We come the beginning of Matthew’s account of the Crucifixion. Each Evangelist has his own perspective on this great event, although a number of general features stand out:-
1. As Garland states: ‘Each scene in this section—the plotting by the Jewish leaders, the anointing, and the betrayal contract—foreshadows Jesus’ death.’ This ‘was manifestly the most famous death in history. No other death has aroused one-hundredth part of the interest, or been remembered with one-hundredth part of the intensity and concern.’ (Malcolm Muggeridge, Q by Tidball)
2. The death of Jesus features far more largely than would be expected in any conventional biography; so much so, that any of the four Gospels could be described as essentially an account of the crucifixion with an extended preface. Even the ‘extended prefaces’ contain a number of references to and predictions of Jesus’ impending death.
3. At first sight, the four Gospels seem to offer us little by way of interpretation of the crucifixion. True, they recount the events of Jesus’ betrayal, arrest, trial and death in minute detail. But there seems to be little by way of theological reflection or application. To the extent that this impression is accurate, we can explain it by reference to the fact that many of the Epistles of Paul were in circulation by the time that the Gospels were published, and so the doctrine of the atonement was already established; what was missing was one or more authoritative and detailed accounts of the historical facts underlying that doctrine. But, in fact, each of the four Evangelists presents an individual perspective on Christ’s death which certainly reflects very considerable theological insight.
4. Although each of the four accounts of Jesus’ death has its own theological emphases, and therefore its own selection of historical details to bring to our attention, the differences are only such as one would expect from four witnesses each viewing the same event from a slightly difference perspective. Four witnesses in court of the same event would be expected to have noticed different things, and it is precise conformity that would lead to the suspicion of collusion and dishonesty. Tidball illustrates by likening the crucifixion to an act being played out in a public square. From high above, four people each look out of a window and describe what they see. They reports have much in common, but each has his or her own perspective.
The Plot Against Jesus
26:1 When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he told his disciples, 26:2 “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”
As Carson says: ‘In the narrative line of Matthew, this pericope is a masterpiece of irony. The Judge of the universe, King Messiah, the glorious Son of Man, is about to be judged.’
When Jesus had finished saying all these things – In this way, Matthew signals a transition from a major block of teaching (chapters 23-24) to a resumption of the narrative.
‘Jesus has now ended his preaching, teaching, and miraculous ministries. All that remains is to accomplish the real reason for his incarnation, the true purpose of his mission, his death on the cross as the atoning sacrifice for our sins.’ (Osborne)
Ryle comments that the Evangelist turns from the account of our Lord’s sayings and doing – his prophetic role, to an account of his sufferings and death – his priestly role.
“The Passover is two days away” – It has been suggested that Mark 14:1 has confused Nisan 15 with Nisan 14 here, and that Matthew has ‘corrected’ him by omitting the reference to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Hurtado explains: ‘According to the OT, Passover…is to be observed on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan (in the spring), and the festival of Unleavened Bread is to begin the following day and last for seven days. From ancient times, the two festivals were linked, and either term could refer to the combined period of time.’
According to Edwards, ‘the reference to the Passover as “two days away” should probably be understood according to the inclusive reckoning of time among the Jews, meaning “the day after” (so, too, Mk 8:31).’
This is not an incidental time marker. The fact that Jesus’ death took place around the time of Passover is frequently stressed by the Evangelists, and provides a strong theological theme undergirding the narrative: ‘The commemoration of Israel’s rescue from Egypt is the appropriate time for the ultimate act of redemption to occur.’ (France)
‘His death transforms the meaning of Passover for Christians, for they do not remember Passover as the time when God struck down the firstborn in the land of Egypt and liberated Israel from the bondage. Instead, they associate it with God’s beloved Son being struck down to deliver all humankind from the bondage to Satan and sin.’ (Garland)
This prediction is not mentioned in Mark’s account. Already predicted three times by Jesus – in Mt 16:21; 17:22–23; 20:18–19. France notes that God’s plan precedes the human plot (v3f)!
It is the Jews who will hand Jesus over, and the Romans who will carry out the death sentence. But Osborne sees here ‘a divine passive pointing to God’s giving Jesus over to his destiny.’
Morris notes that Jesus fixes the time of his death, accurately, as after ‘two days’, whereas his enemies say it will be after the feast (v5), that is, at least a week away.
“The Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified” – We should not neglect the emotional shock of this prediction: ‘Jesus’ prediction of crucifixion may not sound harsh to us, due to our familiarity with the story, but it could have only jarred Jesus’ disciples. Inhabitants of the Roman Empire, especially in places like Jewish Palestine, saw crucifixion as the cruellest, most painful and most degrading form of common criminal execution.’ (IVP Bible Background Commentary)
Noting how our Lord stresses the inevitability of his death, Ryle comments: ‘We can never attach too much importance to the atoning death of Christ. It is the leading fact in the word of God, on which the eyes of our soul ought to be ever fixed. Without the shedding of his blood, there is no remission of sin. It is the cardinal truth on which the whole system of Christianity hinges. Without it the Gospel is an arch without a key-stone, a fair building without a foundation, a solar system without a sun. Let us make much of our Lord’s incarnation and example, His miracles and his parables, His works and His words, but above all let us make much of His death.’
26:3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people met together in the palace of the high priest, who was named Caiaphas. 26:4 They planned to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. 26:5 But they said, “Not during the feast, so that there won’t be a riot among the people.”
Then – Morris says that Matthew does not intend this as a specific, but rather a general, time marker. Following Hagner, Osborne says that this expression ‘makes the action of the leaders virtually a fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction.’
The chief priests and the elders of the people – A combination of the religious aristocracy and (probably) members of the Sanhedrin. There is no mention of the Pharisees, who had previously been long-standing opponents of Jesus, or the scribes.
The palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas – See also on v57, and cf. Jn 11:49. Luke (Lk 3:2; Acts 4:6) names Annas as the high priest. Carson explains that there is no real conflict: Annas had been illegally deposed in AD 15, and replaced by his son-in-law Caiaphas. Some people would have referred to one, and some the other, as high priest. It is clear from Jn 18:13 that Annas continued to exercise considerable influence behind the scenes.
Barclay explains: ‘In the old days the office of High Priest had been hereditary and had been for life; but when the Romans took over in Palestine, High Priests came and went in rapid series, for the Romans erected and deposed High Priests to suit their own purposes. Between 37 B.C. and A.D. 67, when the last was appointed before the destruction of the Temple, there were no fewer than twenty-eight High Priests. The suggestive thing is that Caiaphas was High Priest from A.D. 18 to A.D. 36. This 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.’
They plotted to arrest Jesus…and kill him – Cf. Ps 31:13. ‘A private meeting to plot the execution of a person not yet convicted certainly violated Jewish law. (IVP Bible Background Commentary)
Tidball notes that ‘the starting-gun of hostility that would eventually lead Jesus to the cross is fired early in Matthew’s Gospel’ (Mt 2:16-18).
Dickson observes that ‘councils may err, and such as have the title of rulers and elders in the Church may prove enemies to Christ, for such is the assembly of the chief rulers here.’
“But not during the Feast” – a total of 8 days. Several commentators note the translation of Jeremias: “Not in the presence of the festival crowd”, in which case this is a comment more about place than about time. Either way, this seems to explain why Judas needed to be enlisted in order to identify Jesus. He could not be seized in broad daylight, for the reason stated here. So the evil task would need to be carried out under cover of darkness, with the help of an ‘insider’.
“There might be a riot among the people” – The population of Jerusalem was (very roughly) 100,000, doubling during Passover. Many of those attending Passover would have been sympathetic towards Jesus.
Garland explains: ‘The story of Jesus’ being left behind by his parents in the temple (Luke 2:41–44) shows the chaos that resulted from the crush of people. Most of these pilgrims slept in tents or boarded in the towns of the surrounding countryside.’
Passover was, of course, a time when God’s great deliverance of his people from their bondage in Egypt was celebrated. The Israelites themselves were spared the plague on the firstborn by the daubing of the blood of a slaughtered lamb. ‘Many in Jesus’ day saw this first deliverance as the model for their final liberation. Pilgrims came to commemorate this event filled with hopes and expectations that the Messiah would eventually come to deliver Israel from foreign oppression and economic misery during the night of Passover.’ (Garland)
‘It was a particularly nervous time for the high priests and their police force since the chance for an outbreak of riots increased dramatically during this time. The Roman governor usually moved to Jerusalem from his headquarters in Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast to monitor the volatile mobs of fervent pilgrims. The slightest provocation could set them off, and Josephus duly records the disturbances that broke out during a festival.’ (Garland)
Dickson: ‘Wicked men are wise to foresee temporal inconveniences, but blind to see the danger of sinning, as here.’
26:6 Now while Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 26:7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of expensive perfumed oil, and she poured it on his head as he was at the table.
As Lane (on Mark) remarks, ‘the anointing at Bethany is located in a context of opposition, misunderstanding and impending suffering.’ The account is sandwiched between that of the plot to kill Jesus and that of Judas conspiring to betray Jesus. ‘By interpolating the account of the anointing in Bethany within this framework Mark achieved a dramatic contrast. The pure devotion of the anonymous woman throws into bold relief the hostility and treachery of the priests and their accomplice. It is further suggested that, at the time men were concerned with securing Jesus’ death, Jesus’ body was prepared for burial through an act which expressed faith and love.’
All four Gospels have a story of anointing (Mt 26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9; Lk 7:36-50; Jn 12:1-9). Many scholars consider that these all relate to the same incident. However, Luke’s account comes at an earlier stage in Jesus’ ministry, and takes place in Galilee in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and involves a woman who was a notorious sinner, and is therefore to be regarded as a separate event. Anointing of honoured guests was common enough for it to be no surprise that Jesus was anointed more than once.
While Jesus was in Bethany – Situated on the Mount of Olives, almost two miles from Jerusalem and the last stage of the pilgrim road from Jericho to Jerusalem. It was home to Mary, Martha and Lazarus.
Whereas John has placed his account chronologically (the day before the Triumphal Entry; six days before the Passover), Mark and Matthew appear to have placed it thematically, in order to show up the contrast between the love of this woman and the hatred of those who were plotting to betray and kill Jesus. The events of Matthew 26:6–13, then, precede those of Mt 21:1ff. In Mt 20:29, Jesus left Jericho, heading toward Jerusalem. Then he arrived in Bethany, where the anointing took place. The present passage, then, is in he nature of a ‘flashback’ (Wiersbe).
Simon the Leper – See Mk 15:21. Obviously, he did not have leprosy at this time; presumably he had previously suffered from the disease but had recovered (or been healed). According to John 12:1f Lazarus and his two sisters lived there: it may be that Simon was their father, or that the house had previously belonged to him.
A woman – If this is the same incident that is recorded in Jn 12:1-8, this woman is Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus. In the account of Matthew and Mark, however, she is peculiarly anonymous. Not only are we not told her name, neither are we told if she was a relative of Simon the Leper, an invited guest, or simply (as in Lk 7:37) someone who simply came in from the town. All of this is even more strange in the light of Jesus’ pronouncement in v9, that this woman will be remembered in perpetuity. Bauckham explains this in terms of ‘protective anonymity’: the woman had, in effect, anointed Jesus as Messiah, and this complicity with his subversive claims would have placed her in grave danger from the authorities.
Very expensive perfume – According to Mk 14:5 and Jn 12:5, it was worth the equivalent of a working man’s annual salary. As an aside, Osborne notes: ‘I’ve never even smelled a perfume that expensive!.’
Keener (IVP Bible Background Commentary) says that this perfume would have been imported from the East (India?) and had probably been kept in the family as an heirloom.
Barclay notes: ‘A gift is never really a gift when we can easily afford it; a gift truly becomes a gift only when there is sacrifice behind it, and when we give far more than we can afford.’
If it be thought surprising for the Messiah to be anointed by a woman, or that Mark’s narrative interprets the gesture in terms of Jesus’ death and burial rather than messianic triumph, then that is probably part of the point: ‘Just as readers of Mark know that Jesus’ riding into Jerusalem on a colt does not signify messianic triumph of the generally expected kind but constitutes a journey to his death, so the messianic anointing by the woman is redirected by Jesus toward his burial, coherently with the characteristically Markan (though not, of course, only Markan) connection between messiahship and the cross.’ (Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses).
She poured [it] on his head – It was not uncommon for honoured guests to be anointed, but not with expensive nard. According to Mk 14:3, the woman ‘broke the jar’ – a common way of opening it, if all the contents (and not just a few drops) were to be used. Psa 133:3 paints the resulting picture for us.
26:8 When the disciples saw this, they became indignant and said, “Why this waste? 26:9 It could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor!”
The disciples…were indignant – The complaint is directed not so much at Jesus, as at the woman (see v10). Imagine how she now felt, to have her act of adoration so roundly condemned!
“This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor” – On the surface, this objection is consistent with Jewish teaching in general and with Jesus’ teaching in particular (see, for example, Mt 19:21). France concedes that many readers will ask: ‘How can he call on one rich man to sell all he has in favor of the poor (Mt 19:21) and yet allow this woman to waste a year’s wages on a personal cosmetic?’
Yet, as Osborne states, it shows a lack of perception regarding the nature and importance of this particular moment. If your daughter is emigrating, you do not take the clothes she is leaving behind to the charity shop instead of kissing her goodbye.
According to Jn 12:4-6, Judas was the spokesman. John also explains that Judas did not object because he cared about the poor ‘but because he was a thief: as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.’ Mt 26:15 confirms that he was really only interested in money for himself, not for others.
Dickson observes: ‘One murmurer may infect a whole company; one Judas ensnares in his fault other disciples.’
Hendriksen comments: ‘the disciples did not know the true character of Judas. His criticism of Mary sounded so “spiritual” that they joined him in attacking her.’
Again: ‘Notice that every time Mary sought to do something for Jesus, she was misunderstood. Her sister Martha misunderstood her when Mary sat at Jesus’ feet to hear Him teach the Word. Judas and the other disciples misunderstood her when she anointed Jesus. Her friends and neighbors misunderstood her when she came out of the house to meet Jesus after Lazarus had been buried (John 11:28–31). When we give Jesus Christ first place in our lives, we can expect to be misunderstood and criticized by those who claim to follow Him.’
And again: ‘“Why this waste?” asked Judas when he saw that expensive ointment poured out on Jesus. Yet Judas wasted his opportunities, his life, and his soul! Jesus called him son of perdition (John 17:12) which literally means “son of waste.”’
‘Note, We must take heed of thinking any thing waste, which is bestowed upon the Lord Jesus, either by others or by ourselves. We must not think that time waste, that is spent in the service of Christ, or that money waste, which is laid out in any work of piety; for, though it seem to be cast upon the waters, to be thrown down the river, we shall find it again, to advantage, after many days, Eccl. 11:1.’ (MHC)
26:10 When Jesus learned of this, he said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a good service for me. 26:11 For you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me! 26:12 When she poured this oil on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.
“A beautiful thing” – ‘a good service’ (NRSV); ‘a good deed’ (NASB). France says that the term originally meant ‘lovely’, ‘beautiful’, and it may retain some of this aesthetic meaning here (contrasting with the pragmatism of the disciples).
Jesus words recorded in v2 seemed to have impacted two people in particular: this woman, who responded by doing a ‘beautiful thing’ for him, and Judas, whose response was to betray him. Blomberg cites Stagg, who wonders ‘if Mary and Judas were in fact Jesus’ first two followers really to believe that he was going to die but who then expressed their reactions in diametrically opposite ways.’
Green: ‘Jesus is on his way to die, and he is flanked on one side by hatred and treachery and on the other by adoring love.’
Barclay: ‘At the end of Jesus’ life there was so much bitterness, so much treachery, so much intrigue, so much tragedy that this story shines like an oasis of light [sic – oases don’t shine; beacons do!] in a darkening world.’
So, what was the significance of this act?-
- Profound thankfulness, not least for the raising of her brother Lazarus.
- Messianic anointing, seen especially as the oil covered Jesus’ head. ‘The most prominent use of oil in the OT, especially when poured over the head, was for the anointing of kings and priests to mark them out for their divinely-approved office, and the woman’s act may have included a “messianic” connotation; at least the reader is likely to understand it so’ (France). ‘Jesus has entered Jerusalem as king (Mk 11:1–10), he is about to be challenged as the Messiah by the high priest (Mk 14:61), crucified as ‘King of the Jews’ (Mk 15:26), mocked by his opponents as ‘Christ, the King of Israel’ (Mk 15:32), and acknowledged by his executioner as ‘Son of God’ (Mk 15:39). Since Mark’s story shows us that it is through death that Jesus is revealed as ‘Messiah’ or ‘anointed’, it seems likely that he interpreted this anointing for burial as the symbol of Jesus’ messianic anointing also.’ (Hooker)
- Preparation for burial, seen especially as the oil ran down Jesus’ body. This the aspect that Jesus specifically comments on. ‘Whatever the woman’s intention, she has in fact done for him what his executioners will not do, given him the wherewithal for a decent burial.’ (France)
‘Note, It is a great trouble to good people to have their good works censured and misconstrued; and it is a thing that Jesus Christ takes very ill.’ (MHC)
“The poor you will always have with you” – An allusion to Deut 15:11, where the sense is that the poor will always be present, and therefore always in need of help. Jesus is by no means minimising acts of compassion towards the needy. He is saying: ‘You can help them at any time. But the time to honour me is severely limited.’ He does not dispute the fact that he is worthy of this honour.
‘When Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you, he was not acquiescing in the permanence of poverty. He was echoing the Old Testament statement ‘there will always be poor people in the land’. (Deut 15:11) Ye this was intended not as an excuse for complacency but as an incentive to generosity, as a result of which ‘there should be no poor among you’. (Deut 15:4) If there is one community in the world in which justice is secured for the oppressed, the poor are freed from the indignities of poverty, and physical need is abolished by the voluntary sharing of resources, that community is the new society of Jesus the Messiah. It happened in Jerusalem after Pentecost, when ‘there were no needy persons among them’, as Luke is at pains to show, and it can (and should) happen again today.’ (Stott, New Issues Facing Christians Today, 271f).
‘Jesus understood the reality of poverty in society (Mt 26:9-11) and the difficulties of the poor. (Mk 12:42-44) He stressed the need to give to the poor (Mt 19:21; Lk 12:33) and to provide for them. (Lk 14:13,21) Jesus himself identified with poor people and, like many poor persons, did not have a home. (Lk 9:58) He taught how difficult it was to be rich (Mt 19:23-24) and the necessity of spiritual poverty for a relationship with God.’ (Mt 5:3) (EDBT)
Blomberg remarks: ‘This is an interesting passage indeed after the account of the sheep and the goats in Mt 25:31–46. There helping the (Christian) poor equaled helping Jesus. Here helping Jesus proves better than helping the (unspecified) poor. Varying circumstances make both models possible without contradiction; neither is absolute.’
Garland: ‘In rabbinic logic, almsgiving was considered to be less praiseworthy than burying the dead because the former was done to the living while the latter was extended to the dead. Almsgiving could be done any time; preparing a body for burial had to be done when the need arose. Therefore, one can conclude that what this woman did was better than almsgiving because it was done to one who was as good as dead.’
Barclay comments: ‘There are some things which we can do at any time; there are some things which can be done only once; and to miss the opportunity to do them then is to miss the opportunity for ever.’
‘Sometimes special works of piety and devotion should take place of common works of charity.’ (MHC)
The woman may have been present to hear Jesus’ words recorded in v2. If so, she would have realised that, in being crucified as a criminal he would have been denied decent burial rites. France says that ‘it is possible that the woman had been there to hear those words and so had consciously planned to make good the lack of due respect to his body, but it is more likely that this is Jesus’ own interpretation of what had been in her intention simply a spontaneous act of love and loyalty.’
She was able to do before his death what other women were unable to do after his death (cf. Lk 24:1). According to Jn 19:39 Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus used 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes on Jesus’ body. The fact that Matthew omits both of these details suggests that he regards the present anointing as Jesus’ official preparation for burial (so Osborne).
“She did it to prepare me for burial” – We cannot be sure that Mary understood this herself at the time, for no-one seemed to understand Jesus’ predictions of his death and resurrection until after the event. It is clearly an act of homage, and perhaps of thanksgiving for all that she and her family have received from Jesus, and even of worship. But Jesus finds in her act a significance beyond what she herself perceives.
26:13 I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.”
“Wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world” – As Morris says, this is a remarkable saying in its context. Jesus is about to go to his death, and his ministry would, to all appearances, be shut down, and yet he talks about ‘this gospel’ being ‘preached throughout the world’.
This woman ‘thus stands out as the only Gospel figure, male or female, who fully grasps the reality of Jesus’ predictions of his death and who actually gets to prepare his body (since would-be anointing women will find an empty tomb). No wonder Jesus memorializes this woman’s act “wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world.”’ (Spencer, DJG, 2nd ed.)
France observes that ‘for Jesus to speak of a continuing proclamation of “this good news” immediately after reflecting on his own impending death must indicate that his death is not the end: if Jesus were to remain dead and buried, where would the “good news” be?’
But what is meant by ‘this gospel’? Some think that the reference is to the story of the passion, as evoked by this anticipatory act. Osborne, however, insists that Jesus is referring to the kingdom message in general, as in Mt 24:14. Yet, Osborne adds, Jesus is also hinting here that ‘that his death and burial will be an essential part of that “good news.”’
‘[The] addition of the word “this” to gospel accentuates the fact that Jesus’ death is part of the gospel.’ (Schenck, DJG 2nd ed.)
Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) notes that the account of the woman’s anointing is sandwiched between Mark’s account of the plot by the Jewish authorities to arrest and kill Jesus (Mk 14:1-2) and his Judas’ visit to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them (Mk 14:10f). [The same sequence is present here in Matthew]. Bauckham suggests that we should see more here that a mere contrast between the woman’s devotion and Judas’ treachery: ‘We should surely understand that Judas reports the incident of the anointing to the chief priests, for whom it must constitute significant evidence that Jesus and his disciples are planning an imminent messianic uprising. Perhaps we should also suspect that it was this incident — with its unavoidable confirmation by Jesus that he will undertake the messianic role only on his own terms as a vocation to die — that led Judas to defect.’
‘It is interesting…to see how firmly the missionary vocabulary of the early Christians, preached, gospel, throughout the world (v13), is rooted in the very words of Jesus.’ (Green)
As Green remarks, ‘nothing done for Jesus is wasted, and nothing forgotten’, and these twin facts ‘nerve disciples to take the cap off their alabaster jars of precious possessions and pour them out for Jesus.’
‘We see in this incident a blessed foretaste of things that will yet take place in the day of judgment. In that great day no honor done to Christ on earth shall be found to have been forgotten. The speeches of parliamentary orators, the exploits of warriors, the works of poets and painters, shall not be mentioned in that day. But the least work that the weakest Christian woman has done for Christ, or His members, shall be found written in a book of everlasting remembrance.’ (Ryle)
Ryle asks: ‘Do we know what it is to work for Christ? If we do, let us take courage, and work on. What greater encouragement can we desire than we see here? We may be laughed at and ridiculed by the world. Our motives may be misunderstood. Our conduct may be misrepresented. Our sacrifices for Christ’s sake may be called “waste,”–waste of time, waste of money, waste of strength. Let none of these things move us. The eye of Him who sat in Simon’s house in Bethany is upon us. He notes all we do, and is well-pleased. Let us be “steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the Lord’s work, because we know that our labor is not in vain in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 15:58)’
JFB quotes Stier: ‘Who but himself had the power to ensure to any work of man…an imperishable remembrance in the stream of history? Behold once more here the majesty of his royal judicial supremacy in the government of the world.’
‘Jesus’ commendation of this anonymous woman also reveals that one can never be fully aware of one’s own significance or role in God’s kingdom. The woman had no idea of the worldwide significance of her action, nor did the high priests, Judas, or Pontius Pilate.’ (Garland)
‘Though the honour of Christ is principally designed in the gospel, yet the honour of his saints and servants is not altogether overlooked. The memorial of this woman was to be preserved, not by dedicating a church to her, or keeping an annual feast in honour of her, or preserving a piece of her broken box for a sacred relic; but by mentioning her faith and piety in the preaching of the gospel, for example to others, Heb. 6:12.’ (MHC)
The Plan to Betray Jesus
26:14 Then one of the twelve, the one named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 26:15 and said, “What will you give me to betray him into your hands?” So they set out thirty silver coins for him. 26:16 From that time on, Judas began looking for an opportunity to betray him.
One of the Twelve – ‘The note that Judas was “one of the Twelve” (Mk 14:10, 20; 3:19) warns Mark’s readers that proximity to Jesus does not guarantee faithfulness. Indeed, greater intimacy with Jesus requires greater watchfulness (Mk 13:33–36). As an insider, Judas knows Jesus better than others do, and his knowledge and familiarity provide him means of justifying a deed for which there is no justification. His betrayal, as a consequence, is more grievous (Mk 14:19) and heinous (Mk 14:21).’ (Edwards)
Nearness to Jesus over a considerable period of time does not guarantee faithfulness to him.
Judas went to the chief priests – They did not seek him out: he sought them out. Yet we must not forget that all of this was according to God’s fore-ordination: ‘God will suffer wicked men to follow their designs even against himself when he sees it fir for his own glory.’ (Dickson)
“What are you willing to give me?” – ‘He that sells Christ knows not his worth.’ (Dickson)
“Hand him over” – Same expression as in v1 and v20 (where it is translated ‘betray’).
It is precisely Judas, the treacherous betrayer, who is instrumental in causing the crucifixion to occur at Passover (according to divine plan), rather than later (as intended by Jesus’ enemies, cf. v5).
Thirty silver coins – recalling Zech 11:12. See also Mt 27:9f. Joseph had been sold into slavery by his brother for twenty pieces of silver (Gen 37:28). According to Ex 21:32, thirty pieces of silver was the value of a slave who had accidentally been gored to death by an ox (Carson). Mounce calls it a ‘paltry’ sum for such an act. France says that these coins were probably denarii, giving a total of about one month’s wage. Osborne agrees that the amount paid to Judas was one-tenth the worth of the perfume that had been used to anoint Jesus. To slightly re-phrase Barclay’s comment: this was the most dreadful bargain in history.
Ryle warns against the love of money: ‘The words of the apostle Paul should often ring in our ears, “the love of money is the root of all evil.” (1 Tim. 6:10.) The history of the Church abounds in illustrations of this truth. For money Joseph was sold by his brethren. For money Samson was betrayed to the Philistines. For money Gehazi deceived Naaman, and lied to Elisha. For money Ananias and Sapphira tried to deceive Peter. For money the Son of God was delivered into the hands of wicked men. Astonishing indeed does it seem that the cause of so much evil should be loved so well.’
‘Note, There are those, even among Christ’s followers, that are worse than any one can imagine them to be, and want nothing but opportunity to show it.’ (MHC)
‘Undoubtedly the pact was for Judas to let the leaders know when Jesus was away from the crowds in a private spot so they could arrest Jesus without antagonizing the people…As we know, Judas will find his moment when Jesus leads the disciples late at night to the olive grove of Gethsemane.’ (Osborne)
Ryle observes: ‘Judas Iscariot had the highest possible religious privileges. He was a chosen apostle, and companion of Christ. He was an eye-witness of our Lord’s miracles, and a hearer of His sermons. He saw what Abraham and Moses never saw, and heard what David and Isaiah never heard. He lived in the society of the eleven apostles. He was a fellow-laborer with Peter, James, and John. But for all this his heart was never changed.’
And again: ‘Judas Iscariot made a reputable profession of religion. There was nothing but what was right, and proper, and becoming in his outward conduct. Like the other apostles, he appeared to believe and to give up all for Christ’s sake. Like them he was sent forth to preach and work miracles. No one of the eleven appears to have suspected him of hypocrisy. When our Lord said, “One of you shall betray me,” no one said, “Is it Judas?” Yet all this time his heart was never changed.’
26:17 Now on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
The question of whether the Passover coincided with the Last Supper on the Thursday (as the Luke and the other Synoptists imply) or with the crucifixion on the Friday (as John seems to teach, Jn 13:1f)) is a difficult one. Morris thinks that different calendars may have been in use, with the Synoptists using an unofficial one. Marshall (Last Supper and Lord’s Supper) comes to the same conclusion. Evans, however, thinks that this proposed solution creates more problems than it solves; he thinks that the apparent discrepancy cannot be resolved.
Stein (NAC) agrees that the accounts of the Synoptists and John cannot readily be reconciled. He thinks that ‘Luke followed Mark 14:12 at this point and gave a popular, although inexact, dating of the Passover. (A similar example would be for those whose celebration of Christmas begins on Christmas Eve rather than Christmas morning.)’ Stein adds that Josephus dates the Passover in the same kind of way.
Stein adds that ‘it seems reasonably certain that the Lord’s Supper was associated with a Passover meal for the following reasons: the Passover had to be eaten within the walled city of Jerusalem, and the Lord’s Supper was also eaten within the walled city; the Passover evening had to be spent in “greater Jerusalem,” which included the Mount of Olives, but not Bethany, and Jesus and the disciples spent that evening in the garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives; Jesus and the disciples reclined at the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:14; Mark 14:18), and this was required at the Passover, whereas at most meals one sat; the Lord’s Supper, like the Passover, was eaten in the evening, whereas most meals were eaten in the late afternoon; the Lord’s Supper ended with hymn (see Mark 14:26), and it was customary to conclude the Passover with Hallel Psalms (Pss 111–117).’
Ryle says, ‘We cannot doubt that the time of our Lord’s crucifixion was overruled by God. His perfect wisdom and controlling power arranged that the Lamb of God should die, at the very time when the passover-lamb was being slain. The death of Christ was the fulfillment of the passover. He was the true sacrifice to which every passover-lamb had been pointing for 1500 years. What the death of the lamb had been to Israel in Egypt, His death was to be to sinners all over the world. The safety which the blood of the passover-lamb had provided for Israel, His blood was to provide far more abundantly for all that believed in Him.’
And the same writer adds, with words that are troublingly relevant in our own day, although written in the middle of the 19th century:-
‘Let us never forget the sacrificial character of Christ’s death. Let us reject with abhorrence the modern notion that it was nothing more than a mighty instance of self-sacrifice and self-denial. It was this no doubt — but it was something far higher, deeper, and more important than this. It was a propitiation for the sins of the world. It was an atonement for man’s transgression. It was the killing of the true passover Lamb, through whose death destruction is warded off from sinners believing on Him. “Christ our passover Lamb,” says Paul, “is sacrificed for us.” (1 Cor 5:7) Let us grasp that truth firmly, and never let it go.’
26:18 He said, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is near. I will observe the Passover with my disciples at your house.” ’ ” 26:19 So the disciples did as Jesus had instructed them, and they prepared the Passover.
“A certain man” – Clearly, Jesus named the man. Matthew did not, presumably because he did not know it.
It seems clear enough that, in the Synoptics, the Last Supper was a Passover meal.
‘The Passover was not just another meal, but a most important festival. It must be eaten reclining, and there were requirements such as the eating of bitter herbs. Thus quite an amount of preparation was necessary. The meal was not a solitary one, but was eaten in companies usually comprising ten to twenty persons.’ (Morris)
‘Ever since the prediction of the pious Simeon to Mary in the temple when he took up the child Jesus in his arms (Lk 2:24ff), the shadow of the cross fell over the whole of the Gospel history. The Saviour himself frequently referred to his approaching suffering and death (e.g. Lk 9:22; 18:31). All four Gospels show us clearly that the death of Christ came to him not as un unexpected or accidental occurrence – he was fully aware that the way of suffering awaited him and he chose voluntarily and of set purpose to lay down his life as a sacrifice, even unto death (Lk 9:51; 18:31-34). And so we find here in the Gospel narrative that on the even of his crucifixion he makes definite preparation with a view to his death and departure – preparation necessary to the continuing life of his church on earth.’ (Geldenhuys)
It seems that Jesus had made prior arrangements for the meal. This shows him to be in control of events, and not at the mercy of the opportunism of Judas.
‘Jesus may not have openly told the location of the upper room due to the presence of Judas, but this is speculative.’ (NAC)
Here, then, begins the account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. ‘How astonishing it seems that an ordinance, so beautifully simple”] at its first appointment, should have been obscured and mystified by man’s inventions! What a painful proof it is of human corruption, that some of the bitterest controversies which have disturbed the Church, have been concerning the table of the Lord. Great indeed is the ingenuity of man, in perverting God’s gifts! The ordinance that should have been for his wealth is too often made an occasion of falling.’ (Ryle)
‘The Passover was a carefully ordered ritual in which each element of the meal reminded the participants of their redemption from Egypt. At the end of the meal someone (usually the youngest son) was designated to ask, “Why is this night different from other nights?” The host of the meal, in this instance Jesus, would recount the exodus story. The story tells of God’s remembering his covenant (cf. “new covenant” in Luke 22:20); deliverance from slavery in Egypt (cf. “for the forgiveness of sins” in Matt 26:28); the blood of the Passover lamb (cf. “my blood” in Luke 22:20; “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed,” 1 Cor 5:7); the interpretation of the elements of the Passover meal (cf. “This is my body.… This cup is” in Luke 22:19–20); and a call for the continual celebration of the Passover (cf. 1 Cor 11:24).’ (NAC)
‘The normal procedure at the Passover meal was to have an opening prayer which was followed by the first of four cups of wine and a dish of herbs and sauce. Then the story of the institution of the Passover was recited, Ps. 113 was sung and the second cup of wine was drunk. After a grace the main course of roast lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs was eaten, and after a further prayer the third cup of wine was drunk. Pss. 114–118 were then sung, and the fourth cup of wine was drunk.’ (NBC)
26:20 When it was evening, he took his place at the table with the twelve.
Reclining at the table – Although people sat for ordinary meals, the Passover (and other festive meals) was eaten in the reclining position. Leonardo’s famous depiction is therefore inaccurate in this respect.
With the Twelve – ‘Judas not excepted; for it is possible that those whose hearts are filled with Satan, and all manner of wickedness, may yet continue a plausible profession of religion, and be found in the performance of its external services; and while it is in the heart, and does not break out into any thing scandalous, such cannot be denied the external privileges of their external profession.’ (MHC)
26:21 And while they were eating he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.” 26:22 They became greatly distressed and each one began to say to him, “Surely not I, Lord?” 26:23 He answered, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 26:24 The Son of Man will go as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for him if he had never been born.” 26:25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” Jesus replied, “You have said it yourself.”
The Lord’s Supper
26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.”
“This is my body” – In approaching the interpretation of this phrase, we should note the semantic breadth of to copula eimi, ‘to be’. Carson cites G.B. Caird’s list of the main types of usage:-
- identity: ‘Is the law sin?’ (Rom 7:7
- attribute: ‘No one is good except God along’ (Mk 10:18)
- cause: ‘To be carnally minded is death’ (Rom 8:6)
- resemblance: ‘The tongue is a fire’ (James 3:6)
Carson adds another:-
5. fulfilment: ‘This is what was spoken by the prophet’ (Acts 2:16)
Clearly, the semantic range of eimi is such that identity cannot be assumed. For a fuller discussion, see Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies, 57-60.
(Attributed to Queen Elizabeth I on being asked her opinion of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament.)
The notorious wording of the Anglican Prayer Book (’seeing that this child is regenerate’) can be taken as analogous to the reference in the Communion Service to the bread as ‘the Body of the Lord’, cf Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24. In each case, a figure of speech is used in which sign is spoken of in terms of the thing signified.
26:27 And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, 26:28 for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 26:29 I tell you, from now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
“This is my blood of the covenant” – ‘It also seems clear that the words “this is my blood” would not have been interpreted literally by any of the disciples in light of the OT prohibition against drinking blood, (cf. Le 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:14; etc.) for if one remembers the difficulty Peter encountered in Acts 10:6-16 with regard to non-kosher meat, it is difficult to conclude that the disciples would have had no qualms drinking what they thought was real blood. The fact that there is not the slightest hesitation nor reservation mentioned in any of the accounts to drinking the cup indicates that they interpreted Jesus’ words metaphorically. The cup-that is, the contents of the cup-symbolizes Jesus’ death, his poured-out blood, shed as a sacrifice which seals a covenant.’ (DJG)
‘The old covenant was that which was made with the Jews by the sprinkled of the blood of sacrifices. See Ex 24:8. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you, etc. In allusion to that, Jesus says, this cup is the NEW covenant in my blood; that is, ratified, or sealed and sanctioned by my blood. Anciently, covenants or contracts were ratified by slaying an animal; by the shedding of its blood; imprecating similar vengeance if either party failed in the compact. So Jesus says the covenant which God is about to form with men, the new covenant, or the gospel economy, is sealed or ratified with his blood.’ (Barnes)
‘Jeremiah foretold of a “new covenant” wherein the laws of God would be written upon the heart, and sins would be remembered no more (31:31-34). It is apparent that Jesus understood his death as inaugurating the covenant envisioned by Jeremiah. Integral to this new covenant is the offer of forgiveness of sins brought about by Jesus’ sacrificial death. This explanation of the purpose of Jesus’ death has been a dominant theme throughout Matthew’s story. His very name (Jesus) was assigned salvific significance by the angel in the birth narrative (1:21).’ (College Press)
‘It is most significant that Christ here connects the “new” covenant with his “blood.” We at once think, as doubtless the disciples thought, of the transaction described in Ex 24:7, when Moses “Took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people,” indicating God’s undertaking on behalf of his people and what he required of them; “and they said, ‘All that the Lord has spoken will we do, and we will be obedient.’” thus taking up their part of the contract. Then comes the ratification. “Moses took the blood half of which had already been thrown on the altar and threw it upon the people, and said, ”Behold the blood of covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words’” (v 8). The blood was sacrificial blood, the blood of the animals sacrificed as burnt offerings and peace offerings (vv 5f). The one half of the blood thrown on the altar tells of the sacrifice offered to God, the other half thrown on the people, of the virtue of the same sacrifice applied to the people; and so the covenant relation is fully brought about. Christ, by speaking of his blood in this connection, plainly indicates that his death was a sacrifice, and that through that sacrifice his people would be brought into a new covenant relationship with God. His sacrifice is acceptable to God and the virtue of it is to be applied to believers – so all the blessings of the new covenant are secured to them; the blood “is poured out for you.” (Lk 22:20) He specifically mentions one great blessing of the new covenant, the forgiveness of sins, – “which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”.’ (Mt 26:28) (ISBE)
“For many” – ‘It is illegitimate to interpret “many” as denoting a limited atonement, for the expression here means “transgressors;” i.e., it refers to all, as the synonymous parallelism in Isa 53:12b-c clearly indicates.’ (DJG)
Calvin: ‘Under the name of many he designates not a part of the world only, but the whole human race.’
26:30 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
The Prediction of Peter’s Denial
26:31 Then Jesus said to them, “This night you will all fall away because of me, for it is written:
‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’
‘In laying out in advance much of the tragedy of the coming hours, this section shows that Jesus is not a blind victim of fate but a voluntary sacrifice; simultaneously he is preparing his disciples for their dark night of doubt.’ (Carson)
“This very night” – Events are moving on at a rapid pace. ‘The intimacy of the Last Supper is shortly to be replaced by disloyalty and cowardice.’ (Carson)
“You will all fall away” – ‘The Greek verb is skandalizein, from skandalon or skandalethron which meant the bait in a trap, the stick on to which the animal was lured and which snapped the trap when the animal stepped on it. So the word skandalizein came to mean to entrap, or to trip up by some trick or guile. Peter was too sure. He had forgotten the traps that life can lay for the best of men. He had forgotten that the best of men can step on a slippery place and fall. He had forgotten his own human weakness and the strength of the devil’s temptations. But there is one thing to be remembered about Peter-his heart was in the right place. Better a Peter with a flaming heart of love, even if that love did for a moment fail most shamefully, than a Judas with a cold heart of hate. Let that man condemn Peter who never broke a promise, who never was disloyal in thought or action to a pledge. Peter loved Jesus, and even if his love failed, it rose again.’ (DSB)
Our Lord foresaw their failure, yet this did not prevent him from choosing them in the first place, or confirming them as apostles afterwards. So it is with his choice of us: he knows our former blemishes and imperfections, and also our future ones; but still he calls us, and loves us, and uses us in his kingdom. And just has he has exercised forbearance towards us, let us do the same towards others.
‘Christ knew this before, and yet welcomed them at his table; he sees the falls and miscarriages of his disciples, and yet doth not refuse them. Nor should we be discouraged from coming to the Lord’s supper, by the fear of relapsing into sin afterward; but, the greater of our danger is, the more need we have to fortify ourselves by the diligent conscientious use of holy ordinances.’ (MHC)
“For it is written” – The quotation is from Zec 13:7. ‘But this same chapter of Zechariah ends in a promise of mercy to the tested remnant; and so here, in v28, the Lord ends with yet another prediciton of his resurrection, and a joyful reunion in Galilee.’ (Cole)
Hooker (on Mark) thinks that it is probable that this quotation has been added at a later stage to the prediction of the disciples falling away. However, she does not tell us how she knows this.
‘I will strike the shepherd’ – Whereas in the original of Zech 13:7 this is in the imperative (“Strike the shepherd!”), here the speaker is God himself: God will strike the shepherd. As Cranfield says, there is no real difference of meaning: ‘for to say that God commands the sword to smite is really the same as saying that God smites’. Cf. Isa 53:7. It is this very prospect that Jesus shudders at, in the prayer in the garden.
26:32 But after I am raised, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”
“After I have risen” – The resurrection has already been predicted four times (Mk 8:31; 9:9; 9:31; 10:34). But Peter and the others had strenuously objected to the thought of Jesus’ death. How could they therefore see beyond it to the resurrection, even though Jesus spoke so plainly about it? So it was in Mk 8:31f, where Peter fixed his attention only on the prospect of death, ignoring that of resurrection.
‘Not one of his disciples seems to have noticed [these words], or treasured them up in his heart. When He was betrayed, they forsook Him. When He was crucified, they were almost in despair. And when He rose again on the third day, they would not believe that it was true. They had heard of it frequently with the hearing of the ear, but it had never made any impression on their hearts.’ (Ryle)
As Lane remarks: ‘The darkness caused in their thoughts by Jesus’ approaching death…deprived them of the light of the triumph which was to follow.’
Let us resolve to store up Scriptural truth, so that in our day of need we will not be overcome by ignorance and disbelief, as the disciples were.
“I will go ahead of you into Galilee” – Either, “I will arrive first”, or, “I will lead you there.” If the latter, then Jesus intends to resume his role as shepherd (cf. v27). Cranfield thinks that the former is the more likely meaning.
The angel at the tomb remembers this promise and alludes to Peter’s denial (Mk 16:7). See also Mt 28:16.
Edwards remarks that ‘this promise bears a curious resemblance to Zech 13:7b, which speaks of God’s gathering of his renewed flock as the people of God. Beyond the passion, and in accordance with the Scripture, Jesus sees a renewal and completion of the call to discipleship.’
What a prospect this was, if only the disciples could have realised it at the time: that beyond cruel death and entombment would lie resurrection and reunion!
Hooker: ‘Not only will Jesus himself be raised; the scattered flock will be brought together again, under their shepherd’s leadership. In spite of their failure, the shepherd will still acknowledge his sheep; this is perhaps the significance of the reference to Galilee, which has been the centre of Jesus’ ministry and their discipleship, in contrast to Jerusalem, the place of suffering. This prophecy remains unfulfilled in Mark’s story. But since Jesus’ other predictions—including those immediately before and after, in vv. 27 and 30—are fulfilled, we may have every confidence that this one will be also. It is confirmed in Mk 16:7.’
26:33 Peter said to him, “If they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!” 26:34 Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” 26:35 Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will never deny you.” And all the disciples said the same thing.
“Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will” – Notice once again that Peter ignores Jesus’ clear and emphatic prediction of his resurrection and of his gathering of his disciples.
This is not just a rebuke to his Master, but an insult to his fellow-disciples.
Edwards observes that ‘whenever Jesus predicts his passion in Mark, the disciples respond with self-assertion and conceit rather than with humility (Mk 8:31–32; 9:31–34; 10:33–37).’
Impetuous Peter is sure that, though the Lords words might be true of all the others, he himself would remain faithful. Luke adds a further saying and prayer of the Lord, culled, no doubt, from one of the other eyewitnesses, Lk 22:31-32.
But Peter’s boast is vain. His own natural courage would fail him, as it would fail the others.
‘A threefold denial is not a momentary slip of weakness. “Three times” hammers into Peter—and us as readers—how quickly the most noble convictions can wilt before a serious onslaught. It is of no use to protest that we have not committed the sins we self-righteously condemn in others. The question is not what sins we have committed as much as what sins we would commit were we faced with serious pressure, temptation, opportunity, and threat.’ (Edwards)
Peter declared – Out of a mixture of real love for Jesus and too much reliance on his own courage.
“Even if I have to die with you” – Jn 13:37 also records Peter as saying that he was ready to die with Jesus. Far from dying with Jesus, Peter would not even be able to watch and pray, as Jesus asked.
All the other disciples said the same – Peter may have been the first to say it, and to say it most loudly, but the others share in his guilt. ‘This verse is a reminder that he is a representative of them in all their weaknesses as well as in their spiritual strengths.’ (Cole)
‘In placing the Last Supper between the betrayal and defection of the disciples Mark vividly conveys that “the many” for whom Jesus pours out his life include his own companions around the table. The sin that necessitates the sending of God’s Son is not someone else’s sin—the sin of Caligula or Nero or the legion of tyrants ever since—but the sin of the tenants of his own vineyard, of his own disciples—of Peter and James, of you and me.’ (Edwards)
‘The profession of loyalty made by Peter and his companions…only serves to heighten the completeness of their failure in the impending hour of crisis.’ (Lane)
26:36 Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to the disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.”
Hooker (on Mark), while thinking that this account bears some traces of artificiality (the threefold structure, and the recording of words that no one was awake to hear), nevertheless regards it as historically-based. It is referred to in Heb 5:7, and there are echoes in Jn 12:27; 14:31; 18:11. Hooker adds: ‘It is difficult to believe that this scene would have been invented by Jesus’ followers, for the tendency would have been to present him facing death calmly and serenely.’
Cranfield (on Mark) is yet more emphatic: ‘It is inconceivable that the early church would ever have created such a picture of the Lord it worshipped or an episode to discreditable to its leading apostles…The objection that the disciples could not have known what Jesus prayed, as he was away from them and they were asleep, falls to the ground when it is realised that [“a little farther in v35 probably denotes only a few yards and that the narrative need not imply that they had gone to sleep before Jesus had uttered the prayer recorded in vv35f.’
This Gospel has also recorded Jesus in prayer at decisive points at the beginning (Mk 1:35) and middle (Mk 6:46) of his ministry. The implication is that we should regard all three events as pivotal in Jesus’ mission (Lane).
‘This is a passage we almost fear to read, for it seems to intrude into the private agony of Jesus.’ (DSB)
A place called Gethsemane – A olive orchard at the foot of the Mount of Olives. It was a place to which Jesus often resorted, and a place well known to Judas, Jn 18:2. ‘He repairs there, not to shun, but to meet the enemy’ (Flavel).
This happened after supper, and before Judas and the soldiers found him at around midnight. As Flavel observes, Jesus therefore had two or three hours during which to pour out his soul to his Father. Flavel adds: ‘It becomes a soldier to die fighting, and a minister to die preaching, and a Christian to die praying.’
26:37 He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and became anguished and distressed. 26:38 Then he said to them, “My soul is deeply grieved, even to the point of death. Remain here and stay awake with me.”
He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him – ‘When about to experience great suffering, most people want to have someone with them, to help share the burden. Often in my pastoral ministry, I have sat with people at the hospital, waiting for the surgeon to come with a report. Being perfectly human, Jesus wanted companionship as he faced the cross, and he selected Peter, James, and John, the same men who had accompanied him to the home of Jairus (Mk 5:37) and to the Mount of Transfiguration. (Mk 9:2) These three experiences parallel Php 3:10 “That I may know him Mount of Transfiguration, and the power of his resurrection home of Jairus, and the fellowship of his sufferings Garden of Gethsemane.”‘ (Wiersbe)
This is one of the points of his life at which we see how real were the temptations in the wilderness (cf.Mk 1:12f), and why he rebuked Peter so sternly at the suggested avoidance of the cross, Mt 16:22f.
Why did he take them with him? Possibly because he desired their support (cf. Mk 3:14), but also because he wanted to help prepare them, as he prepared himself, for what was about to happen. (So Witherington and others).
Stressing the former of the above reasons, MacLeod writes: ‘It is as if he dreaded being alone and begged the simple”] human comfort of having other people near him: “Please don’t leave me alone.” There is the fact, too, that he asked them to pray for him. Nothing could more graphically highlight the reality of the incarnation and the scene of dependence that went along with it. But neither should we lose sight of the paradox of the Son of God, the Almighty Maker of heaven and earth, asking mortals to remember him in their prayers.’ (Christ Crucified, p28)
All three had recently avowed their ability to remain loyal to Jesus and to share in his destiny (James and John – Mk 10:38-40; Peter – Mk 14:29,31).
Hooker observes: ‘Those who have seen Jesus raise the dead (Mk 5:37ff.), witnessed his transfiguration and seen the glory that can be spoken of only after his own resurrection (Mk 9:2ff.), and who have heard his teaching about the suffering and final vindication that await his followers (Mk 13:3ff.), ought to be able to strengthen him as he approaches death.’
Lane remarks that ‘by locating the episode between the prophecy of the desertion (Mk 14:27-31) and it sfulfilment (Mk 14:43-50), Mark emphasised that Jesus had to face his hour of crisis utterly alone.’
‘When about to experience great suffering, most people want to have someone with them, to help share the burden. Often in my pastoral ministry, I have sat with people at the hospital, waiting for the surgeon to come with a report. Being perfectly human, Jesus wanted companionship as he faced the cross, and he selected Peter, James, and John, the same men who had accompanied him to the home of Jairus (Mk 5:37) and to the Mount of Transfiguration. (Mk 9:2) These three experiences parallel Php 3:10 “That I may know him Mount of Transfiguration, and the power of his resurrection home of Jairus, and the fellowship of his sufferings Garden of Gethsemane.”‘ (Wiersbe)
This is one of the points of his life at which we see how real were the temptations in the wilderness (cf.Mk 1:12f), and why he rebuked Peter so sternly at the suggested avoidance of the cross, Mt 16:22f.
He began to be sorrowful and troubled – Commenting on Mark’s (very similar) version, Lane says: ‘The unusually strong language [in this verse and the next] indicates that Mark understood Gethsemane to be the critical moment in Jesus’ life when the full meaning of his submission to the Father confronted him with its immediacy’ (Lane). He had approached this moment with complete calm and utter resolve (cf. Mk 10:32). But now the horror hits him with a force that anticipates the cry of dereliction from the cross, Mk 15:34. ‘Jesus came to be with the Father for an interlude before his betrayal, but found hell rather than heaven opened before him, and he staggered.’ (Lane)
‘Did Christ meet death with such a heavy heart? Let the hearts of Christians be the lighter for this, when they come to die. The bitterness of death was all squeezed into Christ’s cup. He was made to drink up the very dregs of it, that so our death might be the sweeter to us. Alas! there is nothing now left in death that is frightful or troublesome, beside the pain of dissolution, that natural evil of it.’ (Flavel)
- ‘He began to be sorrowful and troubled’, Mt 26:37.
- ‘He began to be deeply distressed and troubled’, Mk 14:33.
- His soul was “overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death,” Mk 14:34.
- He was ‘in anguish’, Lk 22:44.
- ‘His sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground’, Lk 22:44.
“My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow” – ‘Our Lord’s struggle in the Garden can be understood only in the light of what would happen to him on the cross: he would be made sin for us (2 Cor 5:21) and bear the curse of the Law. (Gal 3:13) It was not the physical suffering that almost overwhelmed him with “anguish and sorrow,” but the contemplation of being forsaken by his Father. (Mk 15:34) This was “the cup” that he would drink.’ (Jn 18:11) (Wiersbe)
There is an allusion here to Ps 42:5,11. But both those verses end in hope, making Christ’s declaration one of faith, not despair. (So it is with the cry of dereliction, Mk 15:34; this quotes Psa 22 which again ends on a note of triumph.
‘The fact that God the Son took a human psychology means that he experienced the whole range of human emotions. He knew, for example, the emotions of joy and contentment. Although we are never told that Jesus laughed it would be quite wrong to regard him as living a life of gloom and despondency. His delight was to do the will of God. (Ps 40:8) The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy and peace. (Gal 5:22) Contentment is commanded by God. (Php 4:6) We have every reason to believe that Christ was at peace with himself, with his environment and with God. Nevertheless, he was no stranger to the darker side of our human emotions. He felt the sorrow of bereavement at the tomb of Lazarus (and probably earlier, on the death of his father, Joseph). In Gethsemane he was ‘sore amazed’. He was afraid. He did not simply peripherally experience those emotions. He experienced them in horrendous depth. He was very heavy. He was sorrowful, ‘even unto death’. In Gethsemane he was literally so terrified of the imminent encounter between himself as the Sin-bearer and God in his holiness that he shrank from ‘this cup’ (even though he knew it was the will of God) with a horror that exceeds any horror that we have ever known. Emotionally, he went to the outer limits of human endurance, so close to the absolute limit that he was almost overwhelmed. Christ was no stoic or robot. The lesson for ourselves is priceless. We are not called upon to be ashamed of emotion, or of its expression in tears. The Son of God understands and legitimises our emotional pain.’ (McLeod, A Faith to Live By)
Luther: ‘No one ever feared death so much as this Man’. But why, given that so many martyrs have faced death with equanimity or even joy? Part of the answer is that Jesus was tormented by Satan in a very intense way in the garden. According to Lk 4:23, ‘when the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time.’ Now, surely, was Satan’s ‘opportune time’ (cf. Jn 12:31). As Cranfield says: ‘In the wilderness Jesus had been tempted by Satan to deviate from his appointed way as the Servant and he had resisted and returned blow for blow. Now in the garden Satan returns in force and in all his majesty as the prince of this world, to avenge his earlier defeat; and Jesus sees now in appalling immediacy the full cost of his stedfast obedience.’ (For the principal reason behind Jesus’ extreme distress, see v39 and the comments there).
“Stay here and keep watch” – This recalls the parable of the door-keeper, which had just been told, Mk 13:34-37.
26:39 Going a little farther, he threw himself down with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if possible, let this cup pass from me! Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
He fell with his face to the ground and prayed – Although in ancient times it was usual to pray standing, such prostration indicates extreme anguish, cf. Num 16:22.
‘Jesus’ prayer of lament follows a well-known pattern of lament found in the Psalms (see Pss. 13:1–3; 22:1–21; 31:1–24; 40:11–13; 42:5, 9–11; 43:1–2, 5; 55:4–8; 61:1–3; 116:3–4). Senior notes that in the Jewish lament, one’s prayer is not “fully controlled, or strained with politeness. In a rush of emotion, complaint, and even recrimination, the believers pour out their hearts to God.” Prayers asking God to have a change of mind are not considered insubordinate but actually exude trust that God listens to prayer and grants requests that can be reconciled “with overall Providence.”’ (Garland)
Hooker notes that there are echoes of the Lord’s Prayer here (even though the prayer itself is not found in Mark’s Gospel): ‘Father … not my will, but yours … pray that you do not fall into temptation.’
“My Father” – ‘”Father” was Jesus’ favorite term for addressing God. It appears on his lips some sixty-five times in the Synoptic Gospels and over one hundred times in John. The exact term Jesus used is still found three times in the New Testament (Mk 14:36; Rom 8:15-16; Gal 4:6) but elsewhere the Aramaic term Abba is translated by the Greek pater pathvr. The uniqueness of Jesus’ teaching on this subject is evident for several reasons. For one, the rarity of this designation for God is striking. There is no evidence in pre-Christian Jewish literature that Jews addressed God as “Abba.” A second unique feature about Jesus’ use of Abba as a designation for God involves the intimacy of the term. Abba was a term little children used when they addressed their fathers. At one time it was thought that since children used this term to address their fathers the nearest equivalent would be the English term “Daddy.” More recently, however, it has been pointed out that Abba was a term not only that small children used to address their fathers; it was also a term that older children and adults used. As a result it is best to understand Abba as the equivalent of “Father” rather than “Daddy.”‘ (EDBT)
Harper’s Bible Commentary notes ‘the paradox of one who, when faced by the apparent victory of sin and violence, and whose prayer was not answered, could yet address God with an affirmation of familial trust and love as Abba (Aramaic, “father”; cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15).’
‘Jesus’ acknowledged intimacy with God (“Abba,” Mk 14:36) highlights a…theme…which gives clearer definition to the intended meaning of the “cup” in Mk 14:36. As Feldmeier has seen, Gethsemane functions as the crisis in the passion narrative, indeed in the life of the Son of God. Here, for the first time, Jesus experiences the silence of God, a divine estrangement that comes to expression finally in Jesus’ cry of dereliction from the cross (Mk 15:34). Gethsemane, then, does not so much demonstrate Jesus’ anguish in the face of death as his fear of being abandoned by God. The humanity of Jesus could hardly be emphasized more acutely.’ (J.B. Green, DJG)
“If it is possible” – Greg Boyd (God of the Possible) finds here an ‘impressive example of the Lord speaking about the future in open terms.’ Boyd notes: ‘If anything was fixed in the mind of God ahead of that time, it was that the Son of God was going to be crucified. Indeed, Jesus himself had been teaching this very truth to his disciples (Matt. 12:40; 16:21; John 2:19). This makes it all the more amazing that Jesus makes one last attempt to change his Father’s plan “if it is possible.” The prayer reveals that in the mind of Jesus there was at least a theoretical chance that another course of action could be taken “at the eleventh hour.” It was not possible, of course, so Jesus was crucified. Yet this doesn’t negate the fact that Jesus’ prayer presupposes that divine plans and possible future events are, in principle, alterable. In short, Jesus’ prayer evidences the truth that the future is at least partly open, even if his own fate was not.’ See this article by Charles L. Quarles.
Boyd undermines his own argument, however, when he concedes that it was not possible for the Father’s plan to be changes. What Jesus is, in fact, praying is: “I would avoid going through with this if it were possible for me to do so.” Contrary to what Boyd suggests, this passage has no bearing on whether God does, in fact, change his plan.
Commenting on Luke’s parallel, Marshall says: ‘The effect of the saying is that Jesus, facing the temptation to avoid the path of suffering appointed by God, nevertheless accepts the will of God despite his own desire that it might be otherwise. He does not seek to disobey the will of God, but longs that God’s will might be different.’
John Flavel comments that (a) this was not an absolute prayer, but a conditional one (“…if possible…”); (b) Christ was acting according to his human nature, ‘simply expressing and manifesting in this request the reluctance it had at such sufferings, wherein he showed himself a true man, in shunning that which is destructive to his nature’; (c) there was much good in it: for this anguish was part of his suffering for our sin, and it provides clear evidence ‘that he was in all things made like unto his brethren, except sin.’
Whatever we make of Christ’s ‘two natures’ (see Flavel’s second point, above), we can agree that Jesus’ natural inclination was to avoid the test that he was facing.
Similarly, Garland explains that Jesus’ prayer is consistent with faith and obedience towards his Father: ‘Jesus trusts completely in God as his Father and is completely obedient. He also confesses God’s omnipotence in his prayer to be spared suffering. His prayer does not try to run counter to the Father’s purpose but explores the limits of the purpose without trying to burst its bounds. Might there be another way? Might he escape the horrifying cup?’
Witherington asks, ‘Why does Jesus ask for this reprieve?’ Was it simply that he was afraid? ‘Two clues suggest another interpretation, one here and one at the scene on the cross. Here there is the reference to the “cup,” that is, the cup of God’s wrath. At the cross Jesus speaks of being God-forsaken. It is, then, not so much the suffering itself that Jesus shrinks from, but rather facing abandonment by the one he has known as Abba all this time, and even more daunting, facing the wrath, the judgment of God on the cross. He dreads, as any human would, undergoing such judgment and punishment.’
“May this cup be taken from me” –
“Not as I will, but as you will” – Our Lord had such personal authority, and yet his earthly life was conducted in complete submission to the will of his Father. This obedience was completed when he gave himself up to death, Php 2:8.
‘How strong was his temptation to say “amen” after “take away this cup from me,” rather than go on to “nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt” (KJV), we shall never know.’ (J.I. Packer, Knowing God)
Contra Calvin, we should not understand our Lord’s words as meaning that ‘he corrects and recalls that wish that had suddenly escaped him.’ No: the prayer had been as obedient as it had been sincere, but it was a request and not a demand.
‘We aim at God’s glory, when we are content that God’s will should take place, though it may cross ours. Lord, I am content to be a loser, if thou be a gainer; to have less health, if I have more grace, and thou more glory. Let it be food or bitter physic if thou givest it me. Lord, I desire that which may be most for thy glory. Our blessed Saviour said, ‘Not as I will, but as thou wilt.’ Mt 26:39. If God might have more glory by his sufferings, he was content to suffer. Jn 12:28. ‘Father, glorify thy name.’ (Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity)
It was the will of the Lord to bruise him (Isa 53), and the outcome of this time of prayer was that Jesus accepted the Lord’s will for himself. He endured this suffering not on his own account, but on ours. God’s wrath fell on him, that it might not fall on us. But our Saviour’s anguish shows what a terrible thing it must be to fall into the hands of the living God: ‘if it staggered him, it will confound you.’ (Flavel)
‘You know it is some relief if a man can pour out his complaint into the bosom of a faithful friend, though he can but pity him; how much more to pour out our complaints into the bosom of a faithful God, who can both pity and help us.’ (Flavel)
26:40 Then he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. He said to Peter, “So, couldn’t you stay awake with me for one hour? 26:41 Stay awake and pray that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
Cranfield observes: ‘The only answer Jesus receives to his prayer is the hard answer of events.’
‘Even at this delicate point in the narrative [Mark] does not relinquish his unrelenting criticism of the three ‘leaders’!’ (Myers, cited by Witherington)
Why was Jesus so concerned that his disciples should stay awake?
If all three were sleeping, why does Jesus first address Peter individually? The answer is probably connected to Jesus’ prediction that Peter would deny him, Mk 14:30, and Peter’s protestation that he would remain loyal, v31. The narrative is preparing us for the fact that his disloyalty would be greater than that of the other disciples, Mk 14:54,66-72.
“Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation” – This is now a plural address to all three disciples.
E.M Bounds has this reminder for preachers: ‘Even sermon making, incessant and taxing as an art, as a duty, as a work, or as a pleasure, will harden and estrange the heart by neglect of prayer from God. The scientist loses God in nature. The preacher may lose God in his sermon.’
“The spirit is willing, but the body is weak” – A German student, attempting to translate this verse into English, rendered it as ‘The ghost is willing but the meat is soft’! (Anthony Castle, Quotes and Anecdotes)
26:42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if this cup cannot be taken away unless I drink it, your will must be done.”
See Mt 6:10.
26:43 He came again and found them sleeping; they could not keep their eyes open. 26:44 So leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same thing once more. 26:45 Then he came to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is approaching, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 26:46 Get up, let us go. Look! My betrayer is approaching!”
“The hour has come. Look the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners” – Evidently, the answer to his thrice-uttered prayer for rescue was “No”. As Wright comments: ‘If even Jesus received that answer to one of his most heartfelt prayers, we should not be surprised if sometimes it’s that way for us too.’ He emerges from his struggle once more in control of himself and his destiny.
Let us go! – According to Cranfield, the underlying word may be translated ‘Forward!’ or ‘Let us advance to meet them!’
Betrayal and Arrest
26:47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent by the chief priests and elders of the people. 26:48 (Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I kiss is the man. Arrest him!”) 26:49 Immediately he went up to Jesus and said, “Greetings, Rabbi,” and kissed him.
A large crowd – Probably a force sent by the Sanhedrin since two categories of members of that body are mentioned (three in Mk 14:43).
Kiss – The word phileo is used, the kiss being a mark of tenderness.
26:50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you are here to do.” Then they came and took hold of Jesus and arrested him. 26:51 But one of those with Jesus grabbed his sword, drew it out, and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his ear. 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back in its place! For all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword. 26:53 Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and that he would send me more than twelve legions of angels right now? 26:54 How then would the scriptures that say it must happen this way be fulfilled?”
One of Jesus’ companions – An odd way to speak of one of the Twelve, and yet the context determines that this was very likely to have been one of the disciples. This may well be an example of what Bauckham (following Theissen) calls ‘protective anonymity’. As long as the slave was alive (and possibly sporting a scar) it would have been dangerous to mention names, or even to make it clear that the culprit was one of the disciples. According to Theissen, these circumstances also help to pin-point the location of Mark’s passion tradition (as Bauckham says, ‘only in Jerusalem was there reason to draw a cloak of anonymity over followers of Jesus who had endangered themselves by their actions’), and also the approximate date (somewhere between AD 30 and 60 – (that is, within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses).
“Twelve legions of angels” – Cf. Rev 5:11.
26:55 At that moment Jesus said to the crowd, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me like you would an outlaw? Day after day I sat teaching in the temple courts, yet you did not arrest me. 26:56 But this has happened so that the scriptures of the prophets would be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.
‘The function of Scripture in the passion narrative would also suggest that Jesus was understood in terms of the righteous sufferer. There are three principal allusions or citations: the dividing and casting lots for Jesus’ clothing (Mk 15:24; cf. Ps 22:18); the cry of abandonment (Mk 15:34; cf. Ps 22:1); and the giving of vinegar to drink (Mk 15:36; cf. Ps 69:21). Although it is possible that these allusions are not to be understood as fulfillments of Scripture, since after all not one is introduced as a fulfillment (compare Matthew and John), the earlier declaration, “Let the Scriptures be fulfilled,” (Mk 14:49) uttered at the moment of the arrest, probably requires that they be so understood.’ (DJG)
Condemned by the Sanhedrin
26:57 Now the ones who had arrested Jesus led him to Caiaphas, the high priest, in whose house the experts in the law and the elders had gathered.
Carson thinks it quite possible that the well-to-do Caiaphas lived in a home built in a square shape around a central courtyard. He may have lived in one wing, with the Sanhedrin meeting in another wing. It would take very little time from move from one to the other.
Caiaphas – Also mentioned in Jn 11:49; Acts 4:6. The son-in-law of Annas, Jn 18:13, he was high priest from AD 18 to 36. He was high priest at the trial of Jesus and during the persecutions described in the early chapters of Acts. An ossuary possibly containing Caiaphas’ bones was discovered near Jerusalem in 1990: if the identification is correct, these are the first bones ever discovered of a person mentioned in the Bible.
26:58 But Peter was following him from a distance, all the way to the high priest’s courtyard. After going in, he sat with the guards to see the outcome.
‘Peter followed Jesus “at a distance,” midway between courage (v.51) and cowardice (v.70).’ (Carson)
The courtyard of the high priest – ‘The courtyard was the outdoor enclosed area where servants and ‘hangers-on’ not involved in the hearing would gather.’ (France)
‘Given Peter’s violent act in the garden (John 18:10), some have questioned whether the temple police would really allow him to enter the high priest’s courtyard and then sit in their midst while Jesus was interrogated. However, it was dark in the garden, which may have prevented the temple police from discerning who among the press of disciples had struck the servant. Recall that the guard relied on Judas to identify Jesus (Mark 14:45), and so it is apparent that Jesus and his disciples were not very familiar to the arrest party and/or were not easily recognized in the dark conditions of the garden. Furthermore, Jesus immediately healed the servant’s ear (Luke 22:51), a miracle that likely drew attention away from Peter’s assault.’ (Holman Apologetics Commentary)
26:59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were trying to find false testimony against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 26:60 But they did not find anything, though many false witnesses came forward.
The whole Sanhedrin – Blomberg says that this may indicate a quorum (rather than the entire number of 70), ghastily gathered for a night-time sitting.
Looking for false evidence – When people want to believe something, they will readily twist or even invent ‘evidence’ in order to justify their verdict.
So that they could put him to death – Whatever the status of this ‘court’ (and, in any case, it did not have the authority to order an execution) it was thoroughly prejudiced.
Finally two came forward 26:61 and declared, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’ ”
Two came forward – Conveniently, because at least two witnesses were required in a capital case.
‘False witnesses are still easy to buy today, in many parts of the world. In some places they wait outside the courts, along with the ‘petition-writers’, who help, for a fee, those who cannot read and write themselves.’ (NBC)
‘The priests could only find Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the temple and his saying (not recorded in Mark) that he would rebuild it in three days (see Jn 2:19) to use against him. Jesus’ words about the temple were a reference to his coming resurrection and the new spiritual temple (his body, the Christian church) that he was about to build. Understood literally, however, they constituted a verbal threat to God’s temple, which was a very serious offence indeed.’ (NBC)
‘Mk. 14:53-65 describes an appearance of the prisoner before an assembly of ‘all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes’, (Mk 14:53) under the presidency of the high priest. The gravamen of the charge is the witnesses’ statement that Jesus had prophesied the destruction of the Jerusalem sanctuary (cf. Mk 13:2; Acts 6:13-14) and the establishment of a new temple. The claim to be the builder of a new temple seems to be the equivalent to the claim to Messiahship, according to contemporary Jewish expectation. But it was the new temple of his body, the church, (Jn 2:19; 1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:21) that he had in view.’ (NBD)
The quote is a somewhat garbelled version of Jn 2:19. Blomberg thinks that there is incidental evidence that the cleansing of the Temple took place early in Jesus’ ministry (as John records), so that it was not remember well; his point is not a strong one. The true meaning of Jesus’ statement is given in Jn 2:21.
26:62 So the high priest stood up and said to him, “Have you no answer? What is this that they are testifying against you?” 26:63 But Jesus was silent.
The high priest stood up – indicating that he was taking control of the proceedings (France).
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Jesus remained silent – allowing the high priest to assume admission of guilt, and therefore press the theological implications of his ‘crime’. Cf. Isa 53:7; Mk 15:5.
There is the silence of guilt, of resignation, of confusion, of awe, of contempt.
The evangelists stress Jesus’ silence before Caiaphas and Pilate. Most would vocally protest their innocence (especially if they were innocent!). Some have thought that by his silence he is demonstrating his contempt for the corrupt proceedings. But we would do better to follow Scripture itself at this point – esp. Isa 53:7 and 1 Pet 2:22f. Our Lord had already (in Gethsemane) overcome the temptation to avoid death, and was now completely ready to submit to the Father’s will. Not only had the outcome already been decided in the minds of Jesus’ accusers: it had already been decided in the mind of Jesus and of God himself.
“I charge you under oath by the living God” – A rare, formal, expression, showing the utmost seriousness of the question to follow, and the answer it will invoke. ‘This is the climax of the hearing’ (France).
“Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” – ‘The question whether Jesus was the Christ (Messiah) was already a matter of open discussion, even before the charge in v. 61 (see Mt 12:23; 21:9–11, 15; 22:41ff.), and no doubt Judas had further briefed the authorities on what was being said in private among the disciples.’ (France)
According to France, the force of the question may well have been angrily sarcastic: “Are you (a bound and helpless prisoner) the Christ, the Son of God?”
Wright similarly: ‘The question is clearly contemptuous: anything less like a Messiah than this mute and helpless Jesus it would be hard to imagine.’ (Jesus and the Victory of God)
“Yes, it is as you say” – Lit. “You have said it”. Although older commentators (such as Hendriksen) regard this as a clear affirmative, most recent interpreters see it as a veiled ‘Yes’. Jesus agrees reluctantly, according to France, because the meanings and inferences that the High Priest will draw from these titles are far from those intended by Jesus himself.
So Jesus’ answer is, “Yes, but…”. ‘It might be paraphrased “Yes, but that’s not how I would have put it” or “Yes, but I don’t mean by that what you mean.”’ (France) “That is your way of putting it” (Blomberg). Of course, the question has not been asked in good faith: ‘Caiaphas’ question arises not from a search for understanding but from a search for ammunition to use against Jesus.’ (France)
‘Jesus’ follow-up comment is a qualification, spoken because Caiaphas’s understanding of “Messiah” and “Son of God” is fundamentally inadequate.’ (Carson)
“But I say to all of you” – Jesus will attempt to qualify and explain what he means by these titles.
As France observes, Jesus quietly replaces the title ‘Christ’ with ‘Son of Man’.
The explanation ‘comes in allusions to two passages—Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13. Jesus is not to be primarily considered a political Messiah but as the one who, in receiving a kingdom, is exalted at God’s right hand, the position of honor and power (cf. Mt 16:27; 23:39; 24:30–31; 26:29). This is Jesus’ climactic self-disclosure to the authorities, combining revelation with threat. He tells the members of the Sanhedrin that from then on they would not see him as he now stands before them but only in his capacity as undisputed King Messiah and sovereign Judge.’ (Carson)
‘This majestic statement of Jesus forms the “Christological climax” (Green) of the Gospel. A new era of human history has begun, and God’s redemptive purpose in Christ is being fulfilled.’ (Mounce)
Hendriksen regards Jesus’ words here as spanning an extensive period. ‘Jesus is looking down history’s lane. He sees the miracles of Calvary, the resurrection, the ascension, the coronation at the Father’s right hand (“the right hand of the Power,” that is, “of the Almighty”), Pentecost, the glorious return on the clouds of heaven, the judgment day, all rolled into one, manifesting his power and glory.’
‘To the high priest, this was an amazing stroke of luck. He could not have believed that Jesus would admit in court what he had hidden all through his ministry. God’s time had now come, and there was no need for concealment.’ (NBC)
‘The incriminating challenge of the high priest, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ drew from him the reply, ‘I am,’ according to Mk 14:62. Further, his use of the title ‘the Son of man’ and his quotation of Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13 are an unmistakable claim to his unique status and destiny, which Caiaphas was quick to grasp and interpret as overt blasphemy. ‘It was not blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah, but to speak with assurance of sharing the throne of God and of the fulfilment of Daniel’s vision in himself and his community was blasphemy indeed’ (Vincent Taylor).’ (NBD)
Mark’s version makes explicit what Mt 26:62 and Lk 23:3, in a more semitic style, imply (“You have said it”).
“In the future” – France insists that the underlying phrase should be translated ‘from now on’. This is supported by Jesus’ promise to his hearers: “You will see…”. The new age is dawning right now.
“You will see” – ‘It will quickly become apparent in the events of even the next few weeks (not to mention the subsequent growth of the church) that the ‘blasphemer’ they thought they had disposed of is in fact now in the position of supreme authority.’ (France)
For others, however, this does not necessarily imply that this would happen during the lifetime of the hearers. Hurtado says that we should probably take these words ‘as the firmest assurance that the event will happen and that those who condemned Jesus will be shown wrong on the day of judgement.’
Blomberg thinks that Jesus is alluding ‘to his more immediate exaltation (Mt 28:18) long before his actual return as judge (Mt 25:31).’
The Son of Man – Jesus’ favourite self-designation. On its own, the title simply means, ‘the man’. But, with Dan 7:9 as background, there is nothing ‘ordinary’ or self-effacing about it.
“Sitting at the right hand” echoes Psa 110:1.
“The Mighty one” – lit. ‘the Power’, a reverential synonym for God (Lane). It may reflect the reticence of pious Jews to utter God’s name (in contrast to the High Priest), or it may be for the purpose of emphasising that his place at the ‘right hand’ is a place of authority and power (France).
“Sitting…and coming” – In the imagery of Dan 7:9, God’s throne is a chariot, with wheels of fire. Here, drawing on Psa 110, describes himself as seated on that throne, at God’s right hand, and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven’.
“Coming on the clouds of heaven” – Until relatively recently, the consensus view was that this refers to the parousia. Mounce thinks that a reference to the parousia is ‘quite clear’ (see also the comment by Hurtado, above).
But many would now agree with France, who notes that this expression (together with the title ‘Son of Man’) is a clear link back to Dan 7:13f. In the light of that OT passage, it refers to an ascension to and enthronement in heaven (rather than to a return from heaven). ‘Sitting at the right hand’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven’ are therefore parallel expressions.
France refers back to Mt 24:30, where the same phrase is used, and the event predicted is to happen within ‘this generation’. He also looks forward to Jesus’ statement in Mt 28:18, with its own echo of Dan 7:14.
‘This,’ writes Ian Paul, ‘cannot refer to Jesus’ return to earth (‘second coming’) unless Jesus was deluded about how soon that would happen. But more importantly, it cannot mean this because it is an almost exact quotation from Daniel 7, and refers to Jesus’ (the Son of Man’s) ascending to the throne of God and fulfilling the destiny of Israel. That is why the High Priest considered it blasphemy: in effect, Jesus was crucified because he anticipated his Ascension!’
‘The implication in the phrase “you (plural) will see” is that the tables will be turned, and that he who is now being judged by the Sanhedrin will soon be recognized as himself their judge….In the vindication of the repudiated Messiah and in the powerful growth of the movement which they have attempted to suppress, they “will see” that it is he who is now seated on the heavenly throne.’ (France)
Wright opts for a strongly realised eschatology:- ‘Jesus is not…suggesting that Caiaphas will witness the end of the space-time order. Nor will he look out of the window one day and observe a human figure flying downwards on a cloud. It is absurd to imagine either Jesus, or Mark, or anyone in between, supposing the words to mean that. Caiaphas will witness the strange events which follow Jesus’ crucifixion: the rise of a group of disciples claiming that he has been raised from the dead, and the events which accelerate towards the final clash with Rome, in which, judged according to the time-honoured test, Jesus will be vindicated as a true prophet. In and through it all, Caiaphas will witness events which show that Jesus was not, after all, mistaken in his claim, hitherto implicit, now at last explicit: he is the Messiah, the anointed one, the true representative of the people of Israel, the one in and through whom the covenant god is acting to set up his kingdom.’ (Jesus and the Victory of God)
26:65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and declared, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? Now you have heard the blasphemy! 26:66 What is your verdict?” They answered, “He is guilty and deserves death.” 26:67 Then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists. And some slapped him, 26:68 saying, “Prophesy for us, you Christ! Who hit you?”
The high priest tore his clothes – A ceremonial action in response to hearing what he thought was blasphemy.
“Blasphemy…blasphemy” – the charge against Jesus, then, is quite clear. The confusion of the court is apparent in the fact that blasphemy is only culpable if God’s name is actually used: the high priest has used it (v63), but Jesus has carefully avoided using it (v64). A claim to Messiahship would not itself constitute blasphemy, but an appropriate of the title ‘Son of Man’, along with the exalted claims made in v64 would have been regarded as blasphemous.
“Who hit you?” –
Undesigned coincidence? This taunt is clarified by Mk 14:65, which explains that they blindfolded Jesus.
26:69 Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. A slave girl came to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” 26:70 But he denied it in front of them all: “I don’t know what you’re talking about!” 26:71 When he went out to the gateway, another slave girl saw him and said to the people there, “This man was with Jesus the Nazarene.” 26:72 He denied it again with an oath, “I do not know the man!” 26:73 After a little while, those standing there came up to Peter and said, “You really are one of them too—even your accent gives you away!” 26:74 At that he began to curse, and he swore with an oath, “I do not know the man!” At that moment a rooster crowed. 26:75 Then Peter remembered what Jesus had said: “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.
‘The whole story of Peter’s fall leaves the reader helpless, powerless to intervene, as the tragedy unfolds inexorably, scene after scene, until Peter has passed the point of no return, and finally crashes. Rash self-confidence and scorn of others, 14:29; failure to discipline the flesh in the Garden, 14:37; the cowardice of the flight, 14:50; the following at a distance, 14:54; the close association with the enemies of Christ, 14:54 – all these in their turn made the actual denial logical and indeed well-nigh inevitable…The battle against temptation in the high priest’s palace had been lost long before; for the time for the Christian to fight temptation is before it is encountered.’ (Cole)
We do not know why Peter came to the courtyard. Perhaps he had some idea of rescuing Jesus by the violence that Christ has already rejected in the garden.
‘Sometimes we tell this story in such a way as to do Peter far less than justice. The thing we so often fail to recognize is that up to the very last Peter’s career this night had been one of fantastically reckless courage. He had begun by drawing his sword in the garden with the reckless courage of a man prepared to take on a whole mob by himself. In that scuffle he had wounded the servant of the High Priest. Common prudence would have urged that Peter should lie very low. The last place anyone would have dreamed that he would go to would be the courtyard of the High Priest’s house-yet that is precisely where he did go. That in itself was sheer audacity. It may be that the others had fled, but Peter was keeping his word. Even if the others had gone he would stick to Jesus.’ (DSB)
But he denied it – ‘Christ had often given notice to his disciples of his own sufferings; yet, when they came, they were to Peter as great a surprise and terror as if he had never heard of them before. He had often told them that they must suffer for him, must take up their cross, and follow him; and yet Peter is so terribly afraid of suffering, upon the very first alarm of it, that he will lie and swear, and do any thing, to avoid it. When Christ was admired and flocked after, he could readily own him; but now that he is deserted, and despised, and run down, he is ashamed of him, and will own no relation to him.’ (MHC)
Another slave girl saw him and said to the people there, “This man was with Jesus the Nazarene” – It is possible that this other girl recognised Peter because ‘the other disciple’ had been speaking to her, and had brought Peter in Jn 18:16. Since that maid knew that John was from Galilee, she would have assumed that Peter was also from Galilee. Even if the two maids are not one and the same person, they might have been speaking to one another.
‘The tragedy is that each step downward might have been a step upward; on each occasion, Peter was being forced to declare himself. At least he could no longer remain silent: now he must either admit or deny. God thus made the path of witness easier for him, and the issues more clear cut. But Peter chose, deliberately and thrice, to deny; and so these promptings of grace became occasions of condemnation, as they must always be if they are refused.’ (Cole)
And he broke down and wept – ‘Some observe that this evangelist, who wrote, as some have thought, by St. Peter’s direction, speaks as fully of Peter’s sin as any of them, but more briefly of his sorrow, which Peter, in modesty, would not have to be magnified, and because he thought he could never sorrow enough for great a sin.’ (MHC)
‘Make no mistake-Peter fell to a temptation which would have come only to a man of fantastic courage. It ill becomes prudent and safety-seeking men to criticize Peter for falling to a temptation which would never, in the same circumstances, have come to them at all. Every man has his breaking-point. Peter reached his here, but nine hundred and ninety-nine men out of every thousand would have reached theirs long before. We would do well to be amazed at Peter’s courage rather than to be shocked at his fall.’ (DSB)
‘There was an evangelist called Brownlow North. He was a man of God, but in his youth he had lived a wild life. One Sunday he was to preach in Aberdeen. Before he entered the pulpit a letter was handed to him. The writer recounted a shameful incident in Brownlow North’s life before he became a Christian and stated that if he dared to preach he would rise in the church and publicly proclaim what once he had done. Brownlow North took the letter into the pulpit with him. He read it to the congregation. He told them that it was perfectly true. Then he told them how through Christ he had been forgiven, how he had been enabled to overcome himself and put the past behind him, how through Christ he was a new creature. He used his own shame as a magnet to draw men to Christ. That is what Peter did. He told men, “I hurt him and I let him down like that, and still he loved and forgave me-and he can do the same for you.”‘ (DSB)
‘It is the fashion nowadays to make excuses for Peter, as some do for Judas…and in so far as it means that we see our own weakness in him, that may be good. But unless we see the heinousness of his sin, we cannot understand the bitterness of his remorse, nor the depth of his repentance, nor the riches of grace in his restoration…Light thoughts on sin ultimately lead to light thoughts on redemption, and ultimately rob the cross of its glory.’ (Cole)
‘Denial usually isn’t a sudden act. There were three stages to Peter’s denial. First he acted confused and tried to divert attention from himself by changing the subject. Second, he denied that he knew Jesus, using an oath. Third, he began to curse and swear. Believers who deny Christ often begin doing so subtly by pretending not to know him. When opportunities to discuss religious issues come up, they walk away or pretend they don’t know the answers. With only a little more pressure, they can be induced to deny flatly their relationship with Christ. If you find yourself subtly diverting conversation so you don’t have to talk about Christ, watch out. You may be on the road to disowning him.’ (HBA)
‘Failure can help us become humble and useful. Peter wept bitterly, not only because he realized that he had denied his Lord, the Messiah, but also because he had turned away from a very dear friend, a person who had loved and taught him for three years. Peter had said that he would never disown Christ, despite Jesus’ prediction (Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:33-34). But when frightened, he went against all he had boldly promised. Unable to stand up for his Lord for even twelve hours, he had failed as a disciple and as a friend. We need to be aware of our own breaking points and not become overconfident or self-sufficient. If we fail him, we must remember that Christ can use those who recognize their failure. From this humiliating experience Peter learned much that would help him later when he assumed leadership of the young church.’ (HBA)