Vii. The Passion Story, 26:1–27:66
VII. THE PASSION STORY, 26:1–27:66
The climax of each of the four Gospels comes with the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Each Gospel has its own way of presenting the facts, and we need all the accounts. The Synoptic Gospels for the most part tell us about the Jewish role in the death of Jesus, whereas John gives a fuller picture of the Roman involvement. For the most part Matthew’s account is similar to what we find in Mark, though, of course, he puts his own stamp on what he has written and he includes some details that the others do not have—for example, the words about the more than twelve legions of angels that Jesus could have called to support him and the account of the death of Judas. A significant feature of his passion narrative is that, while it is much the same as that in Mark, he uses direct rather than indirect speech.1 On this Stendahl comments, “it is not a merely stylistic feature. Jesus is in command: he gives the orders; here is the Messiah who knows what is going to happen and ‘speaks it into effect’.” For Matthew it is important that Jesus is in control throughout those events that culminated in his death and led on to his resurrection. Sometimes Matthew expresses the thought by emphasizing what God is doing, but this is essentially the same thought. He starts this early with Jesus’ prophecy that the Son of man was to be “handed over to be crucified” (v. 2), where the implication is that God is at work. So also there is the reference to “my time” (v. 18). We see Jesus in charge also in the fulfilment of his prophecy that he would be deserted (v. 31) and that Peter would deny him (v. 34), in the tearing of the temple veil (27:51), in the earthquake and the raising of the saints (27:52–53), and in the resurrection (ch. 28). Matthew is sure that the hand of God is to be seen in all of this. He is not narrating simply what some evil people did to a good and compassionate man.2
A. Preliminaries, 26:1–5
1And it came to pass when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, 2“You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of man will be handed over to be crucified.”
3Then the high priests and the elders of the people were gathered in the palace of the high priest who was called Caiaphas, 4and they consulted so that they might arrest Jesus craftily and put him to death. 5But they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult among the people.”
1. Matthew moves from the lengthy discourse he has just recounted to the passion narrative with a short transitional section. For his unusual and it came to pass see the note on 7:28. It is Matthew’s way of marking the passing from a major discourse to the narrative that follows. Matthew notes the completion of all these sayings, which will refer to chapters 23–24; there is possibly also a reference to chapter 22, but there is a change of scene after that. Whichever way we take it, Matthew marks the end not only of one discourse but of Jesus’ teaching ministry. The word all is probably significant; it does not occur in any of the previous occurrences of the formula at the close of a discourse. But this is not only the close of one discourse; it is the close of Jesus’ recorded teaching. No more discourses are to be recorded, and Matthew moves to the story of Jesus’ death. This little section is peculiar to Matthew; the other Synoptists go straight to the Passover.
2. We should notice that from the beginning Matthew uses direct speech as he tells us that Jesus locates what is happening with reference to the Passover,3 which was two days away. The day began at sunset and the Passover meal was to be eaten on the following Friday night, so, depending on the time of day, Jesus would have been speaking on the Tuesday or Wednesday of that week, as we count time. But he says nothing at this point about the feast itself; he simply uses it as a date as he moves on to speak of his approaching death. The Passover was the great feast that commemorated the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt. A central feature of the observance was the offering of a lamb or kid in sacrifice, and, after the ritual disposition of parts of the animal, the eating of the carcass in companies of ten or more in private homes. From early days the feast was joined with the Feast of Unleavened Bread; the combined observance lasted a week. All this made Passover an especially suitable time for Jesus to lay down his life for his people. The thought of a sacrifice leading to the freedom of the people of God from their slavery in Egypt was in the air at the time when the greater sacrifice that would set people free everywhere was to be offered. Jesus uses his favorite title for himself, the Son of man, and says that he will be handed over4 (for this verb see on 4:12) to be crucified. The verb indicates two things: the initiative will be taken by the Jews, who will do the handing over, but the death sentence will be carried out by the Romans, who in any case were the only people who could perform a crucifixion in Judea at that time. The expression indicates that Jesus was well aware of the schemes of his enemies and of the inevitable outcome. This prediction of the passion is found only in Matthew. It is not without its interest that Jesus accurately fixes the time of his death as after two days, while his enemies say that it will be after the feast, that is, more than a week away (v. 5).
3. For Matthew’s frequent use of Then see on 2:7; here it does not indicate close sequence. Rather, it locates the plotting of the high-priestly party in that general period. Matthew speaks of the high priests, a term that signifies a number of high ecclesiastical officials and members of high-priestly families (see on 2:4). With them are joined the elders of the people, the important lay representatives who formed an important part of the Sanhedrin. Though Matthew does not use the term, it would appear that he has in mind the Sanhedrin, though probably not a formal session. It reads as though the more influential members, clerical and lay, met unofficially to decide what should be done about Jesus. It is noteworthy that in this meeting of Jesus’ adversaries there is no mention of the Pharisees, who had been his principal opponents throughout his ministry (they are mentioned again in this Gospel only in 27:62). This accords with the fact that the Pharisees were deeply religious people, whereas in the passion narrative Jesus is most strongly opposed by the aristocratic Jewish establishment, people who were interested in political realities and in fitting in with the Roman overlords. The scribes do not feature largely in these chapters either (only in v. 57; 27:41); there is very little discussion of Scripture and the like, in which they were experts. This group met in the high priest’s palace.5 Matthew goes on to tell his readers that this man’s name was Caiaphas (who was high priest from A.D. 18 to 36).6 He has used the expression “high priests” a number of times, but always until now in the plural. This is his first mention of the official high priest, and Matthew tells us who he was. He is the only Evangelist to tell us that the meeting was held in the high priest’s home.
4. They consulted,7 but their consultation had a base aim (which may justify NIV’s “plotted”). They consulted so that they might arrest Jesus, where the construction indicates purpose8 (GNB, “made plans”). Arresting Jesus was not going to be straightforward; they might have been able to count on people like the merchants whose trade in the temple courts had suffered at the hands of Jesus, and there were people in the Jerusalem mob who could be manipulated. But there were also many pilgrims from Galilee in the city for the feast, and they might not be pleased to find the teacher from Nazareth under arrest. So they reasoned that they must approach the task carefully, or, as Matthew puts it, craftily.9 They were not concerned only to arrest Jesus and thus remove him from moving among the people; Matthew tells us plainly that they wanted to put him to death. They wanted to be rid of him once and for all.
5. But this was not a straightforward affair. The Passover was almost on them and Jerusalem would be full of pilgrims, many of whom might be reckoned as supporters of Jesus. So they planned not to take action during the feast.10 The Passover commemorated the deliverance of the people from Egypt back in the days of Moses. The people made preparation for it by clearing all leaven out of the houses; then on the fourteenth day of the month Abib they solemnly slew a lamb or a kid for sacrifice in the temple and threw the blood on the altar. They took the carcass home and roasted it; it formed the main feature of a meal in the evening, which was taken reclining, a symbol of the rest God gave his people. For seven days they ate unleavened bread. All this meant that there was high excitement among the people; this was one of the year’s highlights. Devout people would not want to be distracted from their religious observances by a public arrest with all its consequences, and Jesus’ supporters from Galilee might be expected to be outraged. To send a posse to arrest Jesus openly was out of the question. The Sanhedrin agreed that there must not be a tumult among the people.
B. Jesus and His Followers, 26:6–30
Having made it clear that Jesus’ enemies were plotting his death, Matthew gives us a little glimpse of the Master’s last activities among his followers. There is the anointing at Bethany, expressing love and devotion right at the time when the religious leaders of the people were giving vent to hatred and planning murder; the contrast is striking. Matthew goes on to Judas’s betrayal of his Lord and to the last meal that Jesus would have with his disciples before his death.
1. The Anointing at Bethany, 26:6–13
6When Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7there came to him a woman who had an alabaster flask of very costly perfume and poured it over his head as he reclined at table. 8And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant and said, “Why this waste? 9For this could have been sold for a high price and given to poor people.” 10But, aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing for me. 11For you have the poor with you always, but you do not have me always. 12For when this woman poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached in all the world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial for her.”
There is a story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in each of the four Gospels, and many modern scholars believe that they all refer to the same anointing. But Luke’s story comes earlier in the ministry and is performed by a sinful woman; there are too many differences to regard this story as referring to the same event as the one the others describe. The other three accounts all seem to refer to the same anointing, one carried out by Mary of Bethany in the period shortly before Jesus was arrested. Matthew’s is the shortest of the three accounts (he has 109 words, Mark 124 words, and John 142 words), and his account is very similar to that of Mark, while John has details that the others do not mention.
6. Matthew locates the incident in Bethany but says nothing of precisely when it took place or why Jesus was there. John dates his incident of anointing six days before the Passover and says that the triumphal entry took place the next day (John 12:1, 12); neither Matthew nor Mark mentions when the incident took place. John tells us that the home of Martha and Mary was in Bethany (John 11:1); presumably it was the house where they lived that was called the house of Simon the leper (for leprosy see the note on 8:2). Since people were very fearful of leprosy and had no way of curing it, quarantine was the normal requirement: those with this disease must stay away from other people. Therefore Simon could not have had the disease at this time; he may have been cured of it (as we saw in the earlier note, some of the diseases included under the general name “leprosy” were curable; or Jesus may have healed him). Even after his cure he would have still been known as the leper. Alternatively he may have been dead at this time, but the house was still known by his name. None of the Evangelists tells us why Jesus was in this home, only that he was there. In John’s account we find that Lazarus and his two sisters were there, so it is possible that Simon was their father. Jesus was there for a meal, for Matthew speaks of him as reclining at table (v. 7). John tells us that Martha was serving at the meal and that Lazarus was there (John 12:2).
7. Matthew now says that a woman (whom he does not name but who John tells us was Mary, John 12:3) came to Jesus. She had an alabaster flask11 of very costly perfume12 that she proceeded to pour over his head as he reclined at table. Unguents were used among the Jews much more freely than in modern Western societies (cf. Ps. 23:5). For example, it would be expected that when a guest came for a meal, oil would be provided to be put on his head (Luke 7:46). The use of this costly unguent rather than the cheap oil that would be more commonly used is a mark of devotion. Mary did not regard Jesus as a casual, run-of-the-mill guest but as a very special person; for him a very costly offering was just right.13 Kings were anointed (e.g., 2 Kings 9:6), and it may be that this was in the woman’s mind. We should also remember that “Messiah” means “anointed one,” and that she may have been giving symbolic expression to her conviction that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.
8. The significance of the beautiful action was lost on the hard-headed disciples.14 They may not have known precisely what the perfume was, but the costly container indicated something of value and the fragrance would have reinforced this. They might have appreciated the depth of devotion that would make such a gift to their Master, but in fact they were concerned more with what the gift was worth and what they could have done with the money it represented. Mark says that “some” were indignant, Matthew refers to “the disciples” as having this emotion,15 and John speaks of Judas Iscariot as leading the complaint and goes on to point out that he was the man who kept the money box and would have the disposal of what was put in it; John says that he was dishonest and pictures Judas as looking for some personal profit (John 12:4–6). Matthew tells us that the disciples proceeded to explain their sense of outrage: “Why this waste?” they asked. The perfume was very costly; it represented a considerable expenditure, and pouring it out was from their point of view nothing but a waste. What use was it to anybody when it was recklessly poured out like this?
9. They explain. “This” (Mark and John both have “this perfume,” but Matthew contents himself with the pronoun) “could16 have been sold for a high price.”17 The disciples mostly came from humble homes and their life-styles since they became associated with Jesus were of the simplest, as, of course, was that of the Master himself who set the example. They were unaccustomed to extravagance and must have been easily shocked by it. For them the beauty of the woman’s action and the wealth of devotion to which it gave expression were of no consequence. They looked at the material profit that might have been made, and for poor men that was the important thing. And, of course, they could give their verdict a pious twist. If the perfume had been left in their hands, they could have sold it rather than have the woman throw it away, and the money from its sale would have made a generous gift to poor people.
10. It is not made clear where and to whom the disciples made their comment, but it appears as if it was meant to be kept among themselves. But Jesus was aware of the way they were reasoning, and he rebuked them. “Why are you bothering18 the woman?” he said. He was not indifferent to the plight of the poor; after all, was he not poor himself? But he appreciated the love and devotion that found expression in this very unusual and unconventional way. So he goes on to explain to the malcontents, “she has done a beautiful19 thing for me.”
11. Jesus draws a deduction from what the woman had done.20 He points out that the poor are with you always (cf. Deut. 15:11). He is not saying that we should constantly make this an excuse for doing nothing about poverty. After all, in his last recorded piece of teaching he has pointed to the importance of helping the needy (25:31–46). He is saying that it is possible to do good to them at any time (Mark records Jesus as saying this, but Matthew’s shorter version omits the words). On occasion other challenges may reach his followers, and while they do not justify a continuing neglect of the poor, they can justify doing something else before continuing to help those in want. That is the case in the present situation.
12. Now comes a most unexpected explanation. Notice again that Jesus uses For; what the woman did arose out of an unusual perception of the situation he was in, and that perception must be given its due outlet. In pouring this perfume on my body, he says, “she did it to prepare me for burial.”21 Carson draws attention to Daube’s point that this anointing “ ‘prepares’ him for his burial after dying the death of a criminal, for only in that circumstance would the customary anointing of the body be omitted.” Jesus was aware of the fact that in a few days he would be hanging on a cross, though the disciples had no idea that such a shocking happening lay in the immediate future. Mary may have had such insight. She could not have been unaware that Jesus was in great danger; the highest in the nation were vigorously opposing him, and it was far from impossible that they would put him to death. Was this the last time he would be with her? It is not impossible that she had a premonition that never again would she have the opportunity of performing such an action, in which case she was doing it as her part in honoring Jesus as he went to death.22 It is also possible, of course, that she had no such premonition and that Jesus was interpreting her action in the light of his own knowledge of what would happen.23
13. For “Truly I tell you” see the note on 5:18; it is an expression used often in this Gospel for emphasis. The words that follow are important and are to be given good heed. “Wherever this gospel is preached in all the world” is an interesting statement in this context. Jesus was about to go to his death, and he knew it. But he spoke of this gospel as something that would be proclaimed very widely, indeed throughout the world, and thus much more widely than his hearers could possibly have realized at the time the words were spoken. Gospel is a significant word here. Jesus knew that his death would not mean the end of the movement he had started, but in a very meaningful sense its beginning. The “good news” that he had come to bring involved his death, and the dark days that lay immediately ahead for the disciples did not alter that basic fact. So Jesus now looks through the atoning work he would accomplish on the cross to the proclamation that would follow and that would go right through the world.
And when that is done, he said, “what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial for her.” The woman’s action had made no sense to the disciples, but it would be another story for the movement that Jesus had begun. Mary would be remembered far and wide for this action specifically. It will be her memorial.24 Curiously both Matthew and Mark have this saying but do not name the woman, whereas John names her but does not have this saying.
2. Betrayal, 26:14–16
14Then one of the Twelve called Judas Iscariot went to the high priests 15and said, “What will you give me, and I will betray him to you?” And they set for him thirty silver pieces. 16And from that time he looked for an opportunity of betraying him.
14. All four Gospels tell us that it was Judas Iscariot25 who betrayed Jesus into the hands of his enemies. We should understand that with Jerusalem thronged with pilgrims, including many who had come up from Galilee for the Passover, an open arrest was fraught with danger. Who could tell what the public reaction might be? The high-priestly party did not want to provoke a riot, but they did very much want to remove Jesus from the scene. At this point all three Synoptists speak of Judas as one of the Twelve; it is as though this heightened the evil nature of his act. It was not some casual contact, a person from the crowd, but one of the little group of Jesus’ closest followers who was involved. Both Luke and John link Satan with the act of Judas; they see the forces of evil as at work in the betrayal. Matthew in common with the other Evangelists makes it clear that the initiative came from Judas; it was not that the enemies of Jesus made inquiries among the disciples, looking for a weak one who might be their tool. Rather, Judas sought them out.
No indication is given in any of the Gospels as to why Judas took this action, and there have been suggestions that absolve him of treachery. Thus some have conjectured that, knowing the powers Jesus possessed and impatient at the delay in establishing the kingdom, he thought that he would put his Master in a position where he would have to put forward his unusual powers and in that way destroy the opposition and set up the kingdom for which so many patriotic Jews were looking. Another view is that Judas was really one of the violent men who were looking for ways of getting rid of the Romans at whatever cost. On this view he had followed Jesus because he thought that the man from Nazareth would in due course lead a successful rebellion against Rome. When he found that Jesus was a man of peace, he was disillusioned and took the action that would get rid of him. A third view regards him as disillusioned; he had come to the conclusion that Jesus was bound to fail and he betrayed him to save himself. A fourth view sees him as coming to realize that Jesus had chosen the path of suffering rather than militant leadership against the Romans and as rejecting such an approach. But such views are mere speculation. There is no indication in any of our sources of any motive other than that of money.26 That seems clear enough in Matthew; while Mark and Luke speak of money only after Judas has made it clear that he wants to hand Jesus over to his enemies, it is mentioned immediately after that; and there is no real doubt in any of our sources that money mattered to Judas. The sequence of stories may be significant.27 Matthew has just told the story of the pouring out of the costly perfume, and John tells us in connection with this that Judas was the treasurer of the little band and that he had wanted to get control of the money that might have been theirs had the perfume been sold (John 12:4–6). Disappointed of gain from one source, he now sought it from another. Matthew does not specify the person(s) to whom Judas went, speaking only of the high priests; the precise manner of the approach was not important, but it is plain that Judas went to the enemies of Jesus.
15. Matthew alone has the question, “What will you give me, and I28 will betray him to you?” He is clear that Judas was looking for money in return for handing Jesus over29 to his enemies. This initial request for money we find in Matthew only, as also the fact that the amount the high priests paid Judas was thirty silver pieces. Mark and Luke both say that when the high priests heard that Judas was willing to betray Jesus, they were glad and promised him money. But whoever raised the question of payment first, it is clear that the betrayal and its price were agreed upon. What is a trifle more difficult is when the money was paid. Matthew appears to say that it was paid then and there, Mark and Luke only that the amount was agreed. It was certainly paid early, for Judas had it shortly after the arrest, when he hurled it into the holy place (27:3–5). But since neither Mark nor Luke indicates when the money was paid, there is no real reason for doubting Matthew. At the same time we should notice that his verb does not necessarily mean that the money was paid then and there; it could mean that they set the price, or that the amount was agreed on (though even if we accept the meaning “set,” we could understand this to mean that they set the money down before Judas).30
16. That was the critical moment. Now Judas was committed to betrayal; all that remained was to find the best time for it. From that time indicates that Judas started immediately. He looked is in the imperfect tense (in all three Synoptists) and indicates a continuous search: Judas kept looking. What he sought was an opportunity, a convenient time31 for his task. The money was being paid for the right choice of time and place.
3. The Last Supper, 26:17–30
17Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?” 18And he said, “Go into the city to so-and-so and say to him, ‘The teacher says: My time is near; at your house I am keeping the Passover with my disciples.’ ” 19And the disciples did as Jesus told them, and they prepared the Passover.
20Now when evening came, he reclined with the Twelve. 21And as they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, that one of you will betray me.” 22And they were very sad and began to say to him, each one, “Is it I, Lord?” 23But he answered, saying, “He who dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. 24The Son of man goes just as it stands written about him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed; it would have been better for him if that man had not been born. 25Judas, who was betraying him, said, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He says to him, “You said it.”
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29But I say to you, I will certainly not drink from now on of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.” 30And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Of great importance for the church through the centuries has been the service of Holy Communion. It is observed by practically all Christians, and always has been. The ritual and ceremonial may vary, but all Christians find this service especially solemn and especially significant. In this section of his Gospel Matthew tells us how the service was begun. He locates it in the Passover celebration and describes a very simple rite—the breaking and sharing of bread and the sharing of wine from a single wine cup.
17. The first day of unleavened bread32 presents us with a problem in that all three Synoptists clearly regard this meal as the Passover (vv. 2, 18, 19; Mark 14:1, 12, 14; Luke 22:1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15; Mark and Luke underline this by saying that it was the day on which the Passover was sacrificed), but in John the Last Supper was held before the Passover (John 13:1, 29; 18:28). A number of positions have been advocated to solve this problem.
1. The two accounts are in conflict, and the Synoptists are to be preferred (so Fenton).
2. The two accounts are in conflict, and John is to be preferred (so McNeile).
3. The Last Supper was a Passover meal as in the Synoptists, and John’s account can be reconciled with this (so Carson, France).
4. The Passover was observed as in John, and the Synoptists can be reconciled with this (e.g., Carr).
5. There were different calendars in use; John is giving the story in accordance with the official calendar (the one used in the temple) and the Synoptists in accordance with the calendar Jesus and the disciples were using (Nixon favors this position).
It seems to me that the best solution is the last mentioned. Perhaps I may refer to the discussion of the problems in my The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, 1971, pp. 774–86). There I have cited evidence to show that there is good reason for thinking that different calendars were in use at that time (we know that the men of Qumran used a different calendar from that used by the temple authorities in Jerusalem), and that we pay most respect to the evidence if we hold that Jesus and his disciples were following a calendar that differed from that in use by the temple authorities and that meant that the little band observed the Passover a day earlier than those who ran the temple.33 That will explain the absence of all mention of the lamb or kid (either could be used, Pes. 8:2) from the accounts, though it was the central feature of the normal observance.
The disciples take the initiative by asking Jesus where he wants them to prepare34 for the feast. They imply that Jesus had this in mind and that he knew where they would be enjoying the meal that evening. There would be preparations like arranging for the food to be used at the feast, arranging the tables for the meal, and so on.35 Presumably nothing had been said about the location until now as part of the way Jesus and his little group kept themselves out of the way of the enemies who were trying to arrest him and put him to death. But action had to be taken now.
18. Jesus directed them to go into Jerusalem to a certain man whose name is not given;36 Mark and Luke both tell us that the man would be carrying a water pot (this was distinctive, for a man would normally carry a water skin; women used water pots). Matthew does not say whom he sent, but Mark says that he sent two of the band, and Luke that they were Peter and John. Jesus had evidently made the arrangement and kept it secret so that, for example, Judas would not be able to betray him prematurely. He would go to his death, but it would be in his chosen time, not when Judas chose to hand him over to his enemies. They were to follow the man and say to the householder: “My time37 is near,” words that occur only in this Gospel. They are to go on, “at your house I am keeping38 the Passover with my disciples.” The Passover was normally a family meal, but these Galileans would have been a long way from their families and it made sense for them to make up a company for their Passover.
19. The disciples did as Jesus had told them.39 We are given no details, but what had to be done they did. They made things ready for the feast.
20. Evidently Jesus remained where he was, away from the city, until the time for the feast in the evening. When that time came he went to the house where the preparations had been made, and Matthew tells us that he reclined with the Twelve. In Old Testament times people seem to have sat down for their meals (e.g., Judg. 19:6), but by New Testament times they had adopted the Greco-Roman habit of reclining. They would lean on the left elbow with the head toward the table and the feet away from it; the right hand was free to take the food. They used triclinia, couches for three. The tables were arranged in a U shape, with the principal couch at the junction of the two arms. In this case Jesus was in the place of the host, namely in the center of the triclinium at the head.
21. It may well be that the group talked about a number of things, but Matthew begins with Jesus’ announcement of his betrayal. This was not right at the beginning, for it took place as they were eating, and the meal would have been preceded with the saying of a blessing. But Matthew passes over all that took place until the time when Jesus made his startling announcement. He prefaced it with the solemn “Truly I tell you” (see on 5:18); what he was about to say was important, and he did not want any of them to miss it. He went on, “one of you will betray me.” The betrayal in one sense was past; Judas had made his arrangement with the high priests. But Jesus is pointing out that his actually being handed over to his enemies was future. It must have come as something of a shock to Judas to hear these words, but since Jesus did not denounce him he was still safe and could go ahead with what he had planned.
22. Not surprisingly the disciples were very sad40 at this piece of information. What is more surprising is that this started them off asking, “Is it I, Lord?” We might have expected them to look around the table and wonder which of the others would do this dastardly thing, but instead they all looked at themselves, wondering, “Will I do this?” Perhaps they were thinking of some involuntary act of betrayal. At the same time we should notice that their question is put in a form that expects a negative answer: “Surely, not me?”41 It is clear that Jesus’ statement was shattering; nobody had expected that there would be treachery in this tightly knit little group. Specifically Judas seems to have covered his tracks pretty well. “When our Lord said, ‘One of you shall betray Me,’ no one said, ‘Is it Judas?’ ” (Ryle).
23. Jesus gives a hint. The guilty person is one “who dips his hand in the dish with me.” But this surely means no more than that it is one of the present company. The custom was to put food in a large dish within reach of all, and not in individual plates as with us. With a company of thirteen there would be more than one dish, but Jesus probably does not necessarily mean that his hand would be in the dish at the same time as that of his betrayer, but simply that the betrayer was one of the same dinner party.42 The point of Jesus’ words seems to be that to eat together was an outward sign of friendship. The Psalmist was dreadfully unhappy when the man “who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me” (Ps. 41:9). It was a shocking thing that the enemy, the one who would hand him over to his enemies, came from Jesus’ twelve closest associates.
24. Jesus proceeds to make two things clear: one is that his death has its place in the will of God and thus nothing has been done to him outside the divine purpose, the other that this does not palliate the guilt that rests on the person who is to be his betrayer. For the former point Jesus refers to Scripture. He uses the term “the Son of man,” his favorite way of referring to himself in the discharge of his divine calling, and says that he “goes just as it stands written about him.” His verb may be used of various kinds of departures,43 but here it clearly refers to his death. That death will come about “just as it stands written44 about him.” Jesus does not cite any particular passage, but indicates that his death will be in accordance with prophecies made centuries before. He is making it clear that his death would not take place because he had strong enemies who were weaving a plot from which he could not escape. His death would take place because it was in the will of God, and it would take place in the way that lay before him because that, too, was in the will of God.45 Jesus is sure that the divine purpose was to be worked out in his death just as it had been throughout the days of his life.
Jesus adds a solemn remark about the seriousness of what the betrayer was doing. It would have been “better for him if that man had not46 been born.”47 We are to understand that Judas’s sin was serious. It is true that God used that sin to bring about his own purpose, but that did not make it any the less a sin. Judas was not compelled to betray his Master; that was his own deliberate choice. But having made his choice, he is obliged to suffer the consequences. It is a very serious thing to betray the Son of man.48
25. Matthew adds that Judas joined in the questioning as to who would be the betrayer (a piece of information we find in this Gospel only). He asks the same question as the other disciples, “Surely, not me?” The only difference is that he calls Jesus “Rabbi”49 rather than “Lord” or “Master.” He prefers to address him as a teacher rather than as his Lord. Matthew has not recorded any answer that Jesus gave to the disciples who had asked this question earlier, but he does respond to Judas, “You said it” (you is emphatic). This is a way of expressing an affirmative. Jesus is saying in effect, “It is just as you have said.” Jesus did not take the initiative in accusing him, but when Judas put it that way he could only agree. In view of the way Judas framed his question (looking for a negative answer) he must have been somewhat surprised at Jesus’ reply. We should probably understand that it was the fact that Jesus made Judas aware of the fact that he knew him for a traitor that precipitated the events leading to the crucifixion. We have already seen that the authorities wanted to wait until the feast was over (v. 5); with Judas on their side as their secret ally they would then be able to arrest Jesus quietly and put him to death at their leisure. But now Judas knew that he was exposed. He had to act quickly if he was going to betray Jesus at all.
26. Holy Communion has occupied a large place in the life of the church, and often it has become the vehicle for very elaborate ceremonial. But in origin it was a very simple observance, though a very solemn one, as Matthew makes clear. His account is often said to be “more liturgical” than the others, or we meet with comments like “The original Words of Institution have been somewhat expanded in liturgical use” (Schweizer, p. 490). But the fact is that we have no knowledge of any Christian liturgies as early as this writing. There may have been some. Or the first Christians may have preferred to use extempore worship. We simply do not know. That it took worship seriously is clear, but the way it conducted its worship and the forms it used are not. Confident assertions about liturgical forms are out of place.50
Matthew tells us that the service we know as Holy Communion began as they were eating, which means that Jesus began it in the context of a meal, not as a separate piece of religious ceremonial.51 He took bread, not any special bread, but the bread they were using for the meal. It is uncertain whether they would have been using leavened or unleavened bread, but it is clear that in the service of Holy Communion the Eastern Church has always used leavened bread, and this was the case in the West also until getting on toward A.D. 1,000 (the earliest example of unleavened bread cited in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is in Alcuin, A.D. 798). Jesus “gave thanks” over it (REB reads “having said the blessing”).52 He would, of course, have broken bread and given thanks at the beginning of the meal, but he was now starting something new and it was appropriate that this new observance be marked off with a new beginning, a special thanksgiving. Then he broke it, a not uncommon action when a prayer is said over bread that is to be eaten, but this was done when people were commencing their meal. That Jesus performed the action when the meal was well underway marked it off as an unusual and significant action. Since Jesus is about to speak of this bread in terms of his body and since that body was about to be broken on the cross, there is a special suitability about breaking the bread in this observance. He proceeded to give it to the disciples; they were all meant to eat some of the bread.
Jesus told them to eat (Matthew is the only Evangelist to record this command; Mark has “take,” which may imply eating), and went on to some words that have caused endless controversy: “this53 is my body,” words that are identical in all three Synoptists. We should perhaps notice that the bread was one of the three things to be explained at the Passover celebration (the other two were “Passover” and “bitter herbs,” Pes. 10:5), so that some words about bread would be natural in the context. These words have sometimes been made the basis for some “realistic” views of the presence of Jesus in the bread; indeed, the consecrated bread has been regarded as in some sense the body of Jesus.54 It is difficult to know how this could have been understood at this first service, for the body of Jesus was there, before the disciples. The meaning of the words seems to be given by Paul, “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). Jesus is certainly saying something about his death and about his broken body, but there is no warrant for saying that the bread is that body in any realist sense. That it proclaims the Lord’s death is clear, and we may certainly say that sacramentally it enables believers to partake of all that that death means, to feed on him “in their hearts by faith with thanksgiving,” as the Book of Common Prayer puts it. We should not miss the point that Jesus commanded his followers to perform actions that brought before them his death, not anything in his life.55
27–28. There are similar words about the wine. Jesus took a cup, and though Matthew does not mention the contents specifically (but cf. v. 29), the meaning is a cup containing wine.56 He “gave thanks”57 over the cup and said to those present, “Drink from it, all of you”; once again it is only Matthew who records the command. He tells us, too, that Jesus went on to say, “this is my blood of the covenant,58 which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” The same should be said about realistic understanding of the wine as of the bread. Jesus is certainly calling on his followers to drink the wine reverently, and he is saying explicitly that it points them to the meaning of his death. It is thus to be received solemnly and thankfully, but not as though Jesus were somehow physically identified with it. He speaks of his blood as “my blood of the covenant,”59 which takes up a thought that is important throughout the Old Testament; indeed, those writings might well be called those of “the Old Covenant,” for the covenant God made with Israel was central. Everything centered on that.
In the making of that covenant, blood was thrown on the people (Exod. 24:8), a most uncommon procedure. Indeed, blood was put on people in only two other places in the whole Old Testament, the consecration of the priests (Lev. 8:22–24) and the cleansing of the leper (Lev. 14:14, 25). In both it seems that the action signifies cleansing from earlier defilement and consecration to a new life of service to God. Again, God could say to his servant, “I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations” (Isa. 42:6), and Zechariah can report God as speaking of “the blood of my covenant with you” (Zech. 9:11). All this indicates that the covenant with God was central to Old Testament religion; it dominated the relationship of Israel to Israel’s God. But the tragedy is that Israel did not keep the covenant; it persisted in the ways of sin and thus forfeited the blessing. So the prophet Jeremiah looked forward to the time when God would make “a new covenant” (Jer. 31:31). That is important for an understanding of Jesus’ words here.
When Jesus spoke of his blood as blood “of the covenant,” he was surely claiming that, at the cost of his death, he was about to inaugurate the new covenant of which the prophet had spoken. This was a big claim. Jesus was saying that his death would be central to the relationship between God and the people of God. It would be the means of cleansing from past sins and consecrating to a new life of service to God. It would be the establishing of the covenant that was based not on people’s keeping it (Exod. 24:3, 7), but on God’s forgiveness (Jer. 31:34).
Jesus goes on to speak of his blood as poured out, which is a vivid way of referring to his death. His time on earth is drawing to a close, and he is facing a violent death. But this death, he says, is for many, which means that it is a vicarious death.60 It is also for the forgiveness of sins (cf. 1:21; 20:28). This is central to the covenant he was about to inaugurate. Jesus had taught people a good deal about the way they should live their lives in the service of God, but he had also spoken of their need for divine help and forgiveness. Now he makes it clear that that forgiveness would be brought about by his death.61 Neither Matthew nor Mark nor Luke has the command to continue the observance, but Paul has it (1 Cor. 11:23–26), and this is supported by the practice of the church from the earliest times.
29. But has some adversative force: the death of which Jesus has been speaking will inaugurate a whole new religious world. One of the significant things about that world is that the kind of table fellowship Jesus had enjoyed with his disciples is coming to an end. Never again in this life would Jesus drink with them at table, for he was about to go to his death. His “But I say to you” is like the “Truly I say to you” that we have met so often, though it lacks the “Truly.” We should, however, understand it as putting some emphasis on the words that follow; they form a significant statement. His use of the emphatic double negative (certainly not) rules out entirely any possibility of the drinking of which he speaks, while from now on marks the present moment as a critical divide. The disciples did not know it, but they were at a decisive moment; things would never be the same for them. Jesus speaks of “this fruit62 of the vine,” which clearly means “wine,” and says that he will not drink it any more until he drinks it “with you” (a little touch found only in Matthew) “new in the kingdom of my Father.” Mark shares with him the word new, but Luke speaks only of the kingdom. Jesus is looking forward to the end of this world system and the setting up of the perfect kingdom of God. Then, and not till then, he will have table fellowship with the little group. The words mark a solemn farewell to the familiar intercourse they had been having during the time of Jesus’ ministry here on earth, but also are a sure indication that at some unspecified time in the future that fellowship will be renewed.
30. The meal concluded with the singing of a hymn. It was the custom at Passover to use Psalms 113–118, which were called the “Hallel,” and it is not improbable that Jesus and his little band sang one or more of those Psalms on this occasion. Psalms 115–118 seem to have been sung at the end of the meal.63 It would form a fitting conclusion to their meal together. Then they went to the Mount of Olives. This was to the east of Jerusalem; somewhere on its slopes lay the village of Bethphage. It was a requirement that people who came up to Jerusalem to observe the Passover must stay within the city limits throughout that night, and Bethphage was regarded as the outermost limit of Jerusalem. This may be why Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, though none of the Gospels tells us specifically that this was the reason.
C. Jesus Brought to Trial, 26:31–27:26
There are some very difficult problems attaching to the way Jesus was tried and executed. There were two jurisdictions, the Roman and the Jewish, and both had their part to play. The problem was that it was the Jews (or some of them) who wanted Jesus executed and it was the Romans who had the power to do this. The Jews had to determine in legal fashion that Jesus ought to die and then find some way of convincing the Romans to carry out the death sentence. We will look at the problems involved a little later. But here as we consider the general subject of “Jesus brought to trial,” we should bear in mind the complexity of the situation. Matthew is concerned with both Jews and Romans and, more importantly, with the fact that God was working his purpose out through the actions of both good men and bad. This part of our story begins with what happened in the garden of Gethsemane.
1. Jesus in Gethsemane, 26:31–46
31Then Jesus says to them, “You will all be brought down because of me this night, for it stands written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ 32But after I have been raised I will go before you into Galilee.” 33But Peter answered and said to him, “Though all will be brought down because of you, I will never be brought down.” 34Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, in this night, before a rooster crows, three times you will deny me.” 35Peter says to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will certainly never deny you.” And all the disciples said likewise.
36Then Jesus goes with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he says to the disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37And taking Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and distressed. 38Then he says to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, to the point of death. Stay here and watch with me.” 39And he went on a little and fell face downward, praying and saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me; nevertheless not as I will but as you will.” 40And he comes to the disciples and finds them sleeping, and says to Peter, “So you did not have strength to watch with me for one hour? 41Watch and pray lest you enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 42Again, a second time he went away and prayed, saying, “My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” 43And he came again and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. 44And he left them again, and went away, and prayed the third time, saying again the same words. 45Then he comes to the disciples and says to them, “Sleep on now and take your rest! Look, the hour has come and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46Get up, let us go. Look, he who betrays me is close.”
Matthew brings out something of the poignancy of what was happening in a little passage that brings out clearly both the fact that Jesus knew what was about to happen and the incomprehension of the apostles. At this time they were sure they would never fail Jesus, and they affirmed this in strong terms. But in Gethsemane immediately afterward they failed him. Clearly in this trying hour Jesus looked for his closest followers to support him in their prayers, but found them wanting. Instead of watching with him and praying, they fell asleep. Jesus was left to bear the strain and the suspense alone.
31. Jesus was not taken by surprise by the happenings of that night, though the disciples were apparently quite unaware that anything out of the ordinary was happening. But before they had any inkling that there was trouble ahead, Jesus gave them a warning. Indeed, it was more than a warning; it was a prophecy that they would be found wanting, and that very soon. It would take place this night (Mark has the same prophecy, but only Matthew has this night, which brings it into their immediate future). It is not easy to find an adequate translation for the verb I have rendered brought down.64 Some translations have “fall away” (NIV); others, “lose faith” (REB, JB); and still others, “take offence at me” (Cassirer). But Jesus is not saying that they will really fall away or abandon faith in him. He is indicating that they will have a grievous lapse, even though it will be a lapse out of character. They will fail him (only Matthew sheets this home with because of me here and “because of you” in v. 33). But that does not mean that they will cease to be disciples or that they will no longer trust him or for that matter that they will be offended at him (cf. Lenski, “The disciples took no offence because of Jesus. … They were simply caught [trapped] and overwhelmed by what happened to Jesus,” p. 1034). Out of fear they will run away.
Jesus sees this as a fulfilment of Scripture (with the perfect tense again indicating something written a long time ago, but of continuing force). He cites Zechariah 13:765 to bring out the point that the striking of the shepherd means trouble for the sheep. The disciples will be in no great physical danger, and their flight will deliver them from whatever danger there will be. But Jesus himself will be “struck,” and the effect of that will be the scattering of his little band. This is written in Scripture, so it must be fulfilled. But there is comfort in that thought, too, for it makes clear that what will happen will be in fulfilment of the divine purpose.
32. Jesus goes on to refer to his resurrection, which must have seemed puzzling to the disciples, for he had not spoken of his death (only that someone would strike him). As is usual, he does not say that he will rise, but that he will be raised. Occasionally the New Testament says that Jesus rose from the dead, but it is much more usual to have it said that the Father raised him, and this passage is in keeping with that thought. Then, Jesus says, he will “go before you into Galilee.” Most of the resurrection appearances took place in or near Jerusalem. But Matthew insists on Galilee. He has the angel instruct the women to tell his disciples to go into Galilee (28:7), informs his readers that Jesus told them the same thing (28:10), and goes on to recount an appearance there (28:16–17). So here he records Jesus’ prophecy that he would see his followers in that region. The figure of the Palestinian shepherd who would go before his sheep while they followed him (cf. John 10:4) is thus very appropriate here. The Good Shepherd will die, and his sheep will be scattered, but in due course he will lead them again, though we should not press the word to mean that he will actually walk at their head to Galilee. The meaning is that he will be in Galilee before them, but the word Jesus uses evokes thoughts of the care of the shepherd for his flock. It is not without its interest that in the subsequent discussion the disciples ignore this saying. They are so taken up by the words about trouble that they overlook those about reassurance.
33. Characteristically it is Peter who responds to Jesus’ words, and equally characteristically it is he who boasts that whatever be the case with others, he will not fail his Lord; Jesus could rely on him. He uses Jesus’ verb, allowing indeed that all might well be brought down on account of their allegiance to Jesus,66 but affirming stoutly that he “will never67 be brought down.” Since he did not know what he would be called upon to go through, it was a thoughtless and foolish boast, but it reflects the deep-seated loyalty in the heart of this disciple and his determination at the time he spoke to be faithful, whatever the circumstances.
34. But Jesus was not deceived. He repeated his warning, this time making it personal to Peter and detailing the exact manner in which his disciple would come short. “Truly I tell you” is the solemn introduction, emphasizing the truth and the importance of the words that follow, which we have seen so often in this Gospel (see on 5:18). Peter is warned that Jesus is about to utter an important saying, one to which he will do well to give good heed. In this night locates the coming offense with exactitude: Jesus is not speaking of something that might (or might not) occur in the distant future. This is made a little more definite with before a rooster68 crows (all four Gospels have the prophecy about the rooster, Mark in the form “before a rooster crows twice”). The day was, of course, regarded as beginning at sunset, so that the crowing of the rooster would occur during the day in which Jesus was speaking. The ancients took a lot of notice of the crowing of the cock, and indeed the third of the four watches into which the Romans divided the night was called “cockcrow.” Here it will be the actual crowing of a rooster that is meant, not the third watch. Before cockcrow, then, Jesus says to Peter, “three times you will deny me” (or “disown me,” as NIV, REB, MM, etc.).69
35. This prediction evokes a strong contradiction from the leader of the disciples. He does not know what the situation of which Jesus is speaking will be, but he postulates the worst possible scenario: “Even if I must70 die with you.” As it turned out, with soldiers coming to arrest Jesus later in the night, that is what the situation must have appeared to be, and Peter was found wanting. But at this moment his strong loyalty to Jesus made him incredulous. He is emphatic: “I will certainly never71 deny you.” Peter did not know the depths of which he was capable and saw it as unthinkable that he should ever deny Jesus. And in this he was not alone. We think of Peter’s denial because he was the outstanding leader in the Twelve and because he was so vehement in his affirmation that he would never do any such thing. But he was not alone in this. All the disciples said likewise, so apparently their affirmations of loyalty were just as firm and their subsequent falls just as great. Matthew is making the point that all the disciples said that they would not deny Jesus, and later he will tell us that all of them did. He is bringing out the facts that Jesus’ closest followers all made protestations of loyalty, but that when the testing time came all were found wanting. Throughout his ordeal Jesus was alone.
36. Another Then (for this term, so frequent in Matthew, see on 2:7) moves us on to the next stage in the narrative.72 We do not know exactly where the little band was during the affirmations in the previous paragraph, but it was somewhere on the Mount of Olives (v. 30). Now Matthew states that they went to a place73 called Gethsemane74 (only Matthew and Mark have the name). A traditional site is pointed out on the Mount of Olives, and it may be correct, but certainty is impossible. Evidently the place was one that Jesus and the Twelve frequented (cf. John 18:2; Bonnard thinks that it may have belonged to a disciple or a friend of Jesus), for Judas was able to lead the soldiers there in due course.
Jesus had not come to this quiet spot in order to engage in some light conversation. This was to be his last period of freedom in his life here on earth, and he was facing rejection and an agonizing death. So he told the disciples to sit where they were, “while75 I go over there and pray.” The important thing is that he saw the need for quiet prayer, time alone with his Father, before the terrible ordeal he was facing.
37. But Jesus did not immediately separate himself from the whole band. He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee with him (Matthew has this way of referring to James and John in 20:20; 27:56). In view of what lay ahead of him it is not surprising that Jesus should be sorrowful and distressed (Mark also has this piece of information, but it is not in the other Gospels). It is not clear how this was expressed, but Matthew makes it clear that Jesus was deeply stirred at the prospect of what lay before him.76 Cassirer translates, “a feeling of great distress and desolation began to fill his mind.”
38. Jesus’ deep anguish comes out in the further words spoken to Peter and the sons of Zebedee. In words reminiscent of Psalm 42:6, 11; 43:5 Jesus speaks of his soul77 as very sorrowful; the addition to the point of death indicates that this is no normal perturbation, but something that goes very deep (cf. Jonah 4:9; Rieu, “My heart is heavy to the point of death”; REB, “my heart is ready to break with grief”). It is “anguish that threatens life itself” (Hill). Matthew does not leave his readers to think that Jesus was troubled in the same way as we all are from time to time. In Gethsemane he underwent a most unusual sense of being troubled that we must feel is connected not only with the fact that he would die, but that he would die the kind of death he faced, a death for sinners. Jesus was a brave man, and lesser people by far, including many who have owed their inspiration to him, have faced death calmly. It is impossible to hold that it was the fact of death that moved Jesus so deeply. Rather, it was the kind of death that he would die that brought the anguish. In due course Matthew will record the cry from the cross that says the Father had forsaken Jesus at the point of death (27:46; Paul says, “him who knew no sin he made sin for us,” 2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus would be one with sinners in his death, he would experience the death that is due to sinners, and it seems that it was this that brought about the tremendous disturbance of spirit that Matthew records.
In his anguish Jesus calls on the three: “Stay here and watch with me.”78 Mark has the same verb watch, but only Matthew has the words with me, Jesus’ appeal to the three to share with him in this difficult time. Clearly he wanted to feel their fellowship with him in the great crisis that was so near. It is perhaps a little puzzling that he went on a little as he prayed, but perhaps Matthew wants us to understand that the three were near enough to provide company and support while Jesus prayed a prayer that only he could pray. There is a sense in which he had to be alone in prayer, for only he could pray the prayer he prayed. But there is also a sense in which he could have been encouraged by the support of his closest followers nearby. He does not ask them to pray, but to watch.
39. Jesus went on a little (Luke tells us that he went “about a stone’s throw” away). He fell face downward,79 an expression that means that Jesus adopted the lowliest posture for this very significant prayer. He began with the warm and tender approach, “My Father” (cf. “Our Father,” 6:9); even in this time when it would seem that he was abandoned to ignominy and death Jesus knew that his Father was near (see on 5:16 for the importance of “Father” in this Gospel). Only in Matthew, and only here, do we find the address “My Father” (Mark has the Aramaic form “Abba,” which has much the same meaning; Luke has simply “Father”); it mattered to this Evangelist that in this critical moment Jesus’ warm relationship to the Father was clear. If it is possible precedes the substance of the prayer and makes clear that Jesus was not pressing for anything that was against the will of the Father. The question at issue was not whether Jesus should do the Father’s will, but whether that necessarily included the way of the cross. The kind of death he faced was the kind of ordeal from which human nature naturally shrinks; thus we discern here the natural human desire to avoid it. But we discern also Jesus’ firm determination that the Father’s will be done. So he prays for the avoidance of the death he faced, but only if that accorded with the divine plan.
The petition is “let this cup pass away from me.” In the Old Testament the “cup” has associations of suffering and of the wrath of God (e.g., Ps. 11:6; Isa. 51:17; Ezek. 23:33), and we should observe the same kind of symbolism here (GNB reads “this cup of suffering”).80 Jesus’ death meant suffering, and because it was a death for sin, there are associations of the wrath of God connected to it. We are not to think of Jesus facing death with the passionate longing for martyrdom that has characterized fanatics throughout history. The death he faced was a horrible death, and he experienced the natural human shrinking from undergoing such an ordeal. So he prayed that if it were possible it might be avoided.
But the final petition of the prayer rests in the will of God. Jesus is not seeking to impose his will on the Father (“not as I will”), but to accept the will of the Father (“but as you do”). Throughout his whole life he had sought only to do the will of the Father. Before he was born it was said, “you will call his name Jesus; for he will save his people from their sins” (1:21), and throughout his life he had steadfastly moved toward the accomplishment of the divine will. As he now faces the climax of it all, he insists that it is the will of the Father that is his chief concern.
40. Jesus returns to the disciples, an expression that is broad enough to include the entire eleven, but that here seems to refer to the three who were closest to him. It is one of the saddest things in the Gospel accounts that in this critical time, when Jesus was so disturbed in the face of the ordeal that confronted him, and when he had appealed to the three who were closest to him on earth to watch with him, they were so far from understanding the situation that they went to sleep. But Jesus did not upbraid them. He addressed Peter (though the plural verbs show that the words are meant for all of them) with a question that hints at something of an excuse for them. “So,” Jesus says, “you did not have strength to watch with me for one hour?” (in the next verse we notice his comment on their willingness of spirit). The first verb is one that is often used of physical strength (e.g., Luke 16:3), and perhaps Jesus is pointing to the physical weakness of his closest followers. They had professed their loyalty and their readiness even to die for Jesus (v. 35). But when the first test came, they were tired and lacked the strength to watch with Jesus even for one hour. This last expression is sometimes used to denote a short interval of time, but it may also signify that Jesus had been praying for an hour. The situation was serious, and prayer for an hour is by no means impossible.
41. Despite all the excuses that might be made for them, Jesus goes on to exhort the sleepers to keep awake and to pray. “Watch” is the same verb as Jesus used in verse 38; they had failed to obey, but it is important and he renews the command. This time he adds, “and pray,” for they need the help that only God can give; prayer recognizes the limitations of the human frame and seeks divine assistance. Both verbs are in the present imperative, which points to continuing action. Jesus urges them to pray so that81 they may not be led into temptation, or, as JB and others understand it, “not to be put to the test.”82 Jesus may be saying that they should pray so that they may not be brought into temptation like the one to which they had just succumbed, or he may be pointing to some sharp test that might arise in the future and urging them to pray that they might not have to face it.83 The former view seems better. And it accords with the following expression, as Jesus goes on to say, “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” That will have reference to the current situation. Jesus recognizes that the disciples wanted to do as he had asked, but that they were not strong enough. Their physical bodies let them down. It has well been remarked that just at the time when Jesus was showing the victory of spirit over flesh, the disciples were manifesting the victory of flesh over spirit. But Jesus’ words will also have relevance to what his followers would face in the future. Because of the frailty of human nature there is the constant need for prayer. A willing spirit is not enough; it must be supplemented by prevailing prayer.
42. Jesus resumed his prayers. Matthew brings out the fact that this was the continuation of what he had been doing previously, with his again backed up with a second time. As on the first occasion he addresses God with the familiar “My Father,” but there is a small advance in the content of the prayer. Whereas previously Jesus had prayed, “if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me,” now he says, “if this cannot pass away unless I drink it.” There is the recognition that the drinking of “this cup” is indeed the Father’s will.84 In the former prayer there is a reference to the will of Jesus, but not in this one. The writer to the Hebrews says that the Son “learned obedience from the things he suffered” (Heb. 5:8); perhaps we see here something of what that means. “May your will be done” is a further submission to the will of the Father (and a further reminiscence of the Lord’s Prayer, 6:10). That is what Jesus had come to do, and he would do it even though at this moment he was vividly conscious of what it would mean.
43. Matthew says that Jesus came again, which appears to mean that he came back to where the three were supposed to be watching and praying (v. 41). But as before, they were asleep, and Matthew explains that this was because their eyes were heavy.85 He does not record any conversation, and perhaps no words were spoken. Mark says that they did not know what to answer Jesus, which may mean that there was conversation that Matthew has not recorded, or perhaps that they did not reply to a reproachful glance from Jesus. But Matthew does not bother even to mention that Jesus woke them.
44. Once more Jesus left them and went away to pray. Matthew tells us two things: Jesus prayed the third time, and he used the same words. Matthew is the only Evangelist to tell us that Jesus prayed the third time, although Mark probably implies this when, after recording that Jesus found the disciples sleeping on the second occasion, he immediately adds, “he comes the third time” (Mark 14:41). On the second occasion Jesus had expressed submission to the Father’s will, and this is reaffirmed with his third time of praying.
45. For the third and final time Jesus comes back to the disciples. Matthew does not say explicitly that they were asleep again, but that seems to be the situation, for Jesus says to them, “Sleep on now and take your rest!”86 This is surely a gently ironical comment on their continuing sleepiness.87 They had persisted in sleeping when they should have been praying. But this is not a way of encouraging them to be wakeful and prayerful. The time for prayer is past, and Jesus says, “Look, the hour has come.” He does not define the hour, but clearly it is the decisive hour, the hour when the action that meant the salvation of sinners throughout the world would have its beginning. He lets them see something of what that means with “the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.” Ten times in this chapter Matthew uses this verb “betray” (Mark in the equivalent chapter has it 7 times, and Luke 5 times); he will not let his readers overlook the dreadful fact of treachery among the followers of Jesus. And he characterizes the Jewish leaders, high priests, and other leaders of the people as sinners.88 Jesus would go to his death in accordance with the will of his Father, but that excuses neither his follower who handed him over, nor the religious leaders who bought his arrest.
46. “Get up, let us go” is not a call to run away. Jesus had fought the battle as he spent the time of waiting in fervent prayer. Now events would take their course. He is telling the disciples that their time for sleep is over; he (and they) would move on. He explains, “Look” (for this frequent term in Matthew see the note on 1:20), “he who betrays me is close.” Matthew does not explain how Jesus knew this, but he had made it clear that Jesus knew that he was being betrayed, and presumably the arresting posse was making some noise as they approached in the darkness. Jesus had no difficulty in interpreting the sound.
2. Jesus Arrested, 26:47–56
47And while he was still speaking, look, Judas, one of the Twelve, came, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs from the high priests and elders of the people. 48Now he who betrayed him had given them a sign, saying, “Whomever I shall kiss is he; lay hold on him.” 49And he went up to Jesus straightaway and said, “Greetings, Rabbi,” and he kissed him tenderly. 50But Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you are here for.” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and held him fast. 51And look, one of those with Jesus stretched out his hand, drew his sword, and hit the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52Then Jesus says to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53Or do you think that I cannot petition my Father, and he would provide me now with more than twelve legions of angels? 54How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that it must be thus?” 55In that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “As against a robber did you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me? Daily I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not take hold of me. 56But all this has happened so that the Scriptures should be fulfilled.” Then the disciples all left him and ran away.
Matthew proceeds to the story of the arrest. He lets his readers see that Jesus is clearly in command of the situation: he has already told the disciples what is happening; now he proceeds to rebuke first Judas, then the disciple who used his sword to strike the high priest’s slave, and then the crowds who had come to arrest him. This is not the behavior of some terrified fugitive but of a lordly person, serene in his doing of the will of God.
47. All three Synoptists tell us that Judas and those he was guiding to the spot came up while Jesus was still speaking, and all three remind their readers that he was one of the Twelve, a fact that emphasizes the enormity of his offense. This was not some member of the general public who happened to know Gethsemane, but one of Jesus’ chosen band.89 It is noteworthy that not one of the Evangelists attempts to blacken his character or use some abusive term of him. They simply tell us what he did and let that suffice. Evidently Jesus had persisted in his praying until the last possible moment and had rejoined the eleven only when the arresting party was close at hand. Mark and Luke also single out Judas, and Mark as well as Matthew says that he came. In using the singular verb and adding that a crowd90 was with him, they put their emphasis on what Judas was doing rather than on the enemy who actually performed the arrest, though they do, of course, go on to the arrest. Only Matthew says that the crowd was a great one. They were armed with swords and clubs, so they were prepared to counter any opposition they might meet. They came from the high priests and elders of the people, which appears to mean that they were official representatives of the Sanhedrin. Though there is mention of a crowd, we are not to think of this as an irresponsible assemblage of people; rather, it is a large group of people sent with the highest authority possible for the Jews. Some of the Jerusalem rabble may well have heard that something was going on and have attached themselves to the official party, but basically the group would have been the temple police.
48. It seems clear that their intention was to arrest Jesus only, and not any of the Twelve, and this posed a problem. Even though there would have been moonlight at Passover, it would have been dark in Gethsemane and the disciples would be there, so how were they going to know which was Jesus? Judas (identified as he who betrayed him; the tenth use of this verb in this chapter) had foreseen this problem and had given them a sign, a means of identifying the man they had come to arrest. He said that he would kiss Jesus (cf. REB, “The one I kiss is your man”). The kiss was a not unusual form of greeting, used, for example, between a host and his guests (Luke 7:45), or between rabbis,91 or between a rabbi and his disciple. It was used by the early Christians (1 Thess. 5:26). There is no information about how widely it was used by Jesus and his disciples, but there is no reason for thinking that they would have suspected anything about it. But it was a greeting of friendship, and to use such a friendly salute in this traitorous fashion has always seemed heinous to Christians. Judas adds, “lay hold on him.” There was no real need for such words; the whole purpose of the expedition was to take Jesus into custody, and there was no doubt that when the temple police were sure which one of those who confronted them was Jesus they would arrest him. But Judas had to be sure. He was now in the camp of the enemy and wanted to be certain that the deed was done. There may also be a fear that Jesus would seek safety in flight. Judas was not to know that Jesus had no such intention, and he was guarding against a possibility he thought not unlikely.
49. So Judas went up to Jesus straightaway. Prompt action would get the whole affair over quickly. He used the normal word for greeting people (cf. Luke 1:28 and the mocking greeting in 27:29), and addressed Jesus as “Rabbi” (as he had done in v. 25, where see note). He also kissed him tenderly (or perhaps “effusively”; should we bear in mind Prov. 27:6?).92 It is possible that we should see more than a greeting here. Moses Aberbach is cited in AB for the information that “in any group of teacher and disciples the disciple was never permitted to greet his teacher first, since this implied equality. Judas’ sign, therefore, was not only a final repudiation of his relationship with Jesus and a signal to the mob, but also a studied insult.”
50. But will have adversative force; it sets Jesus over against the traitor. Jesus greets Judas as “Friend” (for this term see on 20:13); it is a term used in this Gospel with an ironical twist. Judas ought to have been a real friend to Jesus, and he had just kissed him, a friendly act. But in reality he was far from being a real friend, for his kiss was the means of handing his Master over to the enemy. There is a problem relating to Jesus’ next words.93 They may be a question or a statement, but in view of Matthew’s picture of Jesus as master of the situation it seems more likely that Jesus is telling Judas to get on with the job of betrayal and arrest, rather than inquiring why he is there (cf. Moffatt, “My man, do your errand”). At any rate, after his words to Judas the arresting officers came up to Jesus, laid hands on him, and held him fast. Having found their man, they were taking no chances.
51. All four Gospels tell us that there was a brief and ineffectual show of resistance from Jesus’ supporters, with one man wielding his sword and cutting off the ear of one of the arresting party. John alone tells us that it was Peter who used the sword, and he further names the man who was hit as Malchus. Luke joins John in saying that it was the right ear of the high priest’s slave that was cut off, and he also records that Jesus healed the man. Matthew links this with the preceding with his characteristic And look,94 and he goes on to say that the disciple stretched out his hand (NIV has “reached for his sword, drew it out”). But it is not easy to grasp the significance of this.95 That he drew his sword96 is more obvious, after which he hit the slave97 of the high priest and cut off his ear (“an illustration alike of the misunderstanding as to the nature of Jesus’ work and of the futility of the disciples at violence,” Robinson). All four Gospels tell us this. D. Daube argues from the fact that slitting an ear disqualified a man from being a high priest to the thought that here the high priest is being insulted through his slave.98 There may be something in this, but it seems to go against all the probabilities. Peter was not a skilled swordsman, the ear is a very small target, the light must have been poor, there was excitement in the air, and, from Peter’s point of view, an imperative need to deliver his Master and escape. It is much more likely that Peter struck a lusty blow in the general direction of the enemy but managed to inflict only minor damage.
52. Jesus promptly intervened.99 It may well be that this quick action prevented Peter from being arrested. A man who wielded a sword against the officials arresting Jesus was an obvious candidate to be taken into custody along with him. But Jesus called on Peter to put his sword back where it belonged, a command given in other words in John. Then Matthew proceeds to report words of Jesus not found elsewhere. First he says, “all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Peter saw the use of his sword as the way of deliverance from the present trouble, but Jesus viewed it as out of character with all that he stood for. It was, moreover, the means of bringing trouble to the user. Peter was overlooking the fact that people who are hit with a sword have the very nasty practice of retaliating in kind; in the end the user of a sword is apt to finish his days on the end of someone else’s sword. The warlike will perish at the hands of the warlike, and this is a most unfitting end for those who are servants of the Prince of peace. Jesus’ repudiation of force and his acceptance of the way of the cross are important for his followers. It comes naturally to us to seek to impose our will on others. But that is not God’s way. His way is the way of the cross with its repudiation of compulsion and its call for us to trust him.
53. In any case, Peter has overlooked a most important matter. “Do you think…?” introduces a question the apostle might well have asked himself before he acted. He had been with Jesus for quite a long time now; did he really think that his Master was defenseless? In the face of Judas and the arresting posse Jesus had offered up no prayer. Did Peter really think that he could not ask the heavenly Father for help? And if he did seek such help, would it not be given? Jesus says that the Father would then provide him with more than twelve legions of angels — a legion for Jesus himself and one for each of the eleven apostles! Since a legion consisted of 12,000 foot soldiers besides a number of horsemen, twelve legions of any sort of troops would surely be more than adequate to cope with the motley group that confronted the little band, but this number of angels meant people superbly equipped to defeat any puny earthly force. Jesus makes it clear to his servant that if force were needed there were better means of providing it than resorting to the puny efforts of a man who could do no better than slice off a slave’s ear.
54. But there were other considerations than fighting off the enemy. Jesus draws attention to the importance of the fulfilment of Scripture. If the Father were to send an overwhelming force of angels, Judas and the enemy with him would be decisively repelled. But what of the divine purpose? God had caused many things to be written in Scripture that were fulfilled in the life and work of Jesus (Matthew has faithfully chronicled a good number of them), and especially is Scripture to be fulfilled in Jesus’ death. The Master now confronts his hearers with the impossibility of his being given earthly deliverance in such a way that the prophecies in Scripture would not be fulfilled. The purpose of God was in those prophecies, and that purpose would inevitably come to its appointed conclusion. “It must be thus,” Jesus said, where his must is a strong term, allowing of no exception. What was taking place was fulfilling the divine purpose, a purpose that must necessarily come to pass.
55. Jesus has something to say to the crowds as well as to his well-meaning followers. All three Synoptists have the words, “As against a robber did you come out with swords and clubs…?” (the words could be a statement rather than a question). Clearly this impressed the early church. Everybody knew the kind of thing Jesus did. His teaching and his healings were done openly and publicly, and to class him as a robber was ridiculous, even if we understand the term in some such sense as “terrorist” (Josephus uses the term of “brigands” who were put down by the Romans [Ant. 20.160–72]; the word is used of those who were crucified with Jesus, 27:38). Why, then, did this motley group come out furtively in the nighttime to arrest100 him? It was an inexplicable procedure if justice was the prime consideration. He reminds them that he was not unknown. Daily points to a habitual action, the temple to a public and unexceptionable place, and teaching to a lawful and recognized activity. Jesus had not been a difficult person to find. Throughout the days leading up to that feast he had been in plain view and the arresting posse could have taken him at any time. They had not done so because the authorities feared the people, but that is just the point Jesus is making. Those in whose hands he now was were not interested in justice. They wanted simply to get him out of the way and were prepared to stoop to any means to bring that about. “You did not take hold of me,” he says. If they had been honest in what they were doing, they would have proceeded against him publicly. Since a criminal would hide away out of the public gaze, it was fair to arrest such an offender wherever he might be found. But there was something wrong with authorities who treated an honest religious man as though he were nothing more than a brigand.
56. Again Jesus speaks of the importance of the fulfilment of Scripture. He had stressed this to his followers in rejecting the way of force; now he reminds his captors of the same thing. They thought that they were being clever in arranging his arrest in this secluded place away from all but a handful of his followers. But in treating him as a malefactor they were simply doing what the Scripture had long ago foretold. He was “numbered with the transgressors” (Isa. 53:12). Foolish and wicked men can never overthrow the purposes of God.
This was the last straw for the disciples. They must have been staggered by all that was going on. They had evidently had no inkling of the plot that had been laid, they were surprised that Judas led the arresting posse to Jesus, they saw Peter’s unsuccessful attempt at resistance by violence and heard Jesus’ repudiation of it, and now Jesus, instead of doing something miraculous, was reasoning calmly with the people who held him. This was no place for the followers of Jesus, and there appeared to be nothing more they could do, so they all left him and ran away. All is significant; there was not one of his intimate followers who was prepared to suffer alongside his leader. At this time of crisis they simply ran off. They left Jesus to suffer alone.
3. Jesus Tried before Caiaphas, 26:57–68
57Now those who had taken hold of Jesus brought him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. 58But Peter was following him at a distance up to the high priest’s courtyard, and he went inside and sat with the servants to see the end.
59Now the high priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false testimony against Jesus in order to put him to death. 60And they did not find it, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward 61and said, “This fellow said, ‘I can destroy the temple of God and within three days rebuild it.’ ” 62And the high priest stood up and said to him, “Do you answer nothing? What are these men testifying against you?” 63But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I charge you on oath by the living God that you tell us whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” 64Jesus says to him, “You said it. Yet I say to you: Hereafter you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of The Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed. Why do we still have need of witnesses? Look, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66what do you think?” And they answered, saying, “He is worthy of death.” 67Then they spat in his face and struck him; and others slapped him, 68saying, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah. Who is it who hit you?”
None of the Evangelists gives us a full account of the judicial process that led to Jesus’ death. The story is a complicated one, arising as it does out of a situation in which there were conflicting jurisdictions. When the Romans conquered a country they normally allowed much of the local administration to continue. It obviously made things easier all around if people could continue to a large extent with the judicial institutions with which they were familiar. But the Romans had to exercise a certain caution lest their supporters in the conquered nation be removed by a judicious use of the local courts on the part of those opposed to Rome. So, while the Romans allowed the conquered peoples a good deal of latitude, the conquerors kept the death penalty in their own hands and reserved the right to take over any case at any stage they chose.
In the case of Jesus the situation was complicated by the fact that the Jews saw him as guilty of a religious crime (claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of God, and thus being a blasphemer), but the Romans, who alone had the power to impose the death sentence, would not recognize this as a crime. They could be induced to execute Jesus only by a demonstration that he had committed what they recognized as a serious offense—for example, setting himself up as a King in opposition to Caesar. In what follows Matthew shows us how the Jewish authorities came to condemn Jesus according to their own law and then how they brought a charge before the Roman governor that was not their real grievance but that would induce Pilate to crucify Jesus.
The trial of Jesus thus took place in two main stages: that before the Jews and that before the Romans.101 In following it through we have a problem in that none of the Gospels attempts a full account; each of the Evangelists has particular aspects of the story that he wants to bring out and he omits what is not relevant to his purpose. Thus John tells us little about the Jewish section, preferring to concentrate on what happened before the Romans. Luke omits the night session and takes up the story with what happened when it was day (Luke 22:66). Matthew and Mark tell us of activities during the night, when the Sanhedrin examined the case.102 But we can say that it was the aristocratic Jewish party, the high priests and their allies, who took the initiative. Had they been content with a smaller sentence they could have confined themselves to Jewish processes, but they wanted the death sentence that the law did not allow them. There thus had to be two main stages in Jesus’ trial. We come now to the first of them, the trial before the high priests and the Sanhedrin.
There is a further problem in that there were a number of illegalities in the Jewish trial. Thus in capital cases “they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict must also be reached during the daytime. … a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival-day” (Sanh. 4:1). These requirements were not fulfilled. Again, the witnesses do not seem to have been interrogated as the law provided. Further, Jesus was convicted of blasphemy even though he did not actually use the sacred name, and the law required that the name of God be pronounced if there was to be blasphemy (“ ‘The blasphemer’ is not culpable unless he pronounces the Name itself,” Sanh. 7:5). It was required that witnesses be examined carefully (Sanh. 5:1); if it was decided that there was a case, the arguments for acquittal must be considered first (Sanh. 5:4). But two things may be said about all this. One is that our written sources are later than New Testament times, and customs may have altered during the intervening period; rabbinic sources may not accurately reflect the legal position in the New Testament period. The other is that breaches of the law could be covered by the reasoning, “the hour demanded it”; in times of emergency the letter of the law might be overridden in order that the spirit of it might be upheld.103
Of course it is possible that we are mistaken in speaking of a Jewish “trial.” What took place before the high priest and the Sanhedrin may well have been something in the nature of a series of more or less informal discussions. In the end they had to bring charges before the Romans, and they may have been basically concerned with that. Against this view, however, is the fact that the high priest persisted until he could find Jesus guilty of blasphemy and stopped there, whereas this was not a charge that would carry weight with the Romans. In the end we shall probably have to conclude that the evidence is not clear enough for us to be sure whether this was the first stage of a Jewish trial carried out with some irregularities or whether it was no more than a preliminary discussion on the best way of bringing a formal accusation before Pilate. “The Jewish trial” is, however, so usual and convenient an expression that it is best to continue to use it, despite the doubts.
57. Whether it was a formal trial or an informal inquiry, the first step was to bring Jesus before the Jewish authorities, and that was what those who had taken hold104 of Jesus did. Matthew says that they brought him to Caiaphas, the second and last use of this man’s name in this Gospel (see the note on v. 3). This will reflect the fact that it was Caiaphas who was the instigator of Jesus’ arrest. He was the leading Jew in cooperating with the Romans, and there is no reasonable doubt that he was anxious to ensure that Roman rule continued untroubled so that his own position would remain secure. The Jews held that the high priesthood was a lifetime appointment, which meant that Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas and still alive and vigorous, was the legitimate high priest. But the Romans took it upon themselves to depose and appoint high priests, which made for an anomalous situation. Many Jews probably held that Annas was still the legitimate high priest, but with the Romans in effective control of the country there was no way in which he could function. So Caiaphas, the appointee of the Romans, was the high priest in fact if not with full legal right.
Matthew tells us that the scribes and the elders were gathered together. This appears to be a reference to the Sanhedrin, the highest council in the land. It had seventy-one members (Sanh. 1:6), the high priest being its president. In earlier times its membership seems to have been largely aristocratic and Sadducean, but later Pharisaic scribes became members. The elders here points to lay members of the Sanhedrin. Under the Romans the Sanhedrin had a good deal of power and in secular as well as in strictly religious affairs. There were smaller sanhedrins each with twenty-three members, set up in towns with at least 120 adult male Jews (Sanh. 1:6), but the great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was the important one. Trials in capital matters could take place only during daylight hours (Sanh. 4:1) and might not be held on the eves of festivals or sabbaths (ibid.). The Sanhedrin seems to have met somewhere in the temple area, so this gathering in the high priest’s house would have been an informal assembly.
58. There had evidently been no pursuit of the disciples. Peter was thus able to follow the posse that had taken Jesus. It seems that he was motivated by curiosity; why had Jesus been arrested? What would happen now? He apparently was not hindered from entering the high priest’s courtyard,105 where he was able to sit with the servants. Apparently there was no difficulty in doing this, though, as later events made clear, Peter did not think it advisable to be identified with the prisoner. But apparently this did not present him with a problem, at least at the beginning. He was not there to mount a rescue attempt, but only to see the end. He was interested to find out what would be the conclusion to those terrible moments in the garden.
59. How much of what went on Peter was able to make out is not made clear. Presumably it was not much. The deliberations of these great folk would have taken place out of the hearing of people like servants (and others who wandered into the courtyard). Peter clearly did not hope to get information about the way the debate went on, but if he remained where he was he could expect to find out what the final verdict was. Matthew speaks of the whole Sanhedrin, which we should not press to mean that not one member was absent, but rather see as telling us that all the constituent elements of the assembly were represented. When Jesus was arrested and taken before the Sanhedrin, we would expect that that would be for trial, with the evidence pro and con carefully considered. But it turns out that nothing of the sort was in mind. The gathering was there for one purpose only—to find a suitable legal form for putting Jesus to death. Caiaphas and his cronies were not particularly scrupulous about the method, for Matthew says right at the beginning that they were looking for false testimony.106 We should not press this to mean that they wanted only false testimony; true testimony that accorded with their purpose would doubtless have been acceptable. But it apparently did not occur to them to get testimony as to what had actually been said and done. They were not interested in the facts; they were interested in a condemnation. So they looked for the kind of testimony that would enable them to put him to death.107 In Matthew’s view that could only be false testimony, so that is what he calls it.
60. Matthew greatly abbreviates this section of his narrative. He has but 36 words in verses 60–62, whereas Mark has 66 in the corresponding passage; for some reason Matthew hurries over this part of the story as he tells his readers that the kind of testimony the Jewish leaders wanted proved difficult to come by. One would have thought that if the testimony was to be false there would be no great difficulty in persuading someone to present it. There was no lack of readiness to help, for many false witnesses came forward. But the authorities could scarcely say to them, “This is what we want to hear from you.” And not being sure of what was expected, the false witnesses were not able to come up with what the authorities were looking for. Presumably part of the trouble at least lay in getting the agreement among the false witnesses that would stand up in a court of law (two witnesses at least were required, and it is specifically said that no one is to be executed on the testimony of one witness, Deut. 17:6). In the end108 two witnesses were found who were apparently held to be of a different caliber: Matthew does not say that they were “false,” and the high priest called on Jesus to reply to them as he had apparently not done to the earlier witnesses.
61. Their testimony concerned something they held that Jesus had said. They refer to him contemptuously as “This fellow”109 and proceed to affirm that they had heard him say: “I can destroy the temple of God and within110 three days rebuild it.” Mark has the saying in a fuller form, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands and in three days I will build another not made with hands” (Mark 14:58). This appears to be a distorted recollection of a saying found only in John. That Evangelist notes that in the early part of his ministry the Jews asked Jesus for a “sign” that would justify his action in cleansing the temple (John 2:18). He replied, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (v. 19), a saying that would be easy to misunderstand and not too difficult to distort. Our best conjecture is that the false witnesses had heard and misunderstood what Jesus was saying and that they now reproduced it in a garbled form. John explained for his readers that Jesus was speaking, not of the physical temple at Jerusalem, but of “the temple of his body” (v. 21), but it was not the concern of the Sanhedrin at this time to inquire into what Jesus meant by the words; it was enough for them that there were witnesses who could testify that Jesus had spoken words that might be understood as blasphemous. We should also bear in mind that Jesus had said that the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed (23:38; 24:2), though these sayings contain nothing about either his doing anything in the destruction, nor about it being rebuilt. It appears that these witnesses are reporting an imperfect recollection of what Jesus had said some time before.
It is not easy to see why this brought satisfaction to the authorities. They might have regarded it as an outrageous claim, but it is not obvious that it merits the death sentence; since it ends with the temple fully restored it seems harmless enough. Perhaps they held that the words were demeaning to the temple of God and therefore demeaning to God himself. In the ancient world in general it was held to be a very serious matter to treat a place of worship with anything other than respect, even if one did not practice the worship to which it was dedicated. The words point to the kind of flashy and spectacular miracle that Jesus persistently refused to perform. It is quite out of character for Jesus to make such a claim.
62. Jesus apparently did not think this testimony worth refuting, so he said nothing (cf. Ps. 38:12–14; Isa. 53:7). But this did not suit the high priest, who tried to get him to respond. He stood up, which is unusual for the president of any assembly; apparently he wanted these words to be given all the emphasis he could give them. He asked Jesus, “Do you answer nothing?” and proceeded to a further question, “What are these men testifying against you?” Clearly Caiaphas felt that he was making progress with this accusation, and he was nettled that Jesus did not respond. Perhaps he felt that although the two false witnesses had not said anything that in itself justified the death sentence, any response Jesus might make would be bound to make things worse for him, and therefore he tried to goad him into saying something.
63. But the high priest’s urging had no more effect than the original testimony. Presumably Jesus thought that the words were quite irrelevant. At any rate, he remained silent. At one stage or another of his trial each of the four Gospels says that he remained silent. Evidently his silence made quite an impression; the normal thing would be for an accused person to oppose every accusation and assert his innocence. But Jesus’ attitude to this tribunal was different from that of most of those who came before it. He had fought his battle in Gethsemane and had recognized that the will of God was that he should die at the hands of the Romans, die the death that would mean forgiveness of sins to the many. So what did it matter that these men, whom everybody there knew to be lying, made false assertions about what he had said on some earlier occasion? There was nothing to be said; therefore he remained silent.
But this did not suit Caiaphas. He was no further ahead on his quest for a condemnation of Jesus. We owe to Matthew the information that he took the unusual step of putting Jesus on oath111 as he asked him a question on his own initiative. He called on Jesus to swear by the living God, as solemn an oath as could possibly be sworn. And the question he wants Jesus to answer under this solemn oath is “whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” In Mark the question refers to “the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One,” and in Luke simply to “the Messiah.” But the essential meaning in all three ways of putting it is the same. The difficulty is that there were different ways of understanding messiahship, and for that matter being the son of God. Jesus had avoided such terms during his ministry, presumably because they could easily be misunderstood. The high priest wants Jesus to state on oath whether or not he is the Messiah, and he wants it to be clear that the sense in which he is using “Messiah” in the question concerns the Messiah’s relationship to God. The high priest cannot get the condemnation he wants from the words of the witnesses, so he will try to get it from the words of Jesus himself. His you is emphatic and probably indicates some contempt for the prisoner who was before him.
64. The high priest, acting in his official capacity, was asking a question on a religious matter, and that, for Jesus, was a very different matter from that of a group of liars who were trying to malign him. So he responded. His reply begins, “You said it.” It was a difficult question to answer because his understanding of Messiah and that of the high priest were so different. To say either “Yes” or “No” could be misleading. So he says in effect, “That is your word, not mine” (Melinsky, “Yes, but not in the way you mean”). But the effect is, “I would not have put it that way, but since you do I cannot deny it” (cf. Rieu, “The words are yours. This much I add to them …”). “Yet,”112 he goes on, “I say to you” (which puts emphasis on the words that follow), “Hereafter you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of The Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Hereafter may mean “from this point on” or “at a later time”;113 it may signify that a turning point has been reached; the Son of man has lived in obscurity, but after the events now set in train he will return to his heavenly glory. Or it may be used of what is to happen at a good distance from “now,” that is, at a later time. Plummer takes the meaning as “henceforth” and says that it “seems to mean that their condemnation led to His glory; there was not merely sequence, but consequence. He who now stands before their judgment-seat will then be seated on the clouds, invested with Divine Power, and ready to judge them” (p. 379). The trouble with this is that, while within a few days Jesus would have risen from the dead and thus have entered into his glory, neither Caiaphas nor any of his other hearers would at that time see Jesus in glory and coming on the clouds of heaven. To insist that the expression must be taken to mean “from now” overlooks the fact that neither the friends of Jesus nor his enemies could see the change of which he speaks beginning “now.” While seeing the roots of the change in what was to happen immediately, it appears that the complete fulfilment of what Jesus is saying belongs to the future.