Matthew Chapter 26
Starts with "when Jesus had finished all these sayings..." referring back to the parables and the final judgement of 25, and the prophecies of 24. Note also that in this chapter, we shift to a narrative of events - a history of the things that went on.
The Passover is now 2 days away, and Jesus tells them that he will be delivered to be crucified that day. No response from them is recorded.
The chief priests and the elders gather in the palace of Caiaphas and plot to arrest Jesus by stealth - so the people who support him won't revolt. They are putting themselves and their own thinking "above" the popular sentiment of the people. There is no record that they ever considered another course.
Jesus goes to the home of Simon the (former) leper that evening. Jesus is reclining at table there - so he was there for dinner - when "a woman", who is never named - pours very expensive ointment on his head. The first time Jesus is anointed was at the house of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. That first time, the one who does it is named, the ointment is on his feet, and she wipes them with her hair. It is only Judas who is offended in the first instance, and they specifically say it was because he was a thief and would have liked the money they got for it. The details are so different that it has to be a second time, not a chronologically contradictory account.
BUT, MSB says this is an account, and that it corresponds with John's account. The account here in Matthew is adding details - head and feet, Simon the leper but Mary serving and annointing. MSB says the different account is in Luke 7. In that account the woman wet his feet with her tears, anointed them with ointment, and then wiped his feet with her hair. This was at a Pharisee's house. It was Simon's house.
Jesus, back in Matthew now, tells them this woman will always be remembered where the gospel is taught. Because of what she did, or because there seem to be contradictory accounts?
2022 - This verse:
"8 And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste?" [Mat 26:8 ESV]. Judas was not the only one who thought this was a waste of money - though he may have been the only one of the 12. It uses disciples here, not apostles. Still, many seem to have resented it.
2022 - Per note in MSB, Mark also talks about this, and sets the value of the ointment at >300 denarii. This is in Mark 14:3-9, and surely is the same story. The extra details there are that the vial contained "pure nard". MSB says it comes from the "nard" plant, native to India. The bottle it was in was made of alabaster. The MSB note at Mt 26:7 says alabaster was "a fine variety of marble, quarried in Egypt, which could be carved into delicate containers for storing costly perfumes.
2022 - There is also an account of this in John 12:1-8. There we learn that the woman who did this was Mary, sister of Lazarus and Martha. Lazarus was there that night when this happened. How much did Mary love Jesus, who had raised her brother from the dead? What would she consider "too costly" to give him? Nothing, surely. John says she poured it on his feet, and then wiped his feet with her hair. Note that Jesus says in Mt 26:12 that "...she poured this perfume on My body..." This would indicate that it wasn't just his head that she anointed, nor just his feet. Further, spices and such were used on the whole, wrapped body prior to burial. All these passages together give us a pretty complete picture of what happened.
What they don't tell us is that Mary's hair likely smelled wonderful for a good while after this. When people smelled it, they were probably told the story. They would associate the smell with the story from then on. The question is, was nard used mostly as a perfume, or as a burial spice at that time in history? Perhaps those who smelled the nard in Mary's hair as she passed wondered why she smelled of "death". This would also be consistent with Jesus' remarks about the nard.
Matthew gives little space to Judas' betrayal. Judas went and offered his help for a fee. They didn't recruit him. His actions came from within.
2022 - The conspirators surely already had a plan to take Jesus captive (Mt 26:3-5), but not during the feast. They were going to wait until AFTER the Passover. When Judas came to them, and offered to betray Jesus at an earlier time and in a way that would not alert the crowds, they likely jumped at the chance. They surely would have preferred that Jesus NOT be present during the feast.
The Passover meal. In Matthew, there is no mention of an upper room. Instead, Jesus has someone go and tell "a certain man" that he and his disciples will keep the Passover at this man's house. Does not imply that this man joined them. Further, Matthew reads that Jesus was at supper with the twelve. But there is a footnote that says some manuscripts add "disciples", so it reads "the 12 disciples". Still, it was just those twelve. Jesus tells them that his betrayer is among them. The 12 are the only ones there. They start asking if it is them, each in turn. Jesus says it's the one who dipped his hand in with him. It reads as if this was already past, but maybe they hadn't been paying attention and didn't know. Then Judas asks if it is him, and Jesus answers "You have said so". Matthew was there. His account makes it seem as though they all knew it would be Judas, and they knew it before the fact. I hadn't really noted this before. They are all asking "is it I?", going around the table sort of, one at a time. And when Judas asks, Jesus makes it pretty clear. They would all have heard this.
2022 - When Judas asked, in turn I am sure so that it looked like he too was surprised at this revelation, whether it was him, Jesus answer was two Greek works...if they were speaking Greek instead of Hebrew...which I don't see how we can possibly know. The words were:
σὺ εἶπας. The root words are pronounced su lego, but that second word starts with an "e" sound. The two words shown are the inflected forms. I don't know how they would be pronounced exactly. I "think" the first word is pretty close to "soo". The second word, inflected, has the letters eipaz, maybe pronounced eepaz? I guess it isn't really important, but these words spoken by Jesus were very knowing, very profound, and I'd just like to know what they really sound like - in both Greek and Hebrew. The word translated "you have said" is lego, and is in the aorist tense. That means it is divorced from any particular time. Didn't mean Judas said this in the past, present or future. Just meant he said it. The literal translation is "you have said it yourself", and use of the aorist perhaps told Judas that Jesus knew he had already set things up, and he knew that the deed would soon be done. What Judas was doing started prior to this and would be "fulfilled" later that night, when Judas identifies - betrays in the future - Jesus to those coming to arrest him. "You have said it yourself" is how NASB95 translates, but it seems to be the only one that does so.
2023 - Now that BLB has a forward inline, you can see both the basic form of these words, and also the inflected form - how they were modified for use in a spoken sentence. The words that Jesus spoke are pronounced "sy eipas". I give it a long y and pronounce ei as in eight. So "sigh aypas". But again, this is Greek. Why would 13 Jews in a room celebrating Passover be speaking in Greek at that time? That first word means "it yourself" and the second word means "you have said it". Notice that legos is the root of that second word. I wonder if these are the very same words Jesus will use when Pilate asks him if he is a king? That is in Matt 27:11, and the forms are a bit different. To Judas, Jesus uses the aorist form - translated as past tense as the aorist usually is...but meaning it is fact without specifying when it happened or will happen. In 27:11 it is a simple present active indicative. BUT, later in this chapter, Jesus uses exactly these same words to answer Caiaphas when asked if he is really claiming to be Jesus Christ. sy eipas. You have said so. Here, Jesus is not directly answering the question. Perhaps he is not directly answering Judas either, and that is why the other disciples didn't immediately understand the meaning. Jesus is sort of saying "that is your own opinion".
Then the Lord's Supper:
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. [Mat 26:28 ESV]
A blood covenant, not a covenant of salt? Is there a deliberate contrast here or am I reading far too much into it? Surely a lot of bulls and goats shed blood in connection with the previous covenant. What is changing here is the temporary nature of those bulls and goats to the permanent forgiveness accomplished by perfect blood. I think Jesus is telling them that his death is about the old covenant. The blood covenant.
2022 - "poured out for many". A good proof text for limited atonement. He died for those who would be saved. He died for OT saints already dead. He did not die for everyone, or everyone would be in heaven.
2021 - Having read in Leviticus a couple days ago about Aaron's sons not eating the part of the sin offering that they were supposed to eat, and seeing that if they didn't eat it they couldn't make atonement for the sin - this is the sin that transferred to the offering had to be intrinsic to the one offering the atonement sacrifice - the Lord's supper takes on another aspect. Could it be that in the same way the priests' eating of the sin offering allows them to "take on" that sin and then make atonement for it in their position as priest, now, since all are priests, by the Lord's supper, we "take on" the sacrifice of Jesus, and appropriate that atonement back to ourselves? It is like the direction of flow has reversed, sort of.
2022 - The 2021 note just above seems like a huge stretch now. I don't think that's what it means at all. Especially since in vs 28, when speaking of the cup, he says it is his "blood of the covenant". Some - not all - manuscripts insert "new" before covenant. ESV did not use that, so maybe these other manuscripts are not the "best available". In the OT, the blood of the animal to be sacrificed was sprinkled on the altar, and the rest poured out at the base. Under the Law, drinking blood was prohibited. So this is a pretty sharp break. For the priest under Mosaic Law, eating part of the sacrifice was required. But they never consumed the blood. Under the NT, symbolically at least, the blood is also consumed. This seems like a pretty big deal. What should we discern from this dramatic departure as to the blood? Perhaps blood was prohibited because it was not "sufficient". Flesh could be eaten, but the "life of the flesh is in the blood". For permanent atonement, only "effectual" blood - pure blood, sinless blood - will suffice. And until Jesus, no such blood was ever obtained for sacrifice. Jesus' blood atones. Therefore Jesus' blood should be consumed, same as the flesh was consumed. I think this is how the apostles would have understood it. And for me, it adds still more meaning to the observance of the Lord's supper.
2023 - The wording is "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant..." He definitely tells them to drink the blood. We might note that it is covenant blood and not sacrifice blood, but they are consuming blood. This is what I do not understand.
After this, they leave the room where they were eating and go to the Mt. of Olives. I wonder if Judas brought the Pharisees to this little room first, and not finding him there, guessed correctly that Jesus would be in the garden?
This verse:
31 Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' [Mat 26:31 ESV] It would be a good study to see where all in the NT this phrase "fall away" is used. I'd want to see the Greek words that were used, not just the places that are translated that way. The 11 were saved already. How could they not have been? Yet the term "fall away" is used, rather than that their salvation will be lost.
2022 - I had not noticed before that Jesus doesn't tell them they will fall until after they arrive on the Mt of Olives. In the dark he tells them this.
2022 - The Greek word for "fall away" is "skandalizo". Like our "scandal". Perhaps a better translation would be "You will all be scandalized..." Reading the definitions for the word I found the following:
"to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey
to cause to fall away
to be offended in one, i.e. to see in another what I disapprove of and what hinders me from acknowledging his authority
to cause one to judge unfavorably or unjustly of another"
So much more clear. Jesus gets arrested by the authorities. He's going to jail. The man they see as the future King of Israel, with themselves at his right hand, is tied up and led away as if he has no power at all. They are his followers. They are likely to be arrested also. It would be the same feeling you'd get if your best friend was arrested for some high crime - for something good people don't talk about. That is what "fall away" means in this verse. It is not even remotely about salvation.
Peter says he won't fall away, even if the rest do. Three times, Jesus says. After hearing Jesus say this, Peter says he will die before he denies. All the others say the same.
They go to Gethsemane. I think Gethsemane is a subset of the Mt. of Olives. That's what current maps show. But we probably don't really know. The Romans likely wiped out everything around there. Once in Gethsemane, the weight of the coming events settles on Jesus, and he is "...sorrowful, even to death...". MSB says he was sorrowful because of all the sins that would soon be his to bear. It would have been difficult for a sinless man even to contemplate the ugliness of so much sin on him.
First, he, takes Peter, James and John apart from the rest. He tells the rest to sit here. Then, he separates himself from the three, and tells them to sit and watch. Jesus prays for the cup to pass.
He returns to the three and they are all asleep. He addresses Peter for not staying awake, and tells him to watch and pray. Jesus separates himself and prays a second time. Then he goes back, finds them sleeping again, and leaves them alone. Jesus prays a third time. After this third time he tells them to get up, for his betrayer is there.
2022 - This verse:
"41 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."" [Mat 26:41 ESV]. I have never understood this second phrase. Now I think I see the point. Jesus is not talking about Peter, James and John here, who want to stay awake but cannot, he is talking about himself! Jesus, in Spirit, is willing to go to the cross and die for all mankind. But as a man, about to suffer unspeakably, he is weak, his is unable to "embrace" what is coming. We see here that he was both God and man, as his betrayer arrives.
2022 - This verse:
"42 Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."" [Mat 26:42 ESV]. Again we see that to drink something is to take it in, and make it part of you. To fully integrate it within you. When we drink the cup of his blood, we make his suffering and death on the cross a part of us, integral to what we are and in a way we participate in his suffering. Because it is his shed blood that saves us.
2022 - This gets me through vs 46 of 75. I will speed up a bit from here.
Sure enough, a big crowd arrives with swords and clubs, and with Judas in the lead. There is the incident with the ear. Jesus' point is that his 11 don't need to defend him, because he can defend himself if he chooses. But he is there to do God's will and to make the prophet's "whole", not to defend himself. All his sleepy disciples run away.
Jesus is taken to the palace of Caiaphas - where the conspirators had gathered. The whole council was calling witnesses - in the dark of night, and likely from the rabble they had recruited for the arrest and so not really a trustworthy bunch, nor were they used to associating with such high personages as chief priests, elders, and council. Yet they all rubbed shoulders that night to condemn an innocent man. No two witnesses agree. Even though they are all anxious to please by giving false testimony, they just don't give it the same way. So they ask Jesus himself whether he is the Christ, the Son of God. He does not just say "Yes". He rarely answered their questions directly. But he makes a reference to OT scripture that says the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of Power, and come on the clouds. This prophesy was of the Messiah, coming as Conquering King. They recognized the prophesy, and correctly interpreted it as Jesus saying He was the Christ. If you believe he is wrong about that, then the claim was blasphemy. But if it is true...they should have fallen to their knees.
2022 - In the Greek, Jesus' answer to Caiaphas, when Caiaphas asks him if he is the Son of God, is exactly the same as his answer to Judas when Judas asked "Is it I". Jesus says, "You have said it yourself". It is again the aorist tense.
They refuse to believe the answer and begin to abuse Jesus physically, and to seek a "sign", a little game of "who slapped you" with the Son of God. I cannot imagine what awaited them...
Peter denies, three separate times, as Jesus said he would. He vehemently denies Jesus, and his choice of harsh language seeks not only to deny Jesus but to identify himself with the assembled conspirators. If he is one of them, he will be safe.