would not fail the Lord. The rebuke was also a warning, for if he could not sit and watch one hour in the company of those who loved the Lord, what would he do when surrounded by His enemies in the high priest’s palace?
26:41
Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation- they were not only to watch for the arrest party, but also watch for themselves, lest they fail the Lord at this critical moment. They were also to be in an attitude of prayer, as He was, but for them it was prayer that they would not venture on a path that would expose them to temptation. This is especially a word for Peter, who was in danger of denying his Lord when the temptation to do so presented itself.
The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak- the Lord fully knows their hearts, that they are true to Him, and really want to please Him, but they are vulnerable, and liable to fail Him, for the flesh, meaning the material part of man, lets them down. They allow weakness of body and sorrow of soul to prevent them from watching and praying in their spirits.
26:42
He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
He went away again the second time, and prayed- we know from Mark’s account that He prayed the first prayer again, Mark 14:39. He must have gone on to pray as Matthew records. In between the two parts of this second session of prayer He must have discerned that it was not His Father’s will to remove the cup from Him.
Saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done- given the foregoing insight into the Father’s will, He now submits Himself to whatever the cup of suffering contains. Understandably, we have great difficulty in reconciling the fact that, on the one hand, being equal with the Father in every Divine attribute, His will is as binding as the Father’s, and on the other hand His words, “Thy will be done”. But we must remember that He has subjected Himself to the headship of God by coming into manhood, and by definition a man is subject to the will of God. He will not allow His will as a man to over-ride the will of His Father, who is not subject to any.
This prayer of submission results in Him saying at the arrest, “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it”, John 18:11. It cannot be that He will refuse anything that His Father gives Him.
26:43
And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.
And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy- they were neither watching nor praying. They had allowed their weakness of flesh, (“their eyes were heavy”), to prevent them displaying willingness of spirit by praying.
26:44
And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.
And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words- so the two parts of His prayer, (His request that the cup might pass, and the submission to His Father’s will because it would not), were each repeated. Mark tells us the first part was repeated, showing us the intensity of His feeling about the matter, while Matthew tells us the second part was repeated, showing the intensity of His submission.
Characteristically, Luke presents the intense feelings of Christ as a man, and simply gives us the first part in which he sought that the cup might pass.
Luke alone gives us the information that an angel came to strengthen Him, and that His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground, Luke 22:41-44. These are features that emphasise the reality of the manhood of the Lord Jesus, which is Luke’s theme throughout his gospel.
26:45
Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest- they have failed Him in this first test, so they need to be strengthened in body to be in a fit state to not fail Him next time. We should care for our bodies so that we are in a fit state to serve Christ. We are not told how long He watched over them as they slept.
Behold, the hour is at hand- so the two halves of this verse are separated by a period of time. The hour of which He had spoken in His prayer, and the hour that is the same as the cup, according to Mark 14:35,36, meaning the hour of His martyr sufferings, has arrived.
And the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners- He knows the movements of Judas, the one who has changed sides, and who will now stand with the arrest party. As Son of Man He will have universal control when He reigns, but here He is about to be in the control of sinners. This is what He prayed about, for He, a real and sensitive man, dreaded what they might do once they had bound Him. Notice that He includes the high priests in the “sinners” category.
26:46
Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.
Rise, let us be going- having watched over them as they slept, He now rouses them, for Judas is approaching, and they need to be alert. Needless to say He is not attempting to escape, but is going out to meet the arrest party. We know from John’s account that, far from avoiding those who had come to arrest Him, He went forth to meet them, taking the initiative, and showing His control over events, John 18:4.
Behold, he is at hand that doth betray me- no doubt the noise of the many who had come to arrest Him was evident, but the Lord’s main concern was for Judas. Even at this late stage He will seek to turn him from his evil deed.