8 ἵνα with the subjunctive.

8 ἵνα with the subjunctive.

⁷⁴ χαί adds this group to the preceding: he spoke to these people too.

⁷⁵ χαταράομαι occurs only here in Matthew (in the New Testament it is found in five books but once only in each of them). On the word here Moulton says, “the perfect χατηραμένοι has the full perfect force, ‘having become the subjects of a curse’; and this makes the predicate translation (RVmg ‘under a curse’) decidedly more probable” (‍M, I‍, p. 221).

⁷⁶ Glover remarks, “the wicked know not their evil. They remember some neglect and harshness, but it was only of a Lazarus at their gate. Had they seen the King there, their best had been His. They discover with horror that all their sins against their brethren are reckoned by the Master as against Himself.”

⁷⁷ The verb is διαχονέω, which initially denoted the service of a table waiter but later came to be used of service of many kinds, especially service in a lowly place.

⁷⁸ χόλασις is found again the New Testament only in 1 John 4:18. According to ‍AS‍, Aristotle differentiates the word from τιμωρία “as that which, being disciplinary, has reference to the sufferer,” while τιμωρία, “being penal, has reference to the satisfaction of him who inflicts.” He adds that in late Greek the distinction is not always observed. It would be pressing the word unduly to make a distinction here. It is punishment simply as the consequence of sin that is in mind.

Hamann H. P. Hamann, The Gospel according to Matthew (Adelaide, 1984)

⁷⁹ The adjective is αἰώνιος, “pertaining to an age”; in a context like this the age in question is the age to come, the age that is without end.

¹ See N. A. Dahl, ‍NTS‍, II (1955–56), p. 30.

² See further my New Testament Theology, pp. 132–35. G. Barth sees Matthew’s passion narrative in this way: “For Matthew the Passion of Jesus is not merely the gateway to glory, but the Passion and resurrection are two sides of one event in which Jesus takes the place of sinners and ‘fulfils all righteousness’, brings God’s judgment to victory” (‍TIM‍, p. 147). This scarcely finds a place in J. L. Houlden’s study of the passion and resurrection narratives in Matthew and Mark (Backward into Light [London, 1987]). He says, “I have found myself (there is no denying) awarding prizes to Mark and presenting Matthew as, however understandably, the villain of the piece, inferior and even reprehensible at almost every turn” (p. 66). It is curious that a scholar who can find such riches in Mark should fail to appreciate the greatness of what Matthew has done.

³ τὸ πάσχα. Matthew uses the term 4 times, all in this chapter (vv. 17, 18, and 19).

⁴ παραδίδοται is a present tense used with a future meaning (cf. Moule, ‍IBNTG‍, p. 7; Moule cites Moulton, who notes that “such Futural Presents differ from the Future tense ‘mainly in the tone of assurance which is imparted’ ”).

⁵ The word is αὐλή, which properly denotes a courtyard but which on occasion means the house to which the courtyard is appended. ‍MM‍ finds nothing in the Koine to indicate that the word can mean a house, but here it must denote the residence; such a meeting would not take place in an open courtyard. We could translate “house” (so ‍REB‍), but the high priest would not have lived in the kind of house ordinary people used, so palace is surely the sense of it.

⁶ ‍Barclay‍ points out that in the period 37 B.C.–A.D. 67 there were 28 high priests, so that Caiaphas’s tenure “was an extraordinarily long time for a High Priest to last, and Caiaphas must have brought the technique of co-operating with the Romans to a fine art.” But that meant that he must be careful. “Let there be any rioting and very certainly Caiaphas would lose his position” (II, p. 327).

⁷ συμβουλεύω means “to advise, counsel,” and in the middle “to take counsel.” This is what the group did. Moulton takes the middle as signifying “they counselled one another” (‍M, I‍, p. 157). ‍NIV‍ says that they “plotted,” and ‍JB‍ that they “made plans.”

⁸ ἵνα with the subjunctive.

⁹ δόλῳ; the word could mean “a bait” or “a snare,” but in the New Testament it is used more in the sense of “deceit” or “cunning.” ‍BAGD‍ understands the meaning here as “by cunning or stealth.”

¹⁰ J. Jeremias argues that the expression should be translated, “festal assembly, festal crowd” (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [Oxford, 1955], p. 48). He regards the expression as indicating that the arrest should be made quietly, away from the festal crowds.

¹¹ The word is ἀλάβαστρον, meaning “alabaster” and then what is made of alabaster, “an alabaster flask for ointment, a vessel w. a rather long neck which was broken off when the contents were used; a container for spikenard ointment” (‍BAGD‍). The expensive container would be used only for expensive perfume. Matthew does not say how the perfume was poured out, but Mark tells us that the woman “broke the alabaster flask”; that is, she broke the long neck that was normally a feature of such a flask and that had to be broken to get the unguent out. NEB has “a small bottle,” which ‍REB‍ changes to “a bottle”; both miss the fact that Matthew is speaking of an expensive container.

¹² μύρον means “sweet oil, unguent, perfume” (‍LSJ‍). It has often been translated “ointment,” but this is misleading; we use “ointment” for a solid that is smeared on, whereas μύρον denotes a liquid, something that can be poured. It is clear that the perfume used on this occasion was very valuable.

¹³ John tells us that the perfume was “pistic nard.” The meaning of the adjective is not known for certain, but clearly the expression indicates that this was not a usual perfume to be used for ordinary dinners. It was something special.

¹⁴ The failure of the disciples is a continuing feature of the passion narrative. Here they lack understanding of the beautiful action of anointing; a little later we will read of Judas’s treachery (vv. 14–16), of the “Is it I?” questions (vv. 22 and 25), of Peter’s boastful self-confidence (v. 33), a confidence shared by them all (v. 35), of the failure to watch in Gethsemane (vv. 40–45), of the flight of the disciples (v. 56), and of Peter’s denials (vv. 69–75). It is a sad and sorry story.

¹⁵ ἀγαναχτέω signifies “to be indignant, vexed” (‍AS‍). Bruce comments, “Probably all the disciples disapproved more or less. It was a woman’s act, and they were men. She was a poet and they were somewhat prosaic.”

¹⁶ ‍Robertson‍ points out that verbs of obligation and the like are used in the imperfect when the obligation is not met. “The Greeks (and the Latins) start from the past and state the real possibility or obligation, and the reader, by comparing that with facts, notes that the obligation was not met. The English and the Germans start from the present and find trouble with this past statement of a present duty (an unfulfilled duty)” (p. 886).

¹⁷ From John 12:5 we learn that Judas evaluated the perfume at 300 denarii. Since a denarius was the daily wage of a laborer, this represented the best part of a year’s wages. It was a costly gift.

¹⁸ It is not easy to arrive at a precise English equivalent. χόπος can mean “a beating” or, more generally, “trouble,” while παρέχω means “supply, provide.” Jesus is saying something like “Why are you providing troubles for the lady?”

¹⁹ χαλός means “good” as well as “beautiful”; therefore some interpreters prefer that translation here. But it appears that Jesus is not speaking of the action as morally upright but rather as a beautiful expression of devotion.

²⁰ Many modern translations omit for here and at the beginning of verse 12, and in so doing obscure some of the reasoned argument Jesus is making. There is a reason why he did not conclude that there was an urgent use of the price of the perfume for the poor, and there is a reason why the woman poured the perfume on Jesus.

²¹ ἐνταφιάζω signifies “prepare for burial” or “bury.” It is used of burying in John 19:40, but here it must mean “prepare for burial” (as it does in Gen. 50:2, where it refers to Jacob’s being prepared for burial in Egypt, though he was buried in Canaan). It was customary for unguents and spices to be wrapped around a corpse when it was buried, and Jesus is saying that Mary has done her part while he was still alive.

²² Cf. ‍Lightfoot‍, “She, and she first, believes that Christ should die; and, under that notion, she pours the ointment upon his head” (p. 341). ‍Hendriksen‍ also thinks that this is possible: “The view, accordingly, that Mary’s conscious purpose was to prepare Jesus for burial must not be ruled out” (p. 901). ‍Lenski‍ says, “only on the supposition that Mary knew that she was now anointing the body of Jesus for its burial is the tremendous praise accorded her act by Jesus himself justified” (p. 1010).

²³ Johnson thinks that “many of the common people wished Jesus to take over political control of the nation” and that in this incident “The woman may even have hoped to force Jesus’ hand”; in his opinion the anointing “suggests the hope of a revolt or coup d’état.” But this seems farfetched.

²⁴ μνημόσυνον is connected with the idea of memory; it often signifies a monument by which some great one of the past is remembered. Mary will be remembered not by some stone obelisk, but by this beautiful and loving action.

²⁵ This is Matthew’s first mention of this disciple since he was mentioned in the list of the Twelve. For the meaning of Ἰσχαριώτης see the note on 10:4.

²⁶ Carr thinks that “His worldly hopes fell altogether at the thought of ‘burial.’… The motive that impelled Judas was probably not so much avarice as disappointed worldly ambition.”

²⁷ “ ‘Then’ (τότε) is meant to imply that the anointing led directly to the betrayal” (‍Plummer‍, p. 356).

²⁸ The χαί in χἀγώ is an example of “ ‘Consecutive’ χαί” with the meaning “and so, so” (‍BDF‍ 442[2]). Judas uses the emphatic pronoun for “I,” as if to say, “I, one of his disciples” (and thus well able to betray him).

²⁹ For the verb παραδίδωμι see on 4:12; it can denote a handing over in any one of a variety of ways. Judas is speaking of passing information on to the high-priestly party that would enable them to arrest Jesus in some place of solitude, away from the crowds.

³⁰ The verb is ἵστημι, the meaning of which is “put, place, set” (‍BAGD‍). Most modern translations understand this statement to mean that they put the money down then and there and thus paid Judas: “they counted out for him thirty silver coins” (‍NIV‍); “they weighed him out thirty silver pieces” (‍REB‍). Cassirer, however, renders, “They fixed the price they would pay him.” Whichever way we take it, Matthew seems to be saying that it represented the fulfilment of prophecy (see Zech. 11:12). We should not miss the further point that it was also the price of a slave, the price to be paid when one’s ox gored a slave (Exod. 21:32). Argyle points out that the expression is ambiguous so that either meaning is possible; perhaps we should accept both.

³¹ εὐχαιρία (εὐ + χαιρός) means a “good” or “suitable” time. The wrong time could have provoked a riot with incalculable consequences. The chief priests want it all to be done quietly; a suitable time meant a time when Jesus would be away from his supporting crowds (Luke says this expressly, Luke 22:6).

³² Matthew has the plural τῶν ἀζύμων, but this is another example of the practice of using the plural to denote a feast. The Passover victim was killed on the afternoon of 14th Nisan (Exod. 12:6) and eaten that evening. This was followed immediately by the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which lasted for seven days (Exod. 12:15); but often “the feast of unleavened bread” denoted the Passover plus the seven following days, an eight-day festival. That is the way it is used here.

Fenton J. C. Fenton, The Gospel of St Matthew (Harmondsworth, 1963)

McNeile A. H. McNeile: The Gospel according to St. Matthew (London, 1915)

Carson D. A. Carson, Matthew, in F. E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, 1984)

Carr Cambridge Greek Testament: A. Carr, The Gospel according to St Matthew (Cambridge, 1892)

Nixon R. E. Nixon, Matthew, in D. Guthrie, J. A. Motyer, A. M. Stibbs, and D. J. Wiseman, eds., The New Bible Commentary Revised (London, 1970)

³³ A. Jaubert has made the case for holding that Jesus and the disciples used the same calendar as did the Qumran community (La Date de la Cène [Paris, 1957]). Albright and Mann favor this understanding of the evidence (‍AB‍).

Pes. Pesaḥim

³⁴ ‍Burton, MT‍ cites this as an example of the Deliberative Subjunctive preceded by θέλεις, and he points out that “No conjunction is to be supplied in these cases” (171).

³⁵ For the usual arrangements see ‍SBk‍ IV.1, pp. 41–42.

³⁶ The expression is πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα, the only place in the New Testament where it occurs.

³⁷ χαιρός is often used in much the same sense as χρόνος, but it can signify the appropriate time for anything. Here G. Delling holds that, while the saying would be obscure to the host, “it shows how consciously Jesus grasps and subjects Himself to the χαιρός which is given by God’s will.” He goes on to say that “this resolve to be ready for death, and to die, is taken in accordance with the χαιρός, with the demand of God for decision” (‍TDNT‍, III, p. 460).

³⁸ The verb is ποιῶ, “to do, make.” It is used “of meals or banquets, and of festivities of which a banquet is the principal part” (‍BAGD‍, I.1.b.z). The use of the present for a future action makes it a little more vivid. Turner understands it to mean “I am about to celebrate” (‍M, III‍, p. 63).

³⁹ Matthew uses the verb συντάσσω, which he has again in 21:6 and 27:10; it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means “to prescribe, ordain, arrange” (‍AS‍).

⁴⁰ λυπούμενοι σφόδρα, where the verb carries the meaning “be distressed, and σφόδρα is Matthew’s word for “very much, exceedingly” (he has it in 7 of its 11 New Testament occurrences; nobody else has it more than once). Rieu translates “sick at heart.”

⁴¹ μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι; Chamberlain points out that, while μή is used to introduce a question expecting a negative answer, “For a hesitant question, μήτι may be used”; he cites John 4:29, where the Samaritan woman asks, “Might this be the Messiah?” Of the verse we are discussing and verse 25 he says, “The context must decide the exact emotion that μήτι reveals in the one who asks the question” (pp. 207–8). Translations have renderings like “Surely not I, Lord?” (‍NIV‍), “Surely you do not mean me, Lord?” (‍REB‍).

Ryle J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Matthew (London, 1965)

⁴² Some commentators urge us to take notice of evidence that shows that in the Qumran community there was a hierarchic order in taking food. Albright and Mann note the suggestion of F. C. Fensham that “Judas, by not waiting his turn, deliberately denied the leadership of Jesus in the community, and so—to Jesus—marked himself as being in rebellion” (‍AB‍). But it is difficult to find such hierarchical practices among the Twelve.

⁴³ ὑπάγω used intransitively means “to go slowly away, withdraw oneself, depart” (‍AS‍). Matthew uses it 19 times (a total exceeded in the New Testament only by John with 32), and often of normal departures, as in 5:24; 13:44. It may be used euphemistically of the dead, as it is here (cf. our reference to someone who has died as “the departed”).

⁴⁴ χαθὼς γέγραπται. The perfect is often used in citing Scripture; it points to the fact that what is written there is of continuing force.

⁴⁵ ‍JB‍ renders “the Son of man is going to his fate,” but this is misleading. Jesus is not talking about a blind fate, but about the firm determination of a loving God to bring about salvation, even at cost. Some commentators also miss the point. Thus Kingsbury speaks of the Jewish leaders as bringing about Jesus’ death, and goes on, “Ironically, what also happens is that God turns Jesus’ death to advantage for all humankind, for through his death, Jesus atones for sins …” (‍Story‍, p. 93). But Matthew is not writing about a God who has to wait for evil people to do their worst and who then manages to “turn to advantage” what they have done. The God about whom Matthew writes adumbrated his purpose in the prophets and carried it out in Jesus.

⁴⁶ Normally in conditionals of this kind we would expect the negative to be μή; instead we have οὐ, which makes it somewhat more emphatic.

⁴⁷ Moulton remarks, “We might speak thus of some villain of tragedy, e.g. ‘A good thing if (nearly = that) there never was such a man.’ Transferred as it is to a man who is actually present, the saying gains in poignancy by the absence of the contingent form” (‍M, I‍, p. 200).

⁴⁸ Robinson remarks, people “are responsible for what they have made of themselves. … It is because the act is the natural outcome of his whole nature that the man falls under sentence; it is what Judas is, not what he does, that dooms him. … It is impossible not to feel that Jesus speaks with a certain deep sympathy; in spite of his character and his deed, Jesus loved Judas.”

⁴⁹ In this Gospel Judas is the only one to call Jesus “Rabbi” (he does it again in v. 49). In Mark the address is used a number of times, but the word does not occur in Luke. In John it occurs 8 times, all in addresses to Jesus. In those two Gospels it appears to be an acceptable way of addressing Jesus, but Matthew’s usage is different. Further, he reports Jesus’ direction to his followers not to use the word of one another (23:8).

⁵⁰ For example, when ‍Schweizer‍ says, “Here the change took place under the influence of the Eucharistic celebration, in which the minister distributing the bread and wine stands facing the recipient and addresses him” (pp. 490–91). As early as this was there a person who could be described as “the minister”? Did such a person hand both bread and wine to the individual communicant? Or did one person administer the bread and another the wine? Or were the elements passed from one to another? Were there words spoken at the distribution or was it done in silence? We should not base our exposition on the assumption that we know the answers to such questions.

⁵¹ Fenton sums up in this way: “The separation between body and blood suggests sacrifice, because in the Old Testament sacrifices the blood was separated from the body; and here also Jesus says that his blood is blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Therefore by these words concerning the bread and the wine, Jesus is saying that his coming death will be a sacrifice offered to God, by which a new covenant between God and man will be established.”

⁵² The verb is εὐλογέω, “to speak well of, praise” (cf. Luke 1:64). If it is understood in the sense of “bless,” we should be clear that it does not mean to impart a blessing to the bread (in the New Testament sense how can an inanimate object be “blessed”?). It means to say a prayer beginning, “Blessed art Thou, O Lord,” and going on to the matter for which thanks are given. See the note on 14:19. We should also bear in mind that when Paul is giving an account of the institution of the Holy Communion he uses the verb εὐχαριστέω, which clearly means “give thanks” (1 Cor. 11:24).

⁵³ The neuter τοῦτο is doubtless due to assimilation to σῶμα.

⁵⁴ Hill brings out some of the difficulties involved in the words: “In the Aramaic there would be no copula, though it would be implied. To insert is suggests a relationship of identity which there is no reason to assume, whereas the rendering ‘represents’ may convey only a purely figurative suggestion.” He favors Moffatt’s “Take this, it means my body.”

⁵⁵ Cf. ‍Carson‍, “What is certain is that Jesus bids us commemorate, not his birth, nor his life, nor his miracles, but his death.”

⁵⁶ J. Jeremias draws attention to rabbinic passages that show that on ordinary days bread and water formed the principal items in the diet. Wine was used at festivals (Eucharistic Words, p. 28).

⁵⁷ The verb is εὐχαριστέω (from which we get our word “Eucharist”); it is commonly used in the sense “give thanks” and has much the same sense as εὐλογέω in the previous verse. We should be clear that both words have to do with thanksgiving and that neither means the conveying of a “blessing” to an object.

⁵⁸ χαινῆς is read by A C D K W etc. It is probable that it should not be read. That the reference is to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 is clear from the fact that Jesus goes on to speak of the forgiveness of sins.

⁵⁹ There is a problem in translating διαθήχη, for the word in Greek writings generally means a “last will and testament” whereas in the Greek translation of the Old Testament it is used constantly to render the word for “covenant.” This, of course, raises the question whether we should speak of “the Old Testament” and “the New Testament” or “the Old Covenant” and “the New Covenant.” Ancient Israel was bound to Yahweh by a covenant (Exod. 24; cf. v. 8), and it is one of the key themes throughout the Old Testament. See the chapters on “Covenant” in my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross³ (London and Grand Rapids, 1965) and The Atonement (London and Downers Grove, 1983).

⁶⁰ Matthew has περὶ πολλῶν, where περί is “actually for ὑπέρ” (‍BDF‍ 229[1]). Turner agrees and says that D reads ὑπέρ (‍M, III‍, p. 269). The two prepositions appear to have the same meaning in Ephesians 6:18, 19; cf. also Hebrews 5:1, 3. Meier remarks, “ ‘many’ does not mean some as opposed to all, but rather, according to Semitic usage, the mass of mankind as opposed to the one who is making the sacrifice.”

⁶¹ Jeremias argues that in these words “Jesus speaks of Himself as the paschal lamb,” and further, that “By comparing Himself with the paschal lamb, Jesus describes His death as redemptive” (Eucharistic Words, pp. 145, 146). He also says, “by their eating and drinking the disciples are not only to be given a share in the blessing pronounced by Jesus as the Paterfamilias, but also to receive a share in the redemptive work of the Saviour” (p. 159). Nigel Turner examines Jeremias’s view that Mark (followed by Matthew) reproduces a traditional form of the words of institution older than that which underlies Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 and dismisses the idea (‍JTS‍, n.s. VIII [1957], pp. 108–11).

⁶² The word is γένημα, “fruit,” “produce” (to be distinguished from γέννημα, “offspring”). It is used in the Markan and Lucan parallels to this saying and again in the New Testament only in Luke 12:18; 2 Corinthians 9:10. Luke, of course, speaks of the cup twice, once before the bread and once after it; his parallel to this saying comes in the reference to the earlier cup.

⁶³ Bengel thinks that they may have recited it rather than sung it, and comments, “Our Lord is frequently said to have prayed while on earth; never to have sung.” But ὑμνέω scarcely fits in with this; it means “to sing.”

⁶⁴ The verb is σχανδαλίζω, for which see on 5:29. It denotes the setting off of the bait stick of a trap and thus bringing someone into trouble. We can scarcely say, “you will be trapped” (though ‍Lenski‍ does: “all you shall be trapped,” p. 1033), but there is something of the significance of getting into serious trouble unintentionally and unexpectedly. There is probably also the thought that their Lord, of whom they thought so highly, would be the occasion of the trouble that lay ahead.

Cassirer H. W. Cassirer, God’s New Covenant: A New Testament Translation (Grand Rapids, 1989)

Lenski R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, 1964)

⁶⁵ In Zechariah the verb is in the imperative, on which Carr comments, “Both Hebrew and ‍LXX‍ have imperative for future.” The use of the first person singular here makes clear that it is God who takes the action (‍GNB‍ has “God will kill the shepherd”). Cf. Isaiah 53:10, “it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief.”

⁶⁶ ‍Burton, MT‍ takes εἰ here with the future indicative as indicating “what is regarded as certain or likely to occur” (285).

⁶⁷ Peter uses the emphatic pronoun ἐγώ and also the strong term οὐδέποτε; it is a very emphatic declaration of his position.

⁶⁸ Jews were forbidden to keep fowls in Jerusalem (‍B. Qam.‍ 7:7; McNeile speaks of “a single passage in Bab. Kam. 82b” and says that it “gives an ideal and fanciful regulation,” but he does not notice the passage in the Mishnah). In any case this would not apply to the Romans.

NIV The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids, 1978)

REB The Revised English Bible (Oxford and Cambridge, 1989)

MM J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1914-29)

⁶⁹ ἀπαρνέομαι is found 4 times each in Matthew and Mark, 3 times in Luke, and nowhere else in the New Testament. It signifies “deny utterly” (‍LSJ‍). Matthew uses it of denying oneself when one takes up one’s cross to follow Jesus (16:24), but his other three uses of the term are in this chapter, referring to Peter’s denial of Jesus.

⁷⁰ δέῃ points to a compelling necessity.

⁷¹ He uses the emphatic double negative οὐ μή.

⁷² ‍Plummer‍ speaks of “a tragic irony” in the placing of our Lord’s agony right after the boasting of the apostles: “The Apostles are so sure of their own strength that they will not allow the possibility of failure, even when they are forewarned of it by Christ. The Son of Man is so conscious of the weakness of His humanity that He prays to the Father that He may be spared the approaching trial. He feels the need of being strengthened by prayer” (p. 368).

⁷³ Matthew and Mark call it a χωρίον, which means “a place,” but then also “an estate, property, piece of land” (‍AS‍). Luke says no more than that it was a “place” (ἐπὶ τοῦ τόπου), while John says that it was a χῆπος; his word may be understood as “garden,” “orchard,” or “plantation” (‍LSJ‍).

⁷⁴ Γεθσημανί, which ‍AS‍ derives from the Hebrew for “oil-press.” Presumably this means that there were olive trees growing there, so that the idea of an orchard (or garden) receives support.

⁷⁵ ‍Burton, MT‍ sees “the accurate translation” of ἕως with the aorist subjunctive here as “till I pray” or “have prayed” (325).

⁷⁶ λυπέω is connected with λύπη, “grief,” “sorrow,” and signifies “to be sorrowful.” Mark does not have this verb but ἐχθαμβέω, “to be amazed” (another meaning of the verb is “to be terrified”). Both have ἀδημονέω in the next clause, a verb that means “be in anxiety, be distressed, troubled” (‍BAGD‍). ‍Lightfoot‍ says of this word, “It describes the confused, restless, half-distracted state, which is produced by physical derangement, or by mental distress, as grief, shame, disappointment, etc.” (Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians [London, 1908], p. 123). ‍MM‍ cites the word in the papyri in the sense “excessively concerned” and holds that it “would suggest originally bewilderment.” The combination makes it clear that Jesus was in great distress of spirit.

⁷⁷ Apart from passages where ψυχή means “life” (and where Jesus speaks of laying down his life, as 20:28; John 10:15) Jesus speaks of his “soul” again only in John 12:27.

Hill D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (London, 1972)

⁷⁸ Turner finds significance in the tenses: “do not go away μείνατε ὧδε (constative), but continue to watch γρηγορεῖτε” (‍M, III‍, p. 77).

⁷⁹ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον, literally “fell on face”; it indicates prostration, the adoption of the lowliest position of all. Only Matthew has the reference to the face; Mark speaks of his falling “on the ground,” while Luke speaks of his falling to his knees. This is the only occasion on which Jesus is said to have prostrated himself.

GNB Good News Bible (London and New York, 1976)

⁸⁰ C. E. B. Cranfield examined the Old Testament use of “cup” and rejected the view that it is simply a metaphor for suffering. “Surely we must go further, and say that in the O.T. the metaphorical use of ‘cup’ refers predominantly to God’s punishment of human sin.” The cup from which Jesus shrinks “is the cup of God’s wrath against sin” (‍ET‍, LIX [1947–48], p. 138). Similarly L. Goppelt says, “The ineffable sorrow and anguish … which gives rise to the request that what is approaching might pass from Him is not fear of a dark fate, nor cringing before physical suffering and death, but the horror of One who lives by God as being cast from Him at the judgment which delivers up the Holy One to the power of sin … the approaching passion is not fate but judgment” (‍TDNT‍, VI, p. 153).

⁸¹ ἵνα may introduce the content (= “that,” as in 24:20) or the purpose (= “so that,” as in v. 5) of their prayer.

JB The Jerusalem Bible (London, 1966)

⁸² πειρασμός may be used simply of a test, or of a test with a view to the person not passing the test, that is, temptation. We have the same problem in understanding the relevant petition in the Lord’s Prayer (6:13).

⁸³ “As events proved it was not the Father’s will to spare either Him or them, but want of prayer deprived them of the spiritual victory which He won” (‍McNeile‍).

⁸⁴ The condition is introduced with εἰ followed by the indicative. There is a clear indication that this is in fact the Father’s will.

⁸⁵ Their eyes were βεβαρημένοι (Mark uses χαταβαρύνω). We are to understand that the disciples were very sleepy; they “could not keep their eyes open.” The pluperfect indicates that their eyes were “weighed down”; “Here the participle is virtually an adjective, referring only to the existing result and not also to the time of weighing down” (Moule, ‍IBNTG‍, p. 19).

⁸⁶ A number of translations take this as a question; for example, ‍NIV‍ has “Are you still sleeping and resting?” But “still” is not a very natural meaning of λοιπόν; the word rather looks to the future, “For the future, henceforth” (‍AS‍).

⁸⁷ ‍Calvin‍ understands the words as ironical and adds that this is their meaning: “So far I have wasted my words on you, I shall now cease urging you. But however much I may let you sleep, the enemy will not allow it you, but will force you to watch against your will” (III, p. 155).

⁸⁸ Diétrich asks, “Who are the ‘sinners’ into whose hands the Son of Man is betrayed?” and answers, “An Apostle, the leaders of Israel, a Roman magistrate—the religious authorities and the secular authorities, the ‘qualified’ representatives of a humanity which does not want God.”

⁸⁹ “Repeated not for information, but as the literary reflection of the chronic horror of the apostolic church that such a thing should be possible” (‍Bruce‍).

⁹⁰ Kingsbury takes a simplistic view of Matthew’s use of crowd. He speaks of the crowds in this Gospel as of “a single, ‘flat’ character. They are not rich in traits, and the ones they possess tend not to change until the end of Matthew’s story, when they suddenly appear with Judas to arrest Jesus” (‍Story‍, p. 24). But by what process of thought are we to identify the crowd that came with Judas with, say, the crowds that came to hear Jesus preach (5:1) or those who were filled with awe and glorified God (9:8)?

⁹¹ Thus it is recorded that Rabban Gamaliel kissed Rabbi Joshua on the head (‍Rosh. Hash.‍ 2:9).

⁹² There is a question as to whether we should say more than “kissed him.” ‍BAGD‍ gives the meaning of χαταφιλέω (the verb used here) as simply “kiss τινά someone in greeting or in farewell.” ‍MM‍ cites passages of its use where D. S. Sharp says the stress is laid “not on kissing fervently, but on the very fact of kissing at all.” On the other hand, they cite a passage where it is used of a kiss “in a passion of gratitude.” ‍AS‍ gives the meaning, “to kiss fervently, kiss affectionately.” But Matthew has used the verb φιλέω in verse 48, and we need a reason for the change of verb in this verse. It appears that Judas was overplaying his part.

AB The Anchor Bible: W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (New York, 1971)

⁹³ ἐφʼ ὃ πάρει, literally “upon which you are present.” This may be a statement, in which case we should understand an imperative, “Do that for which you are here” (“do what you came for,” ‍NIV‍). Or it may be a question, “For what are you here?” (“why are you here?”, ‍RSV‍). The problem with this way of taking it is that ὅ is a relative pronoun, not an interrogative. The words are found in Matthew only. This Evangelist shows a particular interest in what Jesus said in the garden and records other sayings that occur nowhere else (vv. 52, 53, 54).

⁹⁴ Matthew frequently connects his sentences with δέ (cf. vv. 48 and 50), but that would imply some adversative force; here he is linking evil to evil, the wrong act of Peter to that of Judas; χαί is thus more natural.

⁹⁵ We should notice, however, that it is a not infrequent biblical idiom (see Gen. 3:22; Exod. 8:6, etc.). A number of times it is used of taking a weapon (Gen. 22:10; Judg. 3:21; 15:15; 1 Sam. 17:49). In the Synoptic Gospels it is used of Jesus stretching out his hand to heal (e.g., 8:3; 14:31) and of his inviting a man with a deformed hand to stretch it out (12:13).

⁹⁶ μάχαιρα meant a large knife or a short sword (the word for a large sword was ῥομφαία; cf. Luke 2:35).

⁹⁷ All four Gospels say that it was the slave, not a slave, of the high priest, but with our ignorance of the high priest’s household we cannot tell whether this is significant or not.

⁹⁸ ‍JTS‍, n.s. XI (1960), pp. 59–62. He says, “It was a very well-chosen insult, the wound was of a type which, had it been inflicted on the servant’s master, would have forced him from office” (p. 61).

⁹⁹ Matthew has his characteristic τότε, “then,” and he uses the historic present.

¹⁰⁰ συλλαμβάνω means “to bring together, collect,” but is used not infrequently in the sense “to collect a person,” that is, to take a prisoner.

¹⁰¹ A. N. Sherwin-White has a chapter entitled “The Trial of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels” (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament [Oxford, 1963], pp. 24–47). He argues for the essential historicity of the Synoptic accounts.

¹⁰² Sherwin-White reminds us that Roman officials started work very early in the day: “Hence there was every reason to hold the unusual night session if they were to catch the Procurator at the right moment” (Roman Society and Roman Law, p. 45).

Sanh. Sanhedrin

¹⁰³ Dalman draws attention to a number of actions that were approved despite being contrary to rabbinic rules and even to the law of Moses because of the pressure of circumstances (Jesus-Jeshua [London, 1929], pp. 98–100). D. R. Catchpole asserts, “the debate about illegalities should be regarded as a dead end” (The Trial of Jesus [Leiden, 1971], pp. 268–69).

¹⁰⁴ Moule points out that there is a slight ambiguity here; οἱ δέ might mean “And they, seizing Jesus …” or “And those who had seized Jesus” (‍IBNTG‍, p. 123). But the difference is not significant.

¹⁰⁵ The word is αὐλή; in verse 3 it was used of the high priest’s residence, but here it has its proper sense of “courtyard.”

¹⁰⁶ ψευδομαρτυρία in itself points to testimony that is false, and it is backed up by χατά; it was to be testimony “against” Jesus.

¹⁰⁷ ὅπως conveys the notion of purpose, “in order that —.”

¹⁰⁸ ὕστερον seems to separate these two from the earlier witnesses.

¹⁰⁹ οὗτος, which may be used “W. a connotation of contempt” (‍BAGD‍, 1.a.a); “Here the witnesses sneer at Jesus’ claims” (‍Chamberlain‍, p. 47).

¹¹⁰ Διά with genitive “Unclassically for a period within which something takes place … ‘within three days’ ” (‍BDF‍ 223[1]).

¹¹¹ ἐξορχίζω, found here only in the New Testament, means “(…mostly = ἐξορχόω ‘cause someone to swear’) adjure, charge under oath” (‍BAGD‍). The Mishnah provides that a man may put another man on oath by saying, “I adjure you,” to which the response is “Amen” and the man is duly sworn (‍Shebu.‍ 4:3).

¹¹² On πλήν ‍BAGD‍ remarks, “only, nevertheless, however, but (πλήν is the real colloq. word for this idea…)” (1b). Moulton regards the word as significant. He inquires whether σὺ εἶπας may be understood in the sense “That is right,” and says that πλήν here “is not satisfied by making the phrase a mere equivalent of ‘Yes’ ”—it means “You say it” (‍M, I‍, p. 86). Turner agrees with this (‍Grammatical Insights‍, pp. 72–73). D. R. Catchpole, however, argues strongly that the expression is “affirmative in content, and reluctant or circumlocutory in formulation” (‍NTS‍, XVII [1970–71], pp. 213–26; the words quoted are the final words). ‍Bruce‍ held that πλήν means “nay more: I have something more startling to tell you.” ‍Tasker‍ thinks that the words “suggested that He and Caiaphas would understand the terms contained in the question very differently” (p. 254). Cf. the use of the same expression to Pilate (27:11).

¹¹³ ἀπʼ ἄρτι means “from now on” (‍BAGD‍, ἄρτι, 3).

Plummer A. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (London, 1910)

¹¹⁴ Meier reminds us that at Caesarea Philippi the titles “Messiah” and “Son of God” had been applied to Jesus and that “Jesus, while not rejecting those titles, emphasizes that they need to be completed by another title, Son of Man. With Peter, the title is meant to supply the missing element of the cross. With the high priest, who is quite sure Jesus will die, the title supplies the missing element of exaltation out of death, cosmic rule, and coming as final judge.”

¹¹⁵ When sentence is to be given on such a sinner the chief witness was called on to say expressly what he heard, “and he says it; and the judges stand up on their feet and rend their garments, and they may not mend them again” (‍Sanh.‍ 7:5).

¹¹⁶ The word is ἔνοχος; ‍BAGD‍ explains it as “= ἐνοχόμενος caught in.” They go on to give the meaning as “subject to” (Heb. 2:15), but “mostly as a legal term, liable, answerable, guilty.” Here it is used “to denote the punishment … deserving of death.”

¹¹⁷ χολαφίζω strictly means “strike with the fist” (χόλαφος = “knuckle,” i.e., closed fist); ῥαπίζω is rather “to slap.”

Patte D. Patte, The Gospel according to Matthew (Philadelphia, 1987)

Law J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament (London, 1970)

¹¹⁸ The clauses are connected with an adversative δέ; Peter’s faithlessness is contrasted with Jesus’ faithfulness.

¹¹⁹ ‍Gundry‍ thinks that the meaning might be “Even you,” or “ ‘You as well as those who fled,’ or ‘You as well as the disciple who influenced the maid to let Peter in the door’ (John 18:15–16)” (p. 548). Or, of course, it might mean “You as well as Judas.”

NRSV The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville, 1990)

¹²⁰ She actually says, τοῦ Ναζωραίου. There are problems with this designation (see the note on 2:23), but there is no doubt that in the New Testament it signifies “from Nazareth.”

¹²¹ The verb is προσέρχομαι, “to approach,” “come to”; it points to a definite approach to Peter.

¹²² ἀληθῶς, “truly,” “surely” (‍AS‍). χαὶ σύ puts emphasis on you.

¹²³ The Judeans were contemptuous of the way Galileans spoke. There are many examples given in ‍‘Erub.‍ 53a, 53b; for example, from the way one Galilean spoke the Judeans could not be certain whether he meant “wool,” “a lamb,” “an ass,” or “wine” (53b).

¹²⁴ δῆλος signifies “visible,” and then “clear to the mind.” ‍AS‍ differentiates it from φανερός as referring not to the outward appearance, but “with ref. to inner perception, evident, known, understood.”

¹²⁵ His first verb is χαταθεματίζω (connected with ἀνάθεμα), his second ὀμνύω, “affirm on oath.” The probability is that Peter was calling on God to punish him if what he said was not true.

¹²⁶ χλαίω means “to wail” and is used “of any loud expression of pain or sorrow” (‍AS‍).

¹²⁷ ‍Plummer‍ records a comment of Isaac Williams: “It is a matter worthy of the deepest consideration, that not only is so very little told us of the Saints of God, but what is recorded is for the most part to their prejudice … we may humbly venture to think that this melancholy failure in one so eminent and favoured was permitted to occur to afford us encouragement and hope in similar derelictions and temptations. And that as our Lord could not afford us an instance of human infirmity in Himself, He has given it to us in the person of the most exalted of His pastors: that all may fear, and none may presume, and all may hope” (pp. 383–84).

¹ J. Jeremias gives a list of the “chief priests” (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus [London, 1969], p. 160).

² συμβούλιον is a rare word, but ‍MM‍ is able to cite it from the papyri. Deissmann cites Mommsen, “It appears that the word συμβούλιον is, properly speaking, not Greek, but is formed in the Graeco-Latin official style, in order to represent the untranslatable consilium” (‍BS‍, p. 238). It can mean “council” or “counsel”; the expression may thus mean “held a council” or “took counsel.”

³ The conjunction ὥστε mostly signifies result, “so that,” but it may be that here it indicates intended result or purpose (so ‍BAGD‍, 2b). ‍Burton, MT‍ regards ὥστε with the infinitive as standing “in definite apposition with συμβούλιον, defining the content of the plan, rather than expressing the purpose of making it” (371). If we bear in mind the usual significance of the word, Matthew will mean that putting Jesus to death was the result of the deliberations. But here it seems that the many scholars who favor purpose as the meaning are right.

⁴ ‍GNB‍ has “put him in chains,” but there is no reference to chains; we do not know with what he was bound.

⁵ The verb is παραδίδωμι, which can mean “betray” and which Matthew has used so freely of Judas’s betraying of Jesus. Is he hinting now that the Jewish leaders were betraying Jesus by giving him into the custody of the Romans?

⁶ See ‍ISBE‍, III, p. 868.

⁷ Sherwin-White in ‍ISBE‍, III, p. 979. He also points out that the term “procurator” (= “agent”) was used of people the emperor appointed to be his agents in the provinces and that this title was later given to governors such as Pilate. It is often used anachronistically of this man.

⁸ “It is remarkable that the Gospels, while not hiding the weakness and injustice of Pilate, do not give such a black impression of his character as we derive from Josephus and Philo. There does not seem to have been any inclination in the first Christians to exaggerate the misdeeds of either Judas or Pilate. They are not represented as monsters of wickedness any more than the Apostles are depicted as models of saintliness and wisdom” (‍Plummer‍, p. 385).

⁹ The verb is μεταμέλομαι, which is often difficult to distinguish from μετανοέω, but O. Michel comments, “μετανοεῖν implies that one has later arrived at a different view of something (νοῦς), μεταμέλεσθαι that one has a different feeling about it (μέλει)” (‍TDNT‍, IV, p. 626). Whether or not we can distinguish between the two verbs, the context here makes it clear that Judas was motivated by remorse rather than by genuine repentance.

¹⁰ The linking of ἀρχιερεῦσιν χαὶ πρεσβυτέροις under a single article points to the Sanhedrin, the two groups forming one assembly.

¹¹ “The element of past time is absent from the aorist participle especially if its action is identical with that of an aorist finite verb” (‍BDF‍ 339[1]; here “in that I”).

¹² “Not, I have blundered, or have been mistaken, or foolish, or wrong; not I have attempted to hurry this Messiah to declare Himself, but, ‘I have sinned’ ” (‍Morgan‍, p. 310).

¹³ εἰς should be read with א B L Θ etc., though ἐν is found in A C W etc. If the term is used with precision, ναόν denotes the sanctuary proper (while ἱερόν includes all the temple precincts). It may be that Judas threw the money down somewhere in the temple area, but ναόν makes it appear that he threw the money into the holy place, perhaps even that he ran there and threw it down.

¹⁴ This would be supported by the use of εἰς rather than ἐν.

¹⁵ Moulton sees ἀπήγξατο here as the clearest example of the reflexive middle in the New Testament, but adds, “even here one may question whether the English intransitive choke is not a truer parallel than the reflexive hang oneself” (‍M, I‍, p. 155). For the problems in relating this account to that in Acts 1:18–19 see the discussion in Carson, pp. 561–62. ‍M. Green‍ can say, “It is not very difficult to reconcile those two accounts. Judas went and hanged himself: then either his corpse rotted and fell, or the rope broke and he fell and his insides were ruptured and gushed out. Either Judas had already acquired this field previously, or the priests bought the field in Judas’ name with the money which was still legally his and which they could not receive back into the treasury because it was blood money” (p. 267).

¹⁶ The word is χορβανᾶς, found here only in the New Testament (the cognate word for a gift is found in Mark 7:11). Josephus uses it for the temple treasury in War 2.175.

¹⁷ ‍Calvin‍ comments, “If blood money may not be deposited in the sacred treasury, how could they draw it in the first place, for their only wealth came from the temple offerings and what they are now hesitant to put back in as polluted could have been taken from no other source? Is not the pollution from their own hands?” (III, p. 176).

¹⁸ There is rabbinic authority for the use of ill-gotten gains for public benefit; for example, money that has been stolen and that cannot be returned because the owners are not known may be used for wells and the like (‍B. Qam.‍ 94b).

Lightfoot John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, 1979 rpt.)

¹⁹ E. F. Sutcliffe draws attention to a number of lists of the prophets in which Jeremiah comes first, and argues that Matthew’s meaning is “in the prophets” (‍JTS‍, n.s. III [1952], pp. 227–28).

²⁰ Albright and Mann draw attention to collections of this kind at Qumran and to the possibility that such collections existed among the Christians (‍AB‍, p. XXXVII). Similarly ‍Filson‍ remarks, “it is possible that some Christian listed in a very early document the passages which Christian teachers saw fulfilled in the work of Jesus.” He goes on, however: “But this cannot be proved. … The solid truth in the theory is that the earliest Church made constant use of the O.T. and used it to show that the coming and work of Jesus fulfilled prophecy” (p. 8). Gundry examines the hypothesis (‍Use of the OT‍, pp. 163–66) and concludes that “the Testimony Book is a partially confirmed hypothesis which disappointingly explains little or nothing.” But he does not examine its bearing on the question we are discussing here. G. D. Kilpatrick finds an indication of a testimony book in the use of Zechariah 9:9 independently in Matthew and John for the entry into Jerusalem, though he doubts whether these Evangelists had more than the Greek Bible itself (The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew [Oxford, 1946], p. 66).

Lenski R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, 1964)

²¹ χαθά, here only in the New Testament, means “according to what things.”

²² Indeed, in the end it was Pilate’s heavy-handed putting down of a Samaritan disturbance that led to his recall to Rome; an imposter gathered people, saying that he would show them some sacred vessels that Moses had hidden. The gathering appears to have been harmless, but some of the people had weapons and Pilate killed a number of them. The Samaritans complained to the legate of Syria, Pilate’s superior, who regarded the incident as so serious that he sent him to Rome to give account of himself to the emperor (Josephus, Ant. 18.85–89). This ended Pilate’s governorship.

²³ ἡγεμών is a general term for a leader and might be used of a governor who was a proconsul, propraetor, legate, or procurator. An inscription shows that Pilate was a prefect.

²⁴ Turner sees the emphasis here as “You are saying this, not me.” He goes on, “For the meaning ‘yes,’ the personal pronoun su is pointless. In splendid isolation, the pronoun places full responsibility on the questioner (“you”), dissociating Jesus from the assumptions of the question, neither affirming nor denying” (‍Grammatical Insights‍, p. 73). It is also possible to take Jesus’ words as a question to Pilate: “Do you say so?”

²⁵ “The high priests and elders” is an expression that is covered by one article. This probably means that there are not two groups but one: it is the Sanhedrin that is making the accusations.

²⁶ The verb is the middle ἀπεχρίνατο, which is striking because Matthew so constantly uses the passive form. E. A. Abbott argues that the middle here has the sense “make a formal defence” (Johannine Grammar [London, 1906], p. 392).

²⁷ That Jesus answered Pilate was important. Sherwin-White makes it clear that when an accused person refused to defend himself he was regarded as guilty and sentence was passed against him (Roman Law, pp. 25–26).

²⁸ πόσος can signify “how great” as well as “how many,” and the expression may refer to the weight of the accusations rather than the number. Either way Pilate is pointing to the seriousness of Jesus’ situation. But the likely meaning, how many things, makes it probable that the governor is concerned that many accusations are being made against the prisoner and no defense is being produced.

²⁹ ῥῆμα means a “word” and then a “saying,” but it comes to be used also for what is the subject of speech, “a thing”; thus here it might be understood in the sense, “a charge” (so ‍NIV‍).

³⁰ χατὰ δὲ ἑορτήν might mean “at every feast,” but despite the absence of the article, we should probably understand it to mean “at this feast,” that is, at Passover time, which John says was the case (John 18:39). John also says that Pilate said, “You have a custom,” which makes it seem that it was a Jewish practice that the Romans were prepared to continue.

Pes. Pesaḥim

³¹ τότε here has the meaning “at that time” rather than “next in sequence,” which it often has in this Gospel.

³² His word is ἐπίσημος (σῆμα means “a mark”); it can have a meaning like “bearing a mark” and may be used of money, “stamped.” In the New Testament it occurs again only of Andronicus and Junia(s), who are said to be “notable among the apostles” (Rom. 16:7). Here, of course, the word means “marked” in a different way; as a leader in an insurrection he had made his mark.

³³ Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν is read by Θ f1 700* syr^s and has patristic and versional support. The bulk of the MSS lack Ἰησοῦν, including א A B D K L W, most versions, and patristic citations. Metzger discusses the problem and concludes that this reading, found “in several witnesses of the Caesarean text,” was known to Origen. That scholar rejected it on the grounds that “in the whole range of the scriptures we know that no one who is a sinner [is called] Jesus” (‍Metzger‍, p. 56). Westcott and Hort have a valuable note in the Appendix to their The New Testament in the Original Greek (London, 1907), Appendix, pp. 19–20; they reject the reading and, impressed by the paucity and inferiority of the witnesses known to them, say, “it cannot be right” (p. 20). It may be relevant that the name “Jesus” is not given to Barabbas in any text of Mark, Luke, or John.

RSV The Revised Standard Version

³⁴ The word is φθόνος, which some take here to mean “malice” or, as Cassirer, “spite.” But it seems rather that the Jewish leaders were envious of Jesus’ popularity with the common people.

³⁵ Christian tradition has named this lady Claudia Procla, or simply Procla (or Procula). She is said to have been or to have become a Christian, and the Eastern church has even canonized her as a saint.

³⁶ μηδὲν σοὶ χαὶ τῷ διχαίῳ ἐχείνῳ, “nothing to you and to that righteous man”; it is a way of saying that he should repudiate any dealings with the righteous man in question. There is a good deal to be said for ‍NIV‍’s translation, “that innocent man.”

³⁷ But ‍Bonnard‍ views the way the lady speaks of her dream as “typically Hellenistic”; he contrasts the dreams in chapters 1 and 2 (p. 397).

³⁸ France holds that “Matthew has clearly inserted this verse together with vv. 24–25 in order to heighten the impression of Jesus’ legal innocence—even a pagan woman can see it! But while she is open to the voice of God (from whom dreams come; cf. 1:20; 2:12, 13, 19, 22), the Jewish leaders are deaf to it.”

³⁹ Turner takes this as an example of the perfective aorist, “they succeeded in persuading,” and contrasts Acts 13:43, “where Paul and Barn. could only urge” (‍M, III‍, p. 72).

⁴⁰ ἀπόλλυμι is used of destruction of various kinds. Thus it is used of the loss of an eye (5:29), of burst wineskins (9:17), and of many other forms of destruction. Here it is employed to signify death.

Barclay William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1958)

⁴¹ Literally “What shall I do Jesus?” ‍Chamberlain‍ points out that “Verbs of doing good or evil may take a double accusative” (p. 38); in English we insert “with” or “to.” Moule remarks that “The Dative and Accusative also overlap mysteriously” (‍IBNTG‍, p. 43, n.).

⁴² It is not easy to bring out the force of the γάρ in a translation, but the conjunction means “for” and looks for a reason for the foregoing. Pilate could see none, and he asked for one now.

⁴³ Many critics therefore regard it as inauthentic. But as Carson points out, it fits in with Pilate’s repeated attempts to release Jesus. “He sent him to Herod (Luke), suggested that the paschal amnesty be applied to him, proposed a compromise with a scourging (Luke), tried to turn the case back to the Jewish authorities (John), remonstrated before pronouncing sentence (John),” as well as here washing his hands. It fits the general picture.

⁴⁴ ἀθῷος (ἀ-privative + θωή, a penalty) means first “unpunished” (‍MM‍ cites examples of this use from the papyri), and then, as here, “innocent.”

⁴⁵ If διχαίου be read (with א K L W), Pilate takes up the word used by his wife to describe Jesus (v. 19). But it should probably not be accepted.

⁴⁶ “The irony of this allusion is that Pilate follows a ritual designed to dissociate Israel itself from the consequences of blood-guilt” (‍Green‍). ‍Calvin‍ asks, “How can he scrub off the stain of his crime with a few drops of water, when no expiation could have cleared it?” (III, p. 187).

⁴⁷ The apocryphal Gospel of Peter opens with “But of the Jews none washed their hands”; according to this tradition they made no attempt to evade responsibility.

⁴⁸ “The possibility of riot in an overcrowded Jerusalem was always present. In such circumstances the governor might all the more readily bow to the demands of the crowd. From his point of view the death of one man was the lesser evil” (‍AB‍).

⁴⁹ Matthew does not record any formal sentence. Vincent Taylor says that Luke is the only Evangelist to do so (and even this is left in doubt, for his ἐπέχρινεν [Luke 23:24] may mean no more than that Pilate decided on an execution). This he thinks is explained only partly “by the Christian conviction that responsibility lay primarily with the Jews … but rather, as the consistent use of παραδίδωμι shows, by the belief that, as the Suffering Servant, Jesus is ‘delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God’ (Ac. ii.23)” (The Gospel according to St. Mark [London, 1959], p. 584).

France R. T. France, The Gospel according to Matthew (Leicester and Grand Rapids, 1985)

⁵⁰ Glover understands the words as a prayer answered partly in the destruction of Jerusalem. “But it was also answered in a different sense from that in which it was offered—by the mercy, which sprinkled the saving blood of Christ on that nation and on mankind.”

⁵¹ C. Schneider says that scourging “was so terrible that even Domitian was horrified by it. … We know little about the details. The number of strokes was not prescribed. It continued until the flesh hung down in bloody shreds” (‍TDNT‍, IV, p. 517).

⁵² A good modern survey of what is known about the subject is found in Martin Hengel, Crucifixion (London, 1977). He entitles his chapter 8 “The ‘Slaves’ Punishment,” and begins with, “In most Roman writers crucifixion appears as the typical punishment for slaves” (p. 51). He also says, “crucifixion was practised above all on dangerous criminals and members of the lowest classes” (p. 88).

⁵³ “The form of execution could vary considerably: crucifixion was a punishment in which the caprice and sadism of the executioners were given full rein” (Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 25).

⁵⁴ See the articles “Jesus and Jehohanan” by J. H. Charlesworth, ‍ET‍, LXXXIV (1972–73), pp. 147–50; and “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament” by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, CBQ, 40 (1978), pp. 493–513.

⁵⁵ The πραιτώριον is the transliteration of the Latin word praetorium, which denoted the headquarters in a Roman camp; from that it came to be used of the palace or the official residence of a Roman governor.

⁵⁶ σπεῖρα, “In our lit. prob. always cohort, the tenth part of a legion” (‍BAGD‍). That means 600 soldiers, which seems too many for the present passage. The term was also used of a maniple, which comprised 200 men, and that is more likely. The article points to “the” company, the one stationed there (cf. Josephus, War 5.244).

⁵⁷ That is, if we accept the reading ἐχδύσαντες with most MSS (headed by א^*.b A K L W). But ἐνδύσαντες is read by א B syr^s and some other MSS. Metzger regards the latter as “a correction.” The clothing sequence here is not clear. If we accept the former reading, Jesus would have been stripped for the scourging (v. 26), then dressed in his own clothes after it, and stripped again, at least partially, before being clothed with “royal” garments. If we accept the latter, he was still naked after the scourging and was now clothed with the χλαμύς, which probably means in his own clothes except for the outer garment, for which the soldiers used the χλαμύς (see next note‍^†‍).

⁵⁸ A χλαμύς was a short cloak worn by military officers and others in high position. χόχχινος, scarlet, was a color produced by a dye made from the dried bodies of a scale insect found on oak trees.

⁵⁹ For the significance of purple see New Documents, 2, p. 25.

⁶⁰ ‍Calvin‍ points out that where Matthew has “scarlet” Mark has “purple,” and proceeds, “but we need not sweat over this. It is not likely that Christ was dressed in a precious robe: we may gather it was not real purple but something that had a resemblance to it, as a painter imitates the real thing in his pictures” (III, p. 190).

⁶¹ Strictly στέφανος meant a garland or chaplet used at festivals or as a mark of victory for the winners at the Games; however, it could be used of a royal crown (for which διάδημα was more usual). H. St. J. Hart argued that the crown of thorns was meant as a “radiate” crown, one with spikes radiating outwards and that signified that the ruler was divine (see ‍JTS‍, n.s. III [1952], pp. 66–75). But it is simpler to understand the crown here as an implement of torture.

Phillips J. B. Phillips, The Gospels in Modern English (London, 1957)

⁶² The verb is ἀγγαρεύω, for which see the note on 5:41. It signifies the pressing into public service of anyone at all.

⁶³ This is the transliteration of the Aramaic נָּלְנָּלְתָּ = Hebrew נֻּלְנֹּלֶת, meaning “skull” (2 Kings 9:35). Our word “Calvary” is from the Latin word for “skull,” calvaria. The neuter relative ὅ is unexpected since τόπος is masculine, but it may refer to Κρανίου, which is neuter, or the two words may be taken as a unity and seen as a neuter place name.

⁶⁴ There is a reminiscence of Psalm 69:21 (for “poison” the Greek has χολήν). Mark refers to ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον, but ‍Plummer‍ thinks that Matthew is “not out of harmony” with this. He says, “ ‘Gall’ (χολή) is a vague word for drugs with a bitter taste, and the meaning in each Gospel is that the wine was drugged” (pp. 394–95).

Use of the  R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Leiden, 1975)

⁶⁵ A further suggestion is that of J. Jeremias (Eucharistic Words, p. 167, n. 6), that Jesus’ refusal to drink was due to the fact that he had taken a vow of abstinence (Mark 14:25). But whatever those words of Jesus mean, it is pushing them too far to say that they ruled out this numbing drink. It is much more probable that he refused to die with his senses dulled by a soporific. ‍Lightfoot‍ thinks that Mark is describing the normal custom, wine mixed with frankincense or myrrh, and Matthew what was actually given in this case, sour wine, mixed with gall to give it a more bitter taste (p. 366). Mounce adds, “If those who gave Jesus the wine were soldiers, then the myrrhed wine (supplied by the women?) was made bitter (another cruel joke?) by the ‘gall’ … added by the executioners.”

⁶⁶ He says no more than σταυρώσαντες, “having crucified.”

⁶⁷ The word is λῃστής; it may mean a robber or a brigand. Here it is rather the latter and may point to a member of the resistance movement. Luke uses the term χαχοῦργος, “malefactor.”

⁶⁸ J. A. Fitzmyer has drawn attention to the fact that the Temple Scroll from Qumran, dating from the end of the second century B.C., speaks of the crucified as “accursed by God and men” (Deut. 21:23 speaks only of being accursed by God). He finds this to be “an interesting illustration of the derision of Jesus” in this passage (Crucifixion, p. 512).

Tasker R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (London, 1961)

⁶⁹ “These probably were not chance passers-by but people who deliberately followed the procession out of the city to enjoy the spectacle of an execution” (‍Ridderbos‍).

⁷⁰ ‍BDF‍ notes that the present participle here is equivalent to the conative imperfect, “who would destroy … build” (339[3]).

⁷¹ We should view this as an example of Colwell’s rule that the preceding anarthrous predicate is definite; despite the lack of the article υἱός is definite—“the” Son, not “a” Son.

⁷² “We hear in their taunt an eerie reprise of Satan’s ‘If you are Son of God, throw yourself down’ (4:6)” (L. T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament [Philadelphia, 1986], pp. 180–81).

⁷³ “His willing acceptance of suffering to further in death the purpose for which he had lived is an idea they cannot grasp” (‍Filson‍).

⁷⁴ This is another example of the preceding anarthrous predicate being definite (as in v. 40); it is “the King,” not “a King.”

⁷⁵ This is the only example in the Gospels of πιστεύω ἐπί—accusative of person (elsewhere the construction occurs 4 times in Acts and twice in Paul only in the New Testament). The idea is that of faith on the basis of, faith resting on. Moule holds that it “possibly retains a sense of movement, metaphorically” (‍IBNTG‍, p. 49).

⁷⁶ The Story of the Cross (London, 1957), p. 100. Kingsbury notes that Jesus “does not even have at his command sufficient power to get himself down and so prove this messianic ‘claim’ (i.e., that he was ‘King of the Jews,’ v. 37) for which he is being executed” (‍Matthew‍, p. 36). But this is not what Matthew is saying. He records Jesus’ words about access to more than twelve legions of angels (26:53). It is not lack of power to come down from the cross that keeps Jesus there in Matthew’s account; it is his will to save others.

⁷⁷ ‍Burton, MT‍ cites this as an example of the perfect “used when the attention is directed wholly to the present resulting state, the past action of which it is the result being left out of thought” (75).

⁷⁸ They may well have been thinking along the lines of the writer of The Wisdom of Solomon: “if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture. … Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected” (2:18–20).

⁷⁹ The same verb, ὀνειδίζω, is used in Psalm 69:9 (‍LXX‍).

⁸⁰ This may be an example of the plural “used in the NT for one person or thing in both a Semitic and a normal Greek manner,” as Turner holds (‍M, III‍, pp. 25, 26); ‍Robertson‍, however, denies this (p. 409).

⁸¹ Matthew is not saying that Jesus was crucified at noon; it is not certain exactly when he was nailed to the cross. Mark says that it was at “the third hour” (Mark 15:25), but John says that Jesus was still before Pilate at “about the sixth hour” (John 19:14). We should understand that both times are approximate (people did not rush to a sundial to find the exact time) and that probably Jesus was crucified in the middle to late morning.

⁸² Matthew uses the compound verb ἀναβοάω (an unusual word, here only in the New Testament; ‍MM‍ cites only one example; ‍LSJ‍ says that the meaning is “cry, shout aloud, esp. in sign of grief or astonishment”). He reinforces it with φωνῇ μεγάλῃ.

⁸³ Matthew gives the cry in the words: ηλι ηλι λεμα σαβαχθανι. The first word ηλι is a transliteration of the Hebrew for “my God,” and this is repeated. Then comes λεμα σαβαχθανι, which is Aramaic.

⁸⁴ Matthew has ἱνατί and Mark εἰς τί, but there is no great difference in meaning. Matthew has the rare θεέ; Carr thinks that this may be the only example of this vocative of θεός.

⁸⁵ The verb is ἐγχαταλείπω; it means “1. leave behind … 2. forsake, abandon, desert” (‍BAGD‍). On the force of the aorist Turner comments, “the present results of the action are much in mind” (‍M, III‍, p. 72).

⁸⁶ The Jewish understanding of the words is perhaps given by R. Levi, who said of Esther in the inner court of the king’s house, “When she reached the chamber of the idols, the Divine Presence left her. She said, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (‍Meg.‍ 15b). But Jesus is not taking the words in this way.

⁸⁷ Many cite T. R. Glover, “I have sometimes thought there never was an utterance that reveals more amazingly the distance between feeling and fact” (The Jesus of History [London, 1917], p. 192). But we must not read back our experiences of spiritual weakness into the dying moments of Jesus. Beare takes notice of only two possibilities: Matthew may “intend to convey to us that the last words of Jesus were a cry of despair” or that he thought of “Jesus as having in mind the entire Psalm.” But this is surely inadequate.

⁸⁸ Cf. H. Maynard Smith, “the awful cry which startled the onlookers cannot be reconciled with a devotional exercise” (Atonement [London, 1925], p. 155). ‍Barclay‍ says, “on a cross a man does not recite poetry to himself, even the poetry of a psalm; and besides that, the whole atmosphere of the darkened world is the atmosphere of unrelieved tragedy” (II, p. 368).

⁸⁹ One form of this is put forward by R. Menzies: “this cry was wrung from the soul of Jesus by the unresponsiveness of men” (‍ET‍, LXV [1953–54], p. 183). But Jesus is not complaining about the unresponsiveness of men; he is concerned with the fact that it is God who has abandoned him.

⁹⁰ Cf. J. Moltmann, “Not until we understand his abandonment by the God and Father whose imminence and closeness he had proclaimed in a unique, gracious and festive way, can we understand what was distinctive about his death. Just as there was a unique fellowship with God in his life and preaching, so in his death there was a unique abandonment by God” (The Crucified God [London, 1974], p. 149).

⁹¹ Cf. ‍Green‍, “the overwhelming probability is that (these words) were remembered, and not the work of subsequent devout reflection.” I have examined the saying at greater length in The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids and Exeter, 1965), pp. 42–49; The Cross of Jesus (Grand Rapids and Exeter, 1988), pp. 67–83.

⁹² He speaks of Jesus as going through “the lowest depth of human need” and goes on, “This depth, however, is the inferno of dereliction. From it He cries as only a man can cry, with full and final force. Yet the ἐβόησεν is no longer a crying to God for help and recompense; it is a crying after God Himself” (‍TDNT‍, I, p. 627).

⁹³ See ‍TDNT‍, II, p. 930 for the development of such ideas among the Jews.

⁹⁴ εὐθέως, which Matthew uses 11 times. Mark is fond of saying that things happened “immediately,” but for this he uses εὐθύς, which he has 42 times. But despite this fondness for indicating haste he does not do it here.

⁹⁵ Moulton comments: “In Hellenistic Greek the imperative 1st person is beginning to be differentiated from other subjunctives by the addition of ἄφες” (‍M, I‍, p. 175); the meaning is “Let us see.” ἄφες is singular, though it is to be taken with the plural ἴδωμεν. It would, of course, be possible to take ἄφες as addressed to the man giving the drink, followed by “Let us see. …”

⁹⁶ ‍BDF‍ points out that the future participle is used to convey the idea of purpose in classical Greek, but that, apart from Luke, it is found in the New Testament only here (418[4]).

⁹⁷ The verb is ἀφίημι, which is used 142 times in the New Testament but only here in the sense “die.” Mark and Luke both make use of the verb ἐχπνέω, while John has παρέδωχεν τὸ πνεῦμα.

Chrysostom John Chrysostom, Homilies on St. Matthew (NPNF, 1st ser., vol. X)

⁹⁸ Albright and Mann comment, “It is certainly no service to scholarship to find in these verses an imaginative piece of fiction on the part of the evangelist, or simply an attempt to garnish the account of the passion with improbable details.” They go on to say, “At the time of the death of Jesus a new community was born” (‍AB‍).

⁹⁹ For earthquakes in the Jerusalem area see ‍ISBE‍, II, pp. 4–5; this article refers to an earthquake that damaged the temple in A.D. 33. In the Talmud we read that the doors of the temple opened by themselves forty years before the destruction of the city (‍Yoma‍ 39b). Allen cites this passage and others from Josephus and Jerome, and says, “A cleavage in the masonry of the porch, which rent the outer veil and left the Holy Place open to view, would account for the language of the Gospels, of Josephus, and of the Talmud.”

¹⁰⁰ CBQ, XXXVIII (1976), p. 328.

¹⁰¹ To Buttrick the words express the faith that “God watched his Son on the Cross; God wrote in darkened sky and torn mountains his judgment on our wickedness, and his love for Christ; and God proved himself then and there the Lord of death and life.”

¹⁰² With θεοῦ υἱός we have another example of the anarthrous predicate preceding the verb: it denotes “the” Son, not “a” Son.

GNB Good News Bible (London and New York, 1976)

¹⁰³ διαχονέω often has this meaning.

¹⁰⁴ Diétrich comments that Jesus gave women “their human dignity. He revealed to them the grace of pardon. He provoked in them a gratitude and a love which were unflagging. Prior to Jesus, women were regarded as inferior beings, religiously speaking.”

Sanh. Sanhedrin

Daube D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956)

Shab. Shabbat

¹⁰⁵ τοὔνομα (= τὸ ὄνομα) Ἰωσήφ is an accusative of respect: “with respect to name Joseph.”

¹⁰⁶ It is not certain whether we should read ἐμαθήτευσεν, “was a disciple,” or ἐμαθητεύθη, which may have the same sense (the verb having become a deponent) or may be meant as “was made a disciple” (as in 28:19; see ‍BDF‍ 148[3]).

Filson F. V. Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (London, 1960)

¹⁰⁷ The word for tomb here is τάφος; Matthew uses it 6 times in all, and it is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Romans 3:13. It does not seem to differ in meaning from μνημεῖον (37 times in the New Testament), which the other Evangelists prefer (and which Matthew also employs, as in v. 60; 28:8).

¹⁰⁸ I have discussed the term in The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, 1971), p. 776, n. 97.

¹⁰⁹ συνάγω is used in something of that sense in 2:4 and other passages. Matthew uses it 24 times, which is more than twice as often as the next frequent user of the word in the New Testament (Acts with 11).

¹¹⁰ “As events turned out, it was the priests and the Pharisees who proved to be deceivers of the people, by their persistent assertion after the resurrection that the disciples of Jesus had stolen His body” (‍Tasker‍, p. 268).

¹¹¹ ἐγείρομαι is the present tense, used in the sense of the future.

¹¹² Error here (πλάνη) is cognate with that for “deceiver” in verse 63 (πλάνος).

M. Green M. Green, Matthew for Today (London, 1988)

¹¹³ χουστωδία is the transliteration of the Latin custodia, “a guard.” In the New Testament it is used only in this incident (v. 66;  28:11). It would not be a natural way of referring to the temple guard, but it was the term a Roman would use of his own soldiers. That a Roman detachment is meant is clear in The Gospel of Peter, which says, “Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to watch the sepulchre” (8:31).

¹¹⁴ The verb is ἀσφαλίζω, used three times in this incident and again in Acts 16:24 only in the New Testament.

¹¹⁵ He orders, “make it as secure as you know.” Translations tend to say, “as you can” (e.g., ‍NRSV‍, “make it as secure as you can”; the mg. has “you know how,” but this inserts a “how” that is lacking in the Greek).

¹ But not impossible. B. F. Westcott, for example, drew up a tentative timetable of the events on that first Easter morning in which he was able to list all the appearances known to us (The Gospel according to St. John, II [rpt. Grand Rapids, 1954], pp. 335–36). More recently John Wenham has made a thorough examination of the problem and come up with a solution (Easter Enigma [Exeter, 1984]).

² D. Wenham has a useful discussion of this chapter in his article “The Resurrection Narratives in Matthew’s Gospel” (Tyndale Bulletin 24 [1973], pp. 21–54).

³ ὀψέ, which Matthew uses only here, is an adverb meaning “late” and may be used of the evening (e.g., Mark 13:35). But it can also be used as an improper preposition with the meaning “after” (‍BAGD‍, 3). The question is, Which is the usage here? Moule points to the two possibilities, “after the Sabbath” and “late on the Sabbath” (‍IBNTG‍, p. 86), and ‍Robertson‍ cites examples elsewhere of both uses, “after” and “late on” (pp. 645–46). McNeile says that it probably means “late on the Sabbath” and that Matthew is using the Roman way of starting the day at dawn rather than the Jewish way of starting it at sunset, but this involves too many improbabilities. The grammar is difficult, but it is best to understand Matthew to be saying that the women’s action was after the Sabbath; he then goes on to specify that it was dawn on the first day of the week (thus indicating how long after the Sabbath it was).

⁴ Matthew has χαὶ ἰδοῦ 6 times in these 20 verses; clearly the whole marvelous time was vivid to him.

⁵ Hill comments, “The angel at the Birth and at the Resurrection is a witness to the event, explaining its meaning and assigning to others a precise task.” The expression “the angel of the Lord” occurs elsewhere in this Gospel only in 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19. It is a common expression in the Old Testament, but in the New it is found again only twice in Luke and 4 times in Acts.

⁶ Meier asserts that “the angel of the Lord” here is “actually, God himself in visible form,” but this is an unwarranted assumption.

⁷ W. Temple comments, “It is not to be presumed that angels are physical objects reflecting rays of light upon the retina of the eye. When men ‘see’ or ‘hear’ angels, it is rather to be supposed that an intense interior awareness of a divine message leads to the projection of an image which is then experienced as an occasion of something seen and heard. That divine messengers were sent and divine messages received we need not doubt; that they took physical form so that all who ‘saw’ anything must ‘see’ the same thing we need not suppose” (Readings in St. John’s Gospel [London, 1947], p. 380).

⁸ εἰδέα (connected with εἶδον) refers to what is seen; it occurs here only in the New Testament.

⁹ ἔνδυμα signifies “what is put on” and thus “clothing”; in the New Testament it is used only by Matthew (7 times) and Luke (once).

¹⁰ That seems to be the way we should translate οἱ τηροῦντες, but the emphasis is on their function as watchers rather than on that of guarding the tomb.

¹¹ σείω was used of the earthquake (27:51; should we say that the guard “quaked”?) and of the whole city being agitated (21:10). It signifies thoroughgoing agitation.

¹² This may be the point of the emphatic you: μὴ φοβεῖσθε ὑμεῖς. Fear is the reaction to be expected from the enemies of Jesus in the presence of angelic beings, but there is no reason for his followers to be afraid.

¹³ Interestingly he uses the perfect participle ἐσταυρωμένον, which would normally indicate that he continues in the capacity of the crucified one. They were looking for a crucified man instead of a risen one.

¹⁴ It is possible that his disciples here means his followers as a whole. Jesus appeared to small numbers in Jerusalem, but Paul speaks of an appearance to more than 500 people (1 Cor. 15:6), and this may well have been in Galilee.

¹⁵ προσχυνέω is sometimes used of the reverence paid to humans “who, however, are to be recognized by this act as belonging to a superhuman realm” (‍BAGD‍, 1). But mostly it is used of worshiping deity, whether the true God or the gods of the heathen. The important thing is that it ascribes deity to the object.

¹⁶ The verb is συνάγω (for which see the note on 27:62). It is used for the gathering of formal assemblies, but also for gatherings of almost any kind (of the mob, 27:17). We should not understand this as a formal assembly, but rather as an informal consultation.

¹⁷ συμβούλιον may be used of a council, but here it seems clear that the plan that was formulated is in mind.

REB The Revised English Bible (Oxford and Cambridge, 1989)

¹⁸ ‍Chrysostom‍ pours scorn on the idea that they stole him; he speaks of the guards as men who “are not even able to make up a falsehood” and goes on to refer to the disciples as “men poor and unlearned, and not venturing so much as to show themselves. … And how should it enter their minds to feign such a thing, men who were well content to be hidden and to live? … they were timorous … when they saw Him seized, all rushed away from Him” (p. 530).

¹⁹ Bruce comments, “The lie for which the priests paid so much money is suicidal; one half destroys the other. Sleeping sentinels could not know what happened.”

²⁰ Cf. ‍Nixon‍, “If they were Roman soldiers, Pilate may have handed over responsibility for them on this duty to the Sanhedrin, and therefore he might be persuaded not to punish this offence of sleeping on duty.”

²¹ ἐὰν ἀχουσθῇ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος, “if it be heard upon the governor,” is an unusual expression. But despite the awkwardness, if we try to put it literally into English there is no real doubt as to what it means. ‍GNB‍ has, “if the Governor should hear of this.” It is possible that we should take it in the sense “if it comes to a hearing before the governor,” but this seems less likely.

²² ὑμᾶς ἀμερίμνους ποιήσομεν is another awkward expression: “we will make you without care.” But the meaning is clear enough.

²³ Turner takes διεφημίσθη as a perfective aorist, “in which the emphasis is all on the conclusion or results of an action” (‍M, III‍, p. 72).

²⁴ It is agreed on all hands that this is a very “Jewish” Gospel; most commentators hold that Matthew was writing for a Jewish-Christian church. It is accordingly surprising that this is the only place in this Gospel where the word “Jew” occurs, apart from the expression “King of the Jews,” which is found 4 times. John’s Gospel is very different; it uses the term “Jew” 71 times.

²⁵ τάσσω is used of various kinds of appointing; here it clearly refers to a command given by Jesus, though there is no indication of when the command was given. ‍BAGD‍ notes that the middle is here used in the sense of the active, and that πορεύεσθαι is to be understood (2.b).

JB The Jerusalem Bible (London, 1966)

²⁶ Cf. Stonehouse, “The word ‘doubt’ is of course not the equivalent of stark unbelief. In the only other instance of the use of this verb in the New Testament, in Mt. 14:31, it expresses Peter’s lack of an adequate faith when he started to meet Jesus upon the water” (‍Witness‍, pp. 179–80).

LB The Living Bible

²⁷ O. Michel regards verses 18–20 as very important; they are “the key to the understanding of the whole book” (‍Stanton‍, p. 35). This may be something of an overstatement, but there can be no doubt that they put the capstone on all that has gone before.

²⁸ ἐξουσία is connected with ἔξεστιν and thus means “freedom of choice, right to act, decide, or dispose of one’s property as one wishes” (‍BAGD‍, 1). It comes to mean “authority, absolute power” and is used here “of Jesus’ absolute authority” (‍BAGD‍, 3).

KJV The King James Version

²⁹ Graham Stanton discovers general agreement “that these verses are crucial for Matthean Christology” but wide difference on their precise meaning. Specifically he objects to Kingsbury’s view that that they express a “Son of God Christology.” He goes on, “Unless one accepts Kingsbury’s view that the title Son of God is the central christological title in Matthew, this seems to be a lop-sided interpretation of the closing verses. Surely it is more plausible to see a cluster of related Matthean themes in this passage” (‍Stanton‍, p. 5).

³⁰ “Go” translates the participle πορευθέντες. From this fact some have drawn the conclusion that Jesus did not command his followers to go; all that they were to do was make disciples of such people as they happened to encounter. But where a participle is linked in this way with an imperative, it shares in the imperatival force (cf. 2:8, 13; 11:4; 17:27). Jesus was commanding his followers to go as well as to make disciples, though the emphasis falls on the making of disciples.

³¹ In ‍BDF‍ 148(3) we find that μαθητεύειν meant first “to be a disciple” (27:57 v.l.), then it became a deponent (13:52; 27:57 v.l.) and “from this there developed a new active ‘to make a disciple of’.” Mounce translates “a learner,” and explains, “A disciple is not simply one who has been taught but one who continues to learn.”

³² ‍M. Green‍ comments, “The apostles are called not to evoke decisions but to make disciples. And that is an altogether tougher assignment” (p. 300).

³³ D. R. A. Hare and D. J. Harrington argue that we should take all the nations here to mean all the Gentiles but not the Jews (CBQ, XXXVII [1975], pp. 359–69). But they seem to have been answered by J. P. Meier, who maintains that all the nations means all the nations of the world including Israel (CBQ, XXXIX [1977], pp. 94–102).

³⁴ Turner insists that εἰς here has its proper sense and is not to be taken as equivalent to ἐν; it refers to “baptism into the name, i.e. a relationship as the goal of baptism” (‍M, III‍, p. 255).

³⁵ C. K. Barrett points out that Eusebius quotes the passage in the form “Go ye into all the world and make disciples of all the Gentiles in my name,” which omits the reference to baptism and to the Trinitarian formula. But he points out that no trace of this reading is found in any MS of Matthew or indeed in any writing other than that of Eusebius. He finds it “very difficult to believe that if this (the short reading) is what Matthew wrote, not one copy of his unaltered MS succeeded in escaping revision” (The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition [London, 1947], p. 103).

Johnson The Interpreter’s Bible, VII: S. E. Johnson, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, Exegesis (Nashville, 1951)

³⁶ Meier points out that the expression has implications for our understanding of the Godhead: “one could hardly imagine a more forceful proclamation of Christ’s divinity—and, incidentally, of the Spirit’s distinct personality—than this listing together, on a level of equality, of Father, Son, and Spirit. One does not baptize people in the name of a divine person, a holy creature, and an impersonal divine force.”

Bonnard P. Bonnard, L’Evangile selon Saint Matthieu, 2nd edn. (Neuchâtel, 1970)

³⁷ “The mistake of so many writers on the New Testament lies in treating this saying as a liturgical formula (which it later became), and not as a description of what baptism accomplished” (‍AB‍).

³⁸ ‍Tasker‍ points out that the baptism Jesus here initiates is not a reversion to the practice of John the Baptist (or of what he and his disciples had done in earlier days, John 4:1–2). “It was essentially a new sacrament, by which men and women were to come under the influence of the Triune God, to be used in His service. The words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are therefore both emphatic and essential to the text. Without them, the reference to baptism would be indeterminate and conventional” (p. 276).

³⁹ McNeile denies that the threefold name points to a late date. He reminds us that Jesus spoke of “the Father” and “the Son,” while “the Holy Spirit” is an Old Testament expression. He draws attention to the fact that Paul often “brings the Three into juxtaposition.”

⁴⁰ D. Wenham remarks, “the Trinitarian tendencies of the early church are most easily explained if they go back to Jesus Himself; but the importance of the point for our study is that it means that Matthew’s reference to the Trinity in chapter 28 is not a white elephant thoroughly out of context. Whether a formula or not, whether ipsissima verba or evangelist’s paraphrase, the Matthean command may be regarded as the crystallization of ideas that are present as well in the resurrection accounts of Luke and John” (The Resurrection Narratives, p. 53).

⁴¹ Kingsbury says, “even as the resurrected Son of God, he remains the crucified Son of God (‘the one who has been, and remains, the crucified’; 28:6; 27:54)” (‍Matthew‍, p. 57). This is surely the basis for making disciples and baptizing them.

⁴² Baptizing and teaching are two more participles dependent on μαθητεύσατε; the force of all this is given by Carson: it is “to make Jesus’ disciples responsible for making disciples of others, a task characterized by baptism and instruction” (p. 597).

NIV The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids, 1978)

⁴³ Moule says that the accusative πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας “perhaps strictly = the whole of every day” (‍IBNTG‍, p. 34).

⁴⁴ ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. For this Matthean expression see the note on 13:39. The thought is not only temporal but includes that of the completion of the purpose of God.

AS G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1954)

AB The Anchor Bible: W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (New York, 1971)

BAGD Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and aug. by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker from the 5th edn. (Chicago, 1979)

BDF F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans. and rev. by R. W. Funk (Chicago, 1961)

Burton,  E. de W. Burton: Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Edinburgh, 1955)

DM H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York, 1927)

LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon, comp. by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, rev. by H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1940)

IBNTG C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge, 1953)

M,  J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 1, Prolegomena (Edinburgh, 1906)

M,  J. H. Moulton, II, Accidence and Word Formation, ed. W. F. Howard (Edinburgh, 1919)

M,  J. H. Moulton, III, Syntax, by Nigel Turner (Edinburgh, 1963)

M,  J. H. Moulton, IV, Style, by Nigel Turner (Edinburgh, 1976)

MM J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1914-29)

SBk H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 4 vols. (Munich, 1922-28)

↑ Back to top