Chapter 26

1 The rulers conspire against Christ. 6 The woman anointeth his head. 14 Judas selleth him. 17 Christ eateth the passover: 26 instituteth his holy supper: 36 prayeth in the garden: 47 and being betrayed with a kiss, 57 is carried to Caiaphas, 69 and denied of Peter.

1. All these sayings. [The Betrayal Plot, Matt. 26:1–5, 14–16=Mark 14:1, 2, 10, 11=Luke 22:1–6=John 12:10, 11. Major comment: Matthew. See Passion Week] That is, the discourse on the signs of His promised return, and the parables, as recorded in chs. 24 and 25.

2. After two days. The statement of v. 1 places this prediction of the betrayal and crucifixion at some time subsequent to the discourse recorded in chs. 24 and 25 (see on ch. 24:1). Whether this was late Tuesday night or on Wednesday is not certain. Commentators, thinking of the betrayal Thursday night and of “two days” in terms of Occidental reckoning, generally place this statement on Tuesday night. However, the period designated may be shorter. For example, according to NT terminology, “after three days” and “on the third day” are equivalent (see pp. 248-251), and it may be that “after two days” should be understood in a similar sense. With the betrayal falling on Thursday night, Jewish reckoning would, accordingly, indicate Wednesday as the day on which Christ spoke these words. In the year a.d. 31 the 14th day of Nisan, the day on which the Passover was slain, fell on Friday (see Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 1).

The passover. See Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 1.

Son of man. See on Matt. 1:1; Mark 2:10.

Betrayed. Gr.paradidoµmi, “to give up to,” or “to deliver over to.” Jesus specifies the time of His being taken into custody.

3. Then assembled together. It cannot be said with certainty whether Matthew here follows a strictly chronological order, and thus intends to show that the assembly of priests and elders took place “two days” before the Passover, or whether he is developing the subject topically. He may be simply giving a statement of Jesus (v. 2) before he records the assembly of priests and elders (vs. 4, 5). The fact that Matthew has grouped various events in the life of Christ topically rather than chronologically (see on chs. 8:2; 12:1; 13:1; 26:6; etc.) leaves it an open question as to whether he has done so here. Matthew uses the word tote, “then,” some 90 times (more than all the other NT writers combined), but not always in the sense of a strict chronological relationship between the incident thus introduced and that immediately preceding it. See p. 274.

It may be noted that the feast at Simon’s house recorded farther on in this chapter (vs. 6–13) apparently occurred the preceding Sabbath, probably in the evening (John 12:1, 2, 12, 13; see DA 557, 563 [the word deipnon, “supper,” generally refers to an evening meal, as in John 13:2; see on Luke 14:12]). Chronologically, it should have been recorded prior to the narrative of Matt. 21 (see on ch. 26:5). The assembly of priests and elders here mentioned seems to have taken place that same Saturday night (see DA 558), and it was from Simon’s supper that Judas went to them with his offer to betray his Master (vs. 14, 15; DA 563, 564). Most probably, therefore, the incidents recorded in vs. 3–15 took place the preceding Saturday night, but Matthew places them here because of their significant bearing upon the account of Jesus’ betrayal.

For a discussion of the immediate occasion prompting this assembly of Jewish leaders see DA 557, 558. This seems to have been Judas’ first secret meeting with the Jewish leaders (DA 563, 564). He apparently met with them a second time prior to the Last Supper, Thursday night (DA 720), perhaps on Tuesday night.

The chief priests. The men here mentioned no doubt were all members of the Sanhedrin, the national council of the Jews. A few weeks previously, soon after the raising of Lazarus, the council had decided to put Jesus to death at the very first favorable opportunity (John 11:47–53; DA 537-541). Now, popular sentiment in His favor made the matter even more pressing (DA 557). As to the meaning of the expression “chief priests” see on Matt. 2:4. In view of the fact that several ex-high priests were living at the time it may be that they are the ones here referred to as “the chief priests.”

The scribes. See p. 55. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 146) the omission of these words.

The palace. Where Jesus later appeared before Annas and Caiaphas (see v. 58), probably adjoining, perhaps within, the Temple area. (See Jerusalem in Time of Christ.)

Caiaphas. See on Luke 3:2.

4. Consulted. Their first serious consultation about Jesus had occurred two years previously (John 5:16; DA 213). Another such session had been held more recently, immediately after the raising of Lazarus (DA 558; John 11:47–53). The consultation of Matt. 26:4 was apparently held on the Saturday night preceding the crucifixion (see on v. 3), and another followed on Tuesday morning (DA 593).

By subtilty. Especially since the resurrection of Lazarus, the increasing popularity of Jesus filled the Jewish leaders with fear (DA 558). Events of the first few days of the crucifixion week served only to intensify the feeling of the people that in Jesus the nation had found the Leader of whom the prophets had spoken, and the Pharisees exclaimed in genuine perplexity, “Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him” (John 12:19; DA 570, 572, 590, 594). A crisis was imminent, and unless they could dispose of Him, their own fall appeared certain. They felt that they must act swiftly and secretly. Furthermore, a popular uprising in support of Jesus as Messiah-King (see DA 558, 570–572, 590) would certainly bring down the oppressive might of Rome even more firmly upon the nation. On the other hand, to seize Jesus openly might spark a popular uprising in His favor.

5. Not on the feast day. Popular sentiment among the throngs gathered in Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, the event that marked Israel’s first deliverance as a nation, was strongly in favor of proclaiming Jesus as Messiah-King (see on v. 4). It would not be safe, the leaders reasoned, to deal with Jesus until these crowds should have departed from the city. But, their deliberations having reached this point, Judas came with a proposal that apparently changed their plans (vs. 14, 15). It seems that Matthew here inserts the narrative of the feast at Simon’s house (vs. 6–13), which took place in Bethany, while the priests and Pharisees were in council in the palace of Caiaphas in Jerusalem, by way of explaining the change in plans. Following the rebuke received at this feast Judas went directly to the palace, and there arranged to betray Jesus.

An uproar. See on v. 4. This was presumably Saturday night preceding the crucifixion (see on v. 3). The day following witnessed the great popular demonstration acclaiming Jesus, Messiah-King, as He entered Jerusalem in triumph (see on ch. 21:1–11; DA 570-572). No doubt, as the priests went out to meet Jesus on the brow of the Mount of Olives they felt that their worst fears were about to be realized (see DA 578, 580, 581).

6. Bethany. [Simon’s Feast, Matt. 26:6–13=Mark 14:3–9=Luke 7:36–50=John 12:1–9. Major comment: Matthew and Luke. See Closing Ministry at Jerusalem; The Ministry of Our Lord, Passion Week, pp. 231, 233.] Concerning the time of the feast see DA 557. Commentators generally deny that the feast of Luke 7:36–50 is to be identified with the one here recorded by Matthew (and also by Mark and John), and assign it to the Galilean ministry, more than a year and a half earlier. For a statement of the reasons why this commentary believes that one feast is described by all four gospel writers see Additional Note on Luke 7.

Simon. A Pharisee (Luke 7:36–40) whom Jesus had healed of the dreaded leprosy. He considered himself a disciple, had openly associated himself with Jesus’ followers, but was not altogether convinced of His Messiahship (DA 557, 566; Luke 7:39). The feast was held in honor of Jesus. Lazarus was also an honored guest, Martha served, and Mary Magdalene whom Simon had led into sin and whom Jesus had healed of demon possession, was also present (DA 558, 559; see Additional Note on Luke 7).

The leper. Not that he had leprosy at the time, for then he would have been barred from society (see on Mark 1:40). Jesus had, some time previously, cured him of the leprosy, and he, in turn, gave this feast as an expression of his appreciation for what Jesus had done (DA 557).

7. A woman. This was Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus (John 12:1–3; see Additional Note on Luke 7).

An alabaster box. See on Luke 7:37. According to Mark 14:3 the “box,” or jar, had to be broken in order that its contents might be released.

Precious. That is, “expensive,” a meaning formerly attached to the word “precious.”

Ointment. Gr. muron, “ointment.” Mark identifies it as spikenard (see on Luke 7:37).

On his head. Matthew and Mark both speak of Mary’s anointing the head of Jesus, whereas Luke and John mention the anointing of the feet. At first glance this may seem to be a discrepancy between the accounts; however, there is no valid reason for doubting that both were done (cf. Ps. 133:2).

Sat. Literally, “reclined” (see on Mark 2:15).

8. His disciples. According to John 12:4, 5 the protest began with Judas. The other disciples apparently joined him in the criticism, which was probably voiced in whispers that circulated around the table.

This waste. Judas resented the fact that the perfume had not been sold and the money deposited in the communal treasury, where he could personally have access to it, “because he was a thief” (John 12:6).

9. Sold for much. According to Mark 14:5 the estimated value was more than 300 pence. In actual silver, by weight, 300 pence would be c. .125 oz. troy, or 3.89 g. (see p. 49). But a penny was the usual day’s wage (see on Matt. 20:2); thus 300 pence would be practically equivalent to the annual income of an ordinary laborer.

The poor. Judas, the speaker (see on v. 8), knew well that Jewish law made the care of the poor a definite responsibility of those who enjoyed better circumstances (Deut. 15:7–11; etc.) and that attention to their needs was looked upon as meritorious. See on Matt. 5:3.

10. Understood. That is, Jesus became aware of. See on Mark 2:8.

11. The poor always. Jesus does not question our duty to the poor, He simply declares that there are obligations that transcend this duty.

Not always. Even Jesus’ closest associates did not sense what another week would bring forth! Only Mary seemed to understand, albeit dimly, what lay ahead (see DA 559). Her earnest desire to do “what she could” (Mark 14:8) was highly valued by Jesus as He faced the hour of crisis that lay ahead.

12. For my burial. It had been Mary’s original intent to use the spikenard in preparing the body of Jesus for burial (DA 559, 560; cf. Mark 16:1), but evidently the Spirit of God impressed Mary to use it upon this occasion instead.

13. Verily. See on ch. 5:18.

This gospel. Jesus clearly anticipated the proclamation of His “gospel” (see on Mark 1:1) everywhere (see also Matt. 24:14). Those who affirm that Jesus never intended to found a religion would do well to ponder this statement.

A memorial of her. Or, “in memory of her” (RSV). Mary’s act of devotion reflected the very same spirit that had prompted Jesus to come down to this dark earth (Phil. 2:6–8).

14. Judas Iscariot. For a sketch of Judas see on Mark 3:19 (cf. DA 716–722).

Went unto. For the relationship of this event to those listed earlier in this chapter see on vs. 3, 5. The sermon in the synagogue at Capernaum about a year earlier (John 6:22–65) had been the turning point in the history of Judas (DA 719). Though outwardly he remained with the Twelve, in heart he had deserted Jesus. Now Jesus’ commendation of Mary’s act of devotion at Simon’s feast, which was an indirect condemnation of his own attitude, spurred Judas into action (DA 563, 564, 720). How strange that Mary’s supreme act of love for Jesus should provoke Judas to his supreme deed of disloyalty! In going to the “chief priests” Judas acted under the inspiration of the evil one (Luke 22:3).

15. What will ye give me? Personal advantage was uppermost in his mind as Judas offered to betray his Master. In fact, personal advantage had come to be the dominant motive of his entire life.

I will deliver him. Judas’ offer solved the dilemma of the leaders in Jerusalem. They wished to silence Jesus, but were paralyzed by fear of the people (see on v. 5). Their problem was how to take Jesus into custody without provoking a popular revolt in His favor. See on v. 16.

Pieces of silver. Gr. arguria, thought here to refer to shekels, which, in the days of Christ, were equivalent to the Greek stateµres (see on ch. 17:24, 27) and the Tyrian tetradrachma. The stateµr weighed .458 oz. troy, or 14.245 g., and would be about 4 days’ wages for a common laborer. “Thirty pieces of silver” would, accordingly, be about 120 days’ wages. Thirty shekels of silver was the traditional price of a slave (Ex. 21:32). Compare the prediction of Zech. 11:12.

16. Opportunity. Gr. eukairia, “a favorable time,” that is, one suitable to the requirements of the rulers of the nation (see on vs. 4, 5). Judas provided the missing link in the priestly plot against Jesus—a convenient means (Mark 14:11) for taking Jesus into custody “in the absence of the multitude” (Luke 22:6; cf. Mark 14:1, 2). No wonder the priests and elders were “glad” (Mark 14:11).

17. The first day. [Preparation for the Passover, Matt. 26:17–19=Mark 14:12–16=Luke 22:7–13. Major comment: Matthew.] Mark makes the additional observation that the “first day of unleavened bread” was the time “when they killed the passover” (Mark 14:12). Luke identifies the day as the time “when the passover must be killed.” The designation “first day of unleavened bread,” for the day that the Passover was killed, is somewhat unusual. Normally the 14th of Nisan is designated as the day for the slaying of the Passover lamb and the 15th of Nisan as the first day of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:5, 6; see Vol. II, p. 105). Because of the close relationship between the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread the two terms were sometimes used interchangeably, and the entire feast called by either one or the other of the two names (see Talmud Pesahim 5a, Soncino ed., pp. 15–17; cf. Josephus Antiquities ii. 15. 1 [315–317]). The present incident occurred on Thursday. For the relationship between this event and the Passover, and for the apparent discrepancy between the synoptic writers and John concerning the dating of the Passover, see Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 1.

Unleavened bread. See on Ex. 12:8; Lev. 23:6; Num. 28:17; Deut. 16:3, 8; see Vol. I, p. 709; Vol. II, p. 108.

The disciples came. The head of the household had the responsibility of making arrangements for the celebration of the Passover, as he had for all other religious interests of the family. He was, in a sense, the priest of the family. Being, spiritually, “members of the family of Jesus” (DA 349), the disciples naturally turned to Him for directions concerning their preparation for the Passover. It was apparently Thursday morning, Nisan 13, when they came to Jesus (see Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 1), for they celebrated the Passover together that same night (see Matt. 26:17, 20; 14:12, 16–18; Luke 22:7, 8, 13–15).

Where wilt thou? Apparently even the disciples closest to Christ (Luke 22:8; cf. DA 292) did not as yet know in detail, at least, what plans Jesus had for the Passover supper. It seems evident, therefore, that Judas would not know either. Ever since his first contact with the Sanhedrin the preceding Saturday night (see on Matt. 26:3, 5), and particularly since his second contact with them, which probably took place Tuesday night (DA 645, 655, 716, 720), Judas was looking for a suitable opportunity to betray Christ (see on v. 16). Some have suggested that this situation may have accounted for the fact that Jesus waited till almost the last moment before making arrangements for the Passover. However, even then, the instructions He gave to Peter and John were such that neither they nor the rest of the Twelve knew where they were to celebrate the Passover. It would only be somewhat later the same day that, upon the return of Peter and John, all would know where they were to be, and Judas would have little time to lay plans for betraying Jesus to the leaders during the quiet hour He spent with His disciples in the upper room. These precautions may have been taken because Jesus chose not to be molested during that sacred occasion, the last time He would be together with the Twelve, for He had most important instructions to give them.

The passover. See Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 1.

18. Go into the city. It would seem that Jesus had spent the night, that is, Wednesday night, outside Jerusalem. From Friday to Tuesday He had spent the nights in Bethany, probably at the home of Lazarus (DA 557; see on ch. 21:17). Tuesday night He lodged on the Mount of Olives (see DA 674, 685). Where He spent Wednesday and Wednesday night we are not told (see on chs. 21:17; 26:12). It was probably Tuesday when Judas went the second time to the Jewish leaders, completed arrangements to betray his Master, and agreed to do it at one of His places of retirement (DA 645, 716; see on v. 4). Jesus knew of Judas’ secret conspiracy against Him, and some have suggested that He may have deliberately changed His place of abode to thwart Judas’ plans (see John 6:64).

Such a man. Gr. deina, “such a one,” or “so-and-so,” a designation for a man whom the speaker does not wish to name. Jesus did not name the person He had in mind, but gave a sign by which the two disciples dispatched on this errand might recognize him when they met him. On the basis of Acts 12:12 (cf. Acts 1:13), tradition has conjectured that the father of John Mark was the owner of the house, and that in his house was the upper room that became the abode of the Twelve and the headquarters of the church in Jerusalem for a time. See on Mark 14:51.

The Master saith. These words suggest that the owner of the house was familiar with Jesus and friendly to Him. Perhaps, like Simon of Bethany (DA 557), Nicodemus (John 19:39; DA 177), and Joseph of Arimathaea (Matt. 27:57), this man was already a disciple of Jesus.

My time. Earlier in His ministry Jesus had commented on the fact that His “time,” or “hour,” had not as yet come (see John 2:4; 7:6, 8, 30; cf. ch. 8:20). By this Jesus generally meant that the time had not yet come for His ministry to close and His death to take place. Now that the day of His betrayal had dawned He said, in words fraught with vast meaning, that His “time” was at hand. Later, this very night, He said, “The hour is come” (John 17:1).

At thy house. In Jesus’ day the Passover was celebrated within the city of Jerusalem, and all homes there were to be made available for the use of pilgrims attending the feast. For a time, in keeping with instructions given when the first Passover was instituted (Ex. 12:22), participants in the Passover meal were required to remain until morning in the house where they partook of it. The increasing number of pilgrims in attendance at the Passover eventually made necessary the permission to retire from the Passover meal to places of lodging within a limited and carefully defined area in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem.

19. Made ready the passover. The preparation probably included the following: searching the room for leaven, sweeping the room, and furnishing it with a table, couches or cushions, and the utensils needed for serving the meal. Though Inspiration says nothing specifically of a lamb in connection with the supper Jesus ate with His disciples, it seems doubtful that they would have celebrated the paschal meal without one (see Mark 14:12, 16, 17, 18; Luke 22:7, 8, 13–15). Accordingly, Peter and John would purchase a lamb, slay it, and roast it. They would also prepare unleavened bread, bitter herbs, sauce, and wine. These preparations doubtless occupied a considerable part of the day, and it was probably toward evening when Peter and John returned.

20. When the even was come. [Celebration of the Passover, Matt. 26:20=Mark 14:17, 18^a=Luke 22:14–16. Major comment: Luke.] This was Thursday night, during the early hours of Nisan 14 (see Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 1).

21. As they did eat. [The Betrayer Revealed, Matt. 26:12–25=Mark 14:18b–21=Luke 22:21–23=John 13:21–30. Major comment: Matthew and John.] The evangelists Matthew and Mark do not mention the incident of the washing of the disciples’ feet (John 13:1–17). Also, in their narratives Matthew and Mark reverse the order of the Lord’s Supper and the identification of the betrayer. The account in Luke is more nearly in chronological order, for Judas, before he left the upper room partook of both the bread and the wine as Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (DA 653).

According to the Mishnah (see Pesahim 10, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 532–623), the ritual of the Passover meal was as follows: (1) The head of the family or group celebrating the supper together, mixed the first cup of wine, and passed it to the others, pronouncing a blessing upon the day and upon the wine. (2) He then performed a ritual washing of his hands. (3) The table was then spread. Foods served at the paschal meal consisted of the paschal lamb, the unleavened bread, the bitter herbs, lettuce, and other vegetables, and a relish sauce called charoseth, made of almonds, dates, figs, raisins, spice, and vinegar. At this stage some of the vegetables were eaten as an appetizer. (4) A second cup of wine was then passed around the circle, and the head of the family explained the meaning of the Passover. (5) The first part of the Passover hallel, consisting of Ps. 113 and 114, was sung. (6) The participants then ate of the Passover meal. The head of the family gave thanks for and broke the unleavened cakes, and distributed a portion to each guest. Portions of the paschal lamb were then eaten. (7) The third cup of wine was passed, and the benediction over the meal pronounced. (8) A fourth cup of wine was passed, after which all united in the second part of the hallel, consisting of Ps. 115 to 118.

Verily. See on ch. 5:18.

One of you. According to the record this is the first time Jesus clearly announced that one of the Twelve was to be His betrayer. All were startled, but none as yet suspected Judas. The latter, however, now began to realize that Jesus read his dark secret as an open book. According to DA 653, 654, Jesus’ five statements revealing the conspirator were spoken in the following progressive order: (1) The words, “Ye are not all clean” (John 13:11), were uttered during the course of the foot washing. (2) The next statement, “He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me” (John 13:18), was made as the disciples again took their places at the table. (3) The announcement of Matt. 26:21, “One of you shall betray me,” followed a few moments later. (4) The words, “He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me” (v. 23), probably came at some point during the Lord’s Supper. (5) The final acknowledgment, “Thou hast said” (v. 25), came at the close of the Lord’s Supper and prompted Judas to leave the room forthwith. Compare Ps. 41:9.

Betray. Gr. paradidoµmi, “to give over to,” or “to deliver up to.” On at least four occasions prior to this Jesus had made reference to His betrayal (see Matt. 17:22; 20:18; 26:2 John 6:64, 70, 71).

22. Lord, is it I? The form of the question in Greek implies that a negative answer was expected, as if they said, “It isn’t I, Lord, is it?” With Judas, to be sure, this form of the question was used as a bluff.

23. He that dippeth. See on v. 21. Jesus made this statement in answer to a question put to Him by John (John 13:26–26), but Judas had not heard the question (DA 654). The fingers were used in eating the Passover meal. The “dish” here referred to was the charoseth, or sauce used with the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs (see on Matt. 26:21).

The same. In ancient times to violate the rights of hospitality marked a man as utterly beyond the pale of respectability. In Oriental lands even today a man will avoid eating at the same table with someone he may wish to take advantage of, or even with someone he does not wish to have as a friend.

24. Son of man. See on Matt. 1:1; Mark 2:10.

Goeth. Gr.hupagoµ, a mild synonym for death.

As it is written. Jesus probably refers to such passages as Ps. 22 and Isa. 53.

Woe. The fact that Inspiration had foretold the conspiracy of Judas in no way absolved him from his personal responsibility in the matter. God had not predestined him to betray his Master. The decision of Judas constituted a deliberate choice on his part.

Not been born. Compare ch. 18:6.

25. Judas. See on Mark 3:19. Judas had not heard Christ’s statement concerning him as the betrayer (see on Matt. 26:23). In the confusion he had kept silent as the others inquired, “Is it I?” and his silence now made him conspicuous (DA 654).

Thou hast said. See on v. 21. This affirmation was an indirect, perhaps slightly ambiguous, way of saying Yes (cf. v. 64). The other disciples, with the possible exception of John (see John 13:25–27), did not grasp the import of Jesus’ final statement to Judas (see John 13:28). But Judas fully realized that Jesus discerned his secret, and left immediately for his third conference with the Jewish leaders (John 13:31; DA 654, 655).

26. As they were eating. [The Lord’s Supper, Matt. 26:26–29=Mark 14:22–25=Luke 22:17–20. Major comment: Matthew. See Betrayal, Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus; the Crucifixion In Relation To Passover, Passion Week, Resurrection to Ascension.] That is, the Passover supper.

Jesus took bread. Evidently, some of the unleavened Passover bread.

Blessed it. Some have suggested that Jesus may have spoken the Jewish blessing, “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the world, who dost bring forth bread from the earth.”

Take, eat. As the body finds nourishment in literal bread, so the soul is to find spiritual nourishment in the truths Christ uttered.

This is my body. Some have interpreted literally this figurative statement of Jesus, forgetful, apparently, that He often spoke figuratively regarding Himself. For example: Jesus said, “I am the door” (John 10:7), and the “way” (John 14:6). But all agree He was not thereby transforming Himself into a door or a highway. That Jesus spoke figuratively regarding the “bread” becomes transparently evident from Luke 22:20 (cf. 1 Cor. 11:25), “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” If the bread actually became His very body, by the same process the “cup” must literally have become the “new testament.” The verb “is” in the phrase “this is my body” is used in the sense of “represents,” as it is in Mark 4:15–18; Luke 12:1; Gal. 4:24.

27. The cup. This was the cup used in the celebration of the paschal service. The cup contained the pure juice of the grape (see DA 653), untouched by fermentation, and probably diluted with water in accordance with contemporary Jewish custom. The method used in ancient times to preserve grape juice in an unfermented state from the vintage some six months prior to the Passover season is not known. In certain parts of the ancient East today, however, this is accomplished by partially dehydrating fresh grape juice and preserving it in a semi-jelly state. The addition of the requisite amount of water restores it to its original state. Grape juice can also be made from raisins.

Gave thanks. See on v. 26.

Drink ye all. The English translation obscures the fact that Jesus said, literally, “Drink of it, all of you.” The word “all” refers to the disciples, not to the wine. None were to pass it by.

28. This is my blood. As the bread represented Jesus’ body, so the wine represented His blood (see on v. 26).

Testament. The blood that Jesus shed on Calvary ratified, or made valid, the new covenant, or “testament,” even as the blood of oxen stood for the ratification of the old covenant (Ex. 24:5–8; Heb. 9:15–23; cf. Gal. 3:15). Except for the vicarious death of Christ the plan of salvation would never have become a reality. Even those saved in OT times were saved by virtue of the sacrifice to come (Heb. 9:15). They were saved as they looked forward in faith, even as men find salvation today by looking backward to the death of Christ. For a further discussion of the nature of the “new covenant” see on Heb. 8:8–11.

Shed for many. The vicarious nature of the atoning death of Christ is clearly affirmed (cf. Isa. 53:4–6, 8, 10–12). Luke reads, “shed for you,” that is, shed on your behalf (ch. 22:20). Compare also Matt. 20:28.

Remission. Gr. aphesis, “release,” “forgiveness,” “pardon,” from the verb aphieµmi, “to send away,” “to dismiss,” “to forgive” (see on ch. 6:12). The word is used in the papyri for the “release” of captives and for the remission from debt or punishment. Here, the meaning of “forgiveness” is to be preferred (see John 3:16; cf. Matt. 20:28).

29. I will not drink. The word “henceforth” implies that Jesus did drink from the cup upon this occasion. As the disciples were to drink of the cup “in remembrance” of Jesus “till he come” (1 Cor. 11:25, 26), He Himself would abstain from it until He should “drink it new” with them in His Father’s kingdom.

Until that day. It may be that Jesus here refers to the “marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:9). As the Last Supper was closely related to the great event that made possible the plan of salvation, so the marriage supper of the Lamb will celebrate the triumph of the plan.

New. This does not refer to new wine in contrast with fermented wine, but to the fact that everything in the kingdom will be “new” (Rev. 21:5).

My Father’s kingdom. The drinking of the communion cup was to “shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). It is a pledge on God’s part that the kingdom will eventually become a reality, and on our part, of faith in the promise that this will be so. The ordinance of the Lord’s table significantly links the first advent with the second. The communion service was designed to keep the hope of Christ’s second coming vivid in the minds of the disciples, as well as the memory of His vicarious death (see 1 Cor. 11:25, 26; cf. DA 659).

30. Sung an hymn. [Retirement to Gethsemane, Matt 26:30=Mark 14:26=Luke 22:39. Major comment: Matthew. See Betrayal, Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus; Crucifixion In Relation To Passover, Passion Week, the Resurrection to Ascension.] Ps. 115 to 118 were usually sung at the close of the Passover meal. For the record of the counsel Jesus imparted to the disciples in the upper room and on the way to Gethsemane see John 14 to 17.

Mount of Olives. So called because of the olive groves on its slopes. Josephus refers to it by this name (Antiquities vii. 9. 2 [202]; xx. 8. 6; War v. 2. 3 [70]; etc.). Mount of Olives is the name generally applied to the western portion of a mountain mass directly across the Kidron Valley, east of Jerusalem. The northern summit of Mt. Olivet reaches a height of 2,723 ft. (830 m.). about 300 ft. (91.5 m.) higher than the level of the Temple area in the city. See on chs. 21:1; 24:1. It is thought that before Titus destroyed all the timber in the environs of Jerusalem, the Mount of Olives was covered with oliveyards, fig orchards, and with myrtle and other shrubs. Bethany, about 2 mi. (3.2 km.) to the east of the city, was situated on the southeastern slope of the mountain. See illustration facing p. 513.

31. Offended. [A Warning to Peter and the Ten, Matt. 26:31–35=Mark 14:27–31=Luke 22:31–38 (=John 13:36–38). Major comment: Matthew. See Betrayal, Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus.] Gr. skandalizoµ (see on ch. 5:29). Jesus spoke these words of warning and admonition as He and the disciples began the descent from the city to the Kidron Valley on the way to the Mount of Olives (DA 672, 673). Note, however, that the warning of John 13:36–38 was given in the upper room.

This night. The time was probably an hour or more before midnight, during the early hours of Nisan 14 (see Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 1).

It is written. Jesus cites Zech. 13:7.

The sheep. Jesus applies this prediction to the flight of the disciples at the moment of His arrest, an hour or more later (v. 56).

32. After I am risen. Facing betrayal, condemnation, and death, Jesus speaks with confident assurance of His resurrection. The definite appointment here made with the disciples to meet them again in Galilee might have been for the disciples a source of encouragement during the hours of bitter disappointment that lay immediately ahead of them, but they apparently forgot it (see on v. 33).

33. Peter. Peter was often spokesman for the disciples (see chs. 14:28; 16:16, 22; 17:4, 24). Here, however, it seems that he spoke on his own behalf exclusively, as feeling superior to his fellow disciples. Jesus’ words recorded in ch. 26:31, 32 apparently made no real impression on him. His impulsive reply was characteristic (see on Mark 3:16), but ill-considered.

34. Verily. For comment see on ch. 5:18.

This night. See on v. 31. The warning as recorded in John 13:38 was given while Jesus and the Twelve were still in the upper room; here, it is given again on the way to Gethsemane (DA 673). Both the prediction and its fulfillment are recorded in all four Gospels.

Before the cock crow. Mark reads, “before the cock crow twice” (Mark 14:30). “Cockcrowing” was a common designation for the early morning. For example, the Mishnah (Tamid 1. 2, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 2) explains that “anyone who desired to remove the ashes from the Altar used to rise early and bathe before the superintendent came. At what time did the superintendent come? He did not always come at the same time; sometimes he came just at cock-crow, sometimes a little before or a little after.” For the relationship of cockcrowing to the watches of the night see p. 50.

35. Though I should die. Peter meant well, to be sure, but he knew not whereof he spoke. Compare Ruth’s noble profession of loyalty to Naomi (Ruth 1:16, 17), and her admirable faithfulness in living up to it.

Likewise also. How little the disciples knew of circumstances soon to develop that would lead them to forsake Jesus and flee for their lives (Mark 14:50).

36. Then cometh Jesus. [Gethsemane, Matt. 26:36–56=Mark 14:32–52=Luke 22:40–53=John 18:1–12. Major comment: Matthew. See Betrayal, Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus; Passion Week.]

Gethsemane. From an Aramaic word meaning “oil press.” To this spot the Saviour had frequently resorted for meditation, prayer, and rest, and here He had often spent the night (Luke 22:39; John 18:2; DA 685, 686). It seems probable that this was His place of retirement Tuesday and Wednesday nights preceding the crucifixion (see Luke 21:37; see on Matt 21:17; 24:1, 3; 26:17, 18).

The exact location of the garden of Bible times is not known. This quiet spot was probably situated somewhere on the lower slope of the Mount of Olives (see on chs. 21:1; 26:30), directly across the Kidron Valley from the Temple and about ten minutes’ walk from the city. The site commonly pointed out to visitors today rests on a tradition that cannot be traced earlier than the days of Constantine the Great, three centuries after Christ. In the opinion of many commentators and travelers in Palestine, the original Gethsemane was situated somewhat higher on the slope. See illustration facing p. 513.

Sit ye here. Eight of the disciples were bidden to remain near, probably just inside, the gate of the garden.

37. Took with him. Peter, James, and John enjoyed the privilege of a more intimate association with Jesus than the other disciples. They had been with Him at the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:51) and again on the mount of transfiguration (Matt 17:1). In this supreme hour Jesus longed for human companionship, for the sympathy and understanding of kindred spirits.

Sorrowful and very heavy. See on v. 38.

38. My soul. The equivalent of a common Hebrew idiom meaning “I” (see on Ps. 16:10; Matt 10:28).

Exceeding sorrowful. It is impossible for us to comprehend the profound sorrow, the mysterious grief, that bore down upon Jesus as He entered the Garden of Gethsemane. The strange sadness that overtook Him puzzled the disciples. Here was the divine-human Son of God, Son of man (see on Matt 1:1; Mark 2:10; Luke 1:35), suffering an intensity of distress they had never witnessed before. In part, the suffering was physical, but this was only the visible reflection of the infinite suffering of Christ as the bearer of the sins of the world.

For comment on the sufferings of the Saviour in the Garden of Gethsemane, and for the temptations Satan there pressed upon Him, see DA 685-694 (cf. on Matt 4:1–11; Luke 2:40, 52; Heb. 2:17; see EGW Supplementary Material on Matt 26:36–46, 42; see Additional Note on John 1).

Even unto death. It is impossible for us as sinful beings to comprehend the intensity of our Saviour’s anguish as He bore the weight of the sins of the world (see on Luke 22:43).

Watch with me. A plea for human sympathy and companionship in the struggle with the powers of darkness. To “watch” means, literally, “to stay awake,” but here it means to remain awake for a purpose, and that purpose is to share Christ’s vigil.

39. He went. Luke adds that the distance was about a stone’s throw (Luke 22:41). He was within sight and hearing of Peter, James, and John; they saw the angel (Luke 22:43), and heard his voice (DA 686, 694).

Prayed. For comment on the prayer life of Jesus see on Mark 1:35; 3:13; Luke 6:12.

Father. See on ch. 6:9.

This cup. The “cup” is a common Biblical expression denoting the experiences of life, whether good or bad (see on ch. 20:22).

Nevertheless. In spite of all the suffering and the fierce temptations Satan pressed upon His soul, Jesus submitted without question or hesitation to the Father’s will. His perfect submission to God’s will provides a perfect example for us to follow.

As thou wilt. See on Matt. 6:10; Luke 2:49; see Heb. 5:8.

40. Unto the disciples. It seems that Jesus came seeking for human sympathy and companionship.

Asleep. For a time they remained awake, and united their prayers with His, but after a while a paralyzing stupor came over them. They might have shaken it off if they had persisted in prayer. See on ch. 24:42, 44.

Saith unto Peter. Peter was the one who had made the inordinate boast that he would accompany Jesus to prison and to death (see on vs. 33, 35). Now, apparently, he could not even remain awake, much less perform a difficult feat.

What? Gr. houtoµs, “thus,” or “so.” The keen disappointment Jesus felt upon finding His closest earthly friends too drowsy to pray with Him for “one hour” finds expression in this exclamation, half censure and half disappointment.

One hour. This may imply that Christ spent approximately one hour in the Garden of Gethsemane.

41. Watch and pray. For comment on what is involved in the “watch” the Christian is to keep see on ch. 24:42. For the manner in which Christ prepared to meet temptation see 2T 200–215—He fasted, engaged in the most earnest prayer, and committed Himself wholly to God. For comment on effective prayer see on Matt. 6:5–13; Luke 11:1–9; 18:1–8.

Into temptation. See on ch. 6:13.

The spirit. That is, the higher powers of the mind. Compare Paul’s experience as related in Rom. 7:15 to 8:6.

Willing. Gr. prothumos, “ready,” “inclined,” “disposed.” Earlier this very night they had given evidence of their willingness of mind (see vs. 33–35).

The flesh. That is, natural tendencies and desires as stimulated by the senses. By “flesh” NT writers generally refer to the lower nature of man, as represented by the various appetites or cravings (see Rom. 8:3; etc.).

Weak. Jesus does not excuse the “flesh” for being “weak,” but sets forth this weakness as the reason for needing to “watch and pray.” The comparative ease with which the disciples repeatedly fell asleep in this hour of crisis is the weakness Christ here refers to particularly (see on v. 40).

42. If this cup. The form of this statement in the Greek assumes that the suggestion thus made either cannot or will not be fulfilled.

43. Eyes were heavy. As upon the mount of transfiguration (Luke 9:32; see DA 425).

44. The third time. Now came the moment of crisis, when the fate of humanity and the destiny of the world hung in the balance.

45. Sleep on now. It is not clear why Jesus should tell the disciples, “Sleep on now, and take your rest,” and then, apparently without interruption, tell them, “Rise, let us be going” (v. 46). Some suggest that this was an indirect rebuke to them for having repeatedly fallen asleep, an ironical remark, implying that the time for watching and praying was past. However, irony seems rather out of place on an occasion such as this, and others suggest the possible translation, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest?” (RSV).

Son of man. See on Matt. 1:1; Mark 2:10.

Betrayed. Literally, “given over” (see on Luke 6:16).

Into the hands. Job had once been given over to Satan, with the stipulation that his life was to be spared (Job 2:6). Now, however, Jesus was given over to men who were as fully under the control of demons as the demoniacs to whom He had brought restoration of mind and body (see DA 256, 323; cf. DA 746, 749).

46. Let us be going. Instead of hiding, or seeking to escape, from the mob that was about to arrest Him, Jesus went out to meet them. He might have avoided retiring to a spot Judas knew to be His usual place of retirement (Luke 22:39; John 18:2; see on Matt. 26:36; cf. DA 685, 716), or He could have left before His enemies arrived. But He did not depart, even when He heard their approaching footsteps.

47. Judas. The betrayer knew where to find Jesus (John 18:2). Arrangements had been made to take Him at “one of His resorts for meditation and prayer” (DA 716), and Gethsemane was a spot He had often visited for this purpose, sometimes passing the night here (see DA 685, 686). Judas’ task was to lead the rulers to Jesus when He was in the quiet and seclusion of such a place of retirement, and to identify Him for the captors (see Acts 1:16).

One of the twelve. This additional comment is doubtless added by way of making even more vivid the heinous nature of Judas’ act of betrayal (see on vs. 21, 23). It intensifies the horror of his treachery.

A great multitude. Among this motley crowd was the high priest himself, accompanied by various of the Jewish leaders (see DA 695, 696), certain of the Pharisees (John 18:3), the Temple police, who were Jews (John 18:12; cf. DA 696), and a detachment of Roman soldiers (see DA 694, 695). In addition, there was a mob of the common rabble, some of them ruffians no doubt, who had come along to witness the excitement (see DA 696).

Staves. Or, “clubs.”

From the chief priests. This action was carried out by the authority of the Sanhedrin, which was made up of the “chief priests and the scribes and the elders” (cf. Mark 14:43).

John (ch. 18:6) records the fact that as the leaders of the mob approached Jesus a supernatural power caused them to fall to the ground. The angel who had so recently sustained the Saviour as He fell to the ground in agony (Luke 22:43) interposed himself visibly between Christ and them (see DA 694). It would seem that the purpose of this manifestation of divine power and glory was to provide those who had come to arrest Jesus with evidence that the deed they were about to perform met with the disapprobation of Heaven. They were fighting against God. A second revelation of divine power was afforded the mob when Jesus healed Malchus’ severed ear (Luke 22:51; John 18:10).

48. A sign. Gr. seµmeion. Mark uses the word susseµmon, a word common in ancient Greek for a signal agreed upon in advance. At night, and in a large throng, the Jews feared that they might arrest the wrong person, and that He whom they sought to arrest might escape. Perhaps, also, they feared a struggle.

Kiss. A common mode of greeting in ancient times, as in some parts of the world even today (see Luke 7:45; Acts 20:37; 1 Cor. 16:20; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14; etc.). It was no doubt particularly appropriate that a disciple should salute his master in this way. See Prov. 27:6.

Hold him fast. This may imply that Judas had no intention of assisting in the actual seizure of Jesus, that with the identifying kiss he considered his part of the bargain discharged and he would not be considered responsible for what might happen after that point. Some have suggested the meaning, “hold him safely,” that is, without injuring him.

49. Kissed. Gr. kataphileoµ, an apparent intensive form of phileoµ, “to kiss,” hence, “to kiss fervently.” The tense of the verb denotes durative action. Compare the phrase, “he kisses Him repeatedly” (DA 696).

50. Friend. Gr. hetairos, “comrade,” “partner,” “mate.” Only Matthew records this response of Jesus. Hetairos was sometimes used to address a person whose name was unknown. Jesus may have designedly avoided the use of Judas’ personal name in order to call attention to the betrayer’s pretended friendship.

Wherefore art thou come? Rather, “Why are you here?” According to Luke, Jesus asked Judas, “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” (Luke 22:48).

51. One of them. That is, Peter (John 18:10). Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not mention him by name, probably because they wrote while Peter was yet alive. Perhaps their purpose was to spare him the embarrassment—in the presence of all who might read the record—of a direct reminder of this hasty deed. John, writing many years after Peter’s death, mentions him.

Drew his sword. Peter had wrongly construed the words of Jesus to mean that He actually intended the disciples to use weapons in self-defense (see Luke 22:38). Peter’s misguided zeal here displayed stands forth as a warning to God’s witnesses today not to take drastic and ill-considered action in promoting what they, at the moment, take to be the interests of the kingdom of heaven.

A servant. John, who was personally acquainted with the high priest (see John 18:15), identifies the servant as Malchus (v. 10). Malchus may have been one of those who “laid hands on Jesus” (Matt 26:50).

Smote off his ear. Peter probably intended to sever the man’s head. It may be that an unseen hand deflected the blow. Only Luke records the miraculous restoration of the severed ear (see on Luke 22:51).

52. Put up again thy sword. These words of Jesus make it amply clear that His earlier statement (see Luke 22:36, 38) was not to be construed as approval of the use of force in furthering the interests of His kingdom. During the course of His trial Jesus said, “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight” (John 18:36). It is only when Christians mistakenly come to believe that Christ’s kingdom is of this world that they resort to force in defending what they take to be its interests. Peter’s rash act could easily have been construed by the Jewish leaders as evidence that Jesus and His disciples were a band of dangerous revolutionaries, and this charge might have been pressed against Him as valid proof that His death was in the public interest. But as far as the record goes nothing was said about this unfortunate incident. Except for the instant healing of the ear, it might have been otherwise.

They that take the sword. Those who resort to force may, sooner or later, find themselves at the mercy of cruel and heartless men. Furthermore, since Heaven does not approve of resort to force, those who profess to be God’s servants cannot expect divine protection and assistance when they violate Heaven’s principles. The power of the gospel is the power of love. Victories won by force or by other devious methods are at best temporary, and in the end result in greater loss than the immediate gains can possibly counter-balance. For the experience of an apostate religious organization that has resorted to the use of the sword see on Dan. 7:25; Rev. 13:10.

53. Pray to my Father. Jesus relies on the assurance of His Father’s love and care brought to Him by the angel from heaven (see Luke 22:43). It is by His own choice that Jesus permits Himself to be taken. He is not helpless; He does not have to go through this bitter experience unless He chooses to do so.

Twelve legions. For comment on the Roman legion see on Mark 5:9.

54. The scriptures. Jesus probably thinks of such passages of Scripture as Ps. 22 and Isa. 53, which foretold His death.

55. A thief. Gr. leµsteµs, “robber,” “highwayman.” Such force as this mob represented would not be necessary for the arrest of a simple “thief.” Leµsteµs is rendered “robber” or “robbers” in John 10:1, 8; 18:40; 2 Cor. 11:26. The Jewish leaders acted toward Jesus as though He were a man like Barabbas, a “hardened ruffian” (see DA 735).

Staves. Or, “clubs.”

Sat daily with you. Jesus points to the fact that His conduct denies the implied accusation that He is a hardened ruffian who must be captured, if at all, by force and violence. He has not been operating in secret, but in view of everyone (see John 18:19–21). He had given no excuse for the charge that He was plotting secretly against either the Jewish or the Roman authorities.

Laid on hold. The fact that the authorities had made no attempt to arrest Jesus publicly was evidence that they had no good case against him. Secret arrest proved that they were not acting in good faith, and that they knew their own motives to be wrong.

56. The scriptures. As, for example, Ps. 22 and Isa. 53.

Forsook him. Jesus requested that the disciples not be molested (John 18:8). The priests and rulers had been bound by a promise not to molest the followers of Jesus (see DA 741). The disciples remained with Jesus until it was clear that He had no intention of delivering Himself from the mob. If He did not resist, what hope was there for them? They were unwilling to submit to the experience Christ was about to suffer. It was Peter, the disciple who had been most vehement in his protest of loyalty (Matt. 26:33–35), who proposed to the others that they save themselves (see DA 697).

57. Led him away. [Night Trial Before the Sanhedrin, Matt 26:57–75=Mark 14:53–72=Luke 22:54–65=John 18:25–27. Major comment: Matthew. See Betrayal, Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus; Passion Week.] Jesus was seized at midnight (see DA 698, 699, 760). His trial consisted of two phases, the first being the ecclesiastical trial before the Jewish religious authorities, and the second the civil trial before Pilate and Herod. He was given two preliminary hearings, one before Annas alone and another before Annas and Caiaphas (cf. DA 698, 703, 760), and was arraigned twice before the Sanhedrin, first by night and then by day (cf. DA 703, 714, 760). He appeared twice before Pilate (cf. DA 723, 760), and once before Herod, between the two appearances before Pilate (cf. DA 728, 760). For a discussion of the purpose of each of these stages in the trial and condemnation of Jesus, see Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 2.

Caiaphas. See on Luke 3:2. Caiaphas served as high priest from about a.d. 18–36, having been appointed by Valerius Gratus, predecessor of Pontius Pilate (Josephus Antiquities xviii. 2. 2). See The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2, Palestine Under the Herodians.

The scribes and the elders. The Sanhedrin was composed of members from these two groups, and from the priests. All three are listed in the parallel passage in Mark (ch. 14:53). Concerning the scribes see p. 55; see on Matt. 2:4; Mark 1:22.

Assembled. That is, for the night trial of Jesus, at approximately 3 a.m. Members of the Sanhedrin who were friendly toward Jesus, or at least interested in giving Him a fair hearing, were deliberately not invited (see on v. 66).

58. Peter followed. As did also John (see John 18:15). All the disciples had forsaken Jesus at the moment it became clear that He would not resist (Matt. 26:56). But these two men regained their composure, to a degree at least, and followed the mob to the palace of the high priest. The others were, apparently, less bold.

Afar off. Or, “at a distance” (RSV). Peter lacked sufficient courage to take an open stand with Jesus, but proved more courageous, after a fashion, than most of his fellow disciples.

Palace. Gr. auleµ, the uncovered “courtyard” of a house or other building. The word appears often in the papyri in this sense. Such a courtyard was completely surrounded by the building or by a wall. See on v. 71.

Went in. Peter was granted admittance at the request of John, who was acquainted with the priestly family (see John 18:16).

Sat. He also stood to warm himself (John 18:25).

The end. Peter wanted to know for himself what happened during the course of the trial and what the verdict would be.

59. The chief priests. Probably the high priest Caiaphas, together with Annas, an ex-high priest, and other living men who had held the office at one time or another. See on Luke 3:2; Matt. 2:4.

All the council. That is, except for members of the council friendly to Jesus. These had been deliberately excluded from the plan to capture and condemn Jesus, and thus were not summoned upon this occasion (see on v. 66). This “council” was the Great Sanhedrin, which normally consisted of 71 members, and which was, at this time, the highest executive, legislative, and judicial body (see p. 67).

Sought. Or, “were seeking.” The tense of the Greek verb suggests that the leaders experienced considerable difficulty in finding the kind of witnesses they wanted, and that they had to keep on seeking for them for some time.

False witness. For two years the Sanhedrin had spies following Jesus, in order that all He said and did might be reported (see DA 213, 699). But these spies had not returned with any information useful to the leaders’ evil purposes. For the report of one group sent to arrest Jesus see John 7:32, 45–48. For a discussion of the illegal aspects of the trial of our Lord, and for the fears of the Jewish leaders that they might not be able to secure His conviction, see Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 2.

To put him to death. This had already been determined. But they had no case against Jesus, much as they might dislike Him, and in their haste had not had time to manufacture one. They hoped to discredit Jesus in the eyes of His fellow countrymen by proving the charge of blasphemy, and to incriminate Him before the Romans on the charge of sedition (see DA 699). They doubtless hoped to dispose of the case immediately and to get Jesus into the hands of the Romans, where, accused of exciting rebellion, He would have no chance of escape through the interference of His friends. The Jews objected to His claim to be the Son of God, and the Romans would, they thought, object to Him as King of the Jews.

60. Found none. They were unable to find even false witnesses whose tales could be made to agree. They had been looking for evidence on which to build a case, but evidently their efforts had proved utterly fruitless. According to the Mishnah all witnesses must be cross-examined in order to test the accuracy of their statements, and where witnesses contradict one another their evidence becomes invalid (Sanhedrin 5. 1, 2, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 255, 256). The testimony of these false witnesses apparently broke down under cross-examination.

Two false witnesses. The testimony of these witnesses appeared to agree, and according to Mosaic law (Deut. 17:6; 19:15), what they reported was presumed to be true. The judges—in this case the Sanhedrin—were obligated to make every effort to see that justice was done (Deut. 25:1). They were diligently to cross-examine witnesses to determine whether what the witnesses said was true or not (Deut. 19:16–19). But here were men of the supreme court of Israel conniving with false witnesses in their perjury, in direct violation of Mosaic law (see Ex. 23:1), and of the ninth commandment of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:16). Even these last two witnesses actually disagreed (Mark 14:59) on essential points, and their testimony was vague and contradictory. Nevertheless, the high priest pretended to accept their testimony (Matt. 26:62), although he knew well that Jesus could not be sentenced on the basis of it. This, his further conduct reveals (vs. 62, 63).

61. This fellow. A contemptuous manner of referring to Jesus. The word “fellow” is supplied.

Destroy the temple. The witnesses apparently referred to a statement made during the early part of Jesus’ ministry (see John 2:19, 21; cf. Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:1, 2; Acts 6:14). But it was only by lifting the statement out of its context that it could be made to appear an affront to the Temple. In a strict, legal sense, however, even this could not make Jesus worthy of death.

Build it in three days. Jesus referred to the body temple (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19, 20), and in particular to His own resurrection (see John 2:19, 21). For the expression “three days” see pp. 248-250.

62. The high priest arose. Knowing well that he had no case against Jesus, he sought by bluster to pretend that he had one.

63. Held his peace. Or, “kept on being silent.” He persistently refused to speak. This characteristic had been the subject of prophecy for more than seven centuries (Isa. 53:7).

I adjure thee. Caiaphas demanded that Jesus reply under oath to the question now put to Him. In spite of the testimony of all the false witnesses, the Sanhedrin still had no case against Jesus. Caiaphas hoped to make Jesus incriminate Himself. This, too, was illegal. A man could not be condemned on His own testimony (see Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 2; see on v. 59).

The living God. Caiaphas pretended to arraign Christ before the bar of God.

The Christ. That is, the Messiah (see on ch. 1:1). Jesus had avoided making the direct claim to being the Messiah, or Christ, perhaps in part because in popular fancy Messiah was to lead the Jews in an armed revolt against Rome. Jesus forbade His disciples to make the claim for Him (ch. 16:20). This was not the first time the question had been put to Jesus (see John 10:24).

Son of God. See on Luke 1:35. Jesus commonly referred to Himself as the “Son of man” (see on Matt. 1:1; Mark 2:10). The expression “Son of the Blessed” (Mark 14:61) is a circumlocution commonly used to avoid uttering the divine name. See Additional Note John 1.

64. Thou hast said. Equivalent to “Yes.” Mark (ch. 14:62) has “I am.” When placed under oath Jesus did not refuse to testify; in fact, that is precisely when He did testify. It is apparent that the instruction of Matt. 5:34 does not apply to judicial oaths. Here Jesus gave an example of His instruction to the Twelve, recorded in ch. 10:32.

Nevertheless. Gr. pleµn, “furthermore,” or “but.”

Shall ye see. Jesus points to the future, when, as Judge of the universe, He will appear to “give every man according as his work shall be” (Rev. 22:12). Compare Rev. 1:7.

Son of man. See on Matt. 1:1; Mark 2:10. The high priest had used the expression “Son of God,” but in His reply Jesus, as usual, referred to Himself as the “Son of man.”

Right hand. Later NT writers often speak of Jesus being at the right hand of God (Acts 2:33; 7:55; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22). See on Ps. 16:8; Luke 1:11.

Power. Here used as a substitution for the sacred name Yahweh (see Vol. I, pp. 171, 172.).

65. Rent his clothes. This is, as a sign of being overcome with righteous indignation at Jesus’ alleged blasphemy (see v. 64). The Mosaic law prohibited the high priest from tearing his garments (Lev. 10:6; 21:10), the reason being that his garments represented the perfect character of Jesus Christ (DA 709). Caiaphas thus stood condemned before the very law he posed as defending, and disqualified himself from serving as high priest (DA 708). However, rabbinical regulations permitted one hearing blasphemy to rend his garments (Talmud MoФed Katan 26a, Soncino ed., pp. 165, 166; cf. Mishnah Sanhedrin 7. 5, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 378).

Blasphemy. See on Mark 2:7. Among the Jews it was considered blasphemy for a man to make himself equal with God (John 10:29–33), and Caiaphas refused to recognize that Jesus of Nazareth was different from any other man. Had He been only a man, it would have been blasphemous for Him to make the claim recorded in Matt. 26:64. Jesus had claimed under oath to be the Messiah, and had assented to the title “Son of God” (see vs. 63, 64). The Sanhedrin had known for two years that Jesus made this claim in the highest sense (see DA 207, 208; John 5:17, 18; cf. ch. 10:29–36).

66. What think ye? Caiaphas now placed the decision to a vote of the members of the Sanhedrin present. He called for their verdict as judges sitting in the highest tribunal in the land.

Guilty of death. Death was the Mosaic penalty for blasphemy (Lev. 24:15, 16). But Jesus had not blasphemed, either in reality or according to the accepted rabbinical definition (see on Matt. 26:65). This was an illegal vote, for it was taken at night (see Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 2). Even though voted, the verdict did not have standing in law unless and until it was ratified by the Romans (see DA 698; cf. Josephus War ii. 8. 1 [117, 118]).

According to Mark 14:64, “they all condemned him to be guilty of death.” That is, all who were present. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathaea, and others known to be favorable toward Jesus, or at least to be conscientious in their desire that justice be done Him, had not been summoned (see DA 699). Luke (ch. 23:51) specifically states that Joseph did not consent to the execution of Jesus. Nicodemus had, upon previous occasions, prevented the condemnation of Jesus (John 7:50, 51; cf. DA 539, 699). The leaders considered that men like Joseph and Nicodemus were biased in Christ’s favor. They chose to forget that they themselves were biased against Jesus.

67. Spit in his face. This the prophet Isaiah had predicted (see Isa. 50:6). Mark and Luke add that Jesus was blindfolded (Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64). The indignities mentioned in Matt. 26:67, 68 took place after the close of the night trial, in a guardroom (see DA 710) adjoining the chamber in which the Sanhedrin met, and where Jesus was held for the formal day trial (see on v. 57).

68. Thou Christ. This title they used in a way to ridicule the reply that Jesus gave to the solemn adjuration of the high priest (vs. 63, 64).

69. Peter sat without. For Peter’s entry into the courtyard see on v. 58. He was sitting in the courtyard outside the building in which the trial was conducted. According to Mark 14:66, the courtyard was on a lower level than the floor of the council chamber.

The palace. That is, the “courtyard” of the palace (see on v. 58). Mark (ch. 14:67), Luke (ch. 22:55), and John (ch. 18:18, 25) all mention that Peter was warming himself before a fire kindled in the courtyard.

A damsel. This was the woman doorkeeper who had admitted Peter (John 18:16, 17; DA 710, 711).

70. He denied. Peter had apparently completely forgotten Jesus’ warning given but a few hours earlier (see on vs. 31-35). He hoped that he would be unrecognized, and even joined the crowd in their rude jests concerning Jesus (see DA 712). This was Peter’s first denial. The record indicates that all three denials were made during the first trial before the Sanhedrin, which took place between about 3:00 and 5:00 a.m. The first light of dawn would become visible about 4:00 at this season of the year, in the latitude of Jerusalem, and sunrise would be about 5:30.

I know not. The various gospel writers agree as to the idea Peter gave expression to, but present the reply in different forms (Mark 14:68; Luke 22:57; John 18:17). See Additional Notes on Chapter 3, Note 2.

71. The porch. Gr. puloµn, “gate,” or, “porch.” Here puloµn possibly refers to the passageway leading from the courtyard to the street, and thus just inside the gate. Peter might have feared that he would be taken into custody himself were his identity discovered.

Another maid. The second person to identify Peter.

72. Denied with an oath. His second denial is more emphatic than the first.

73. After a while. According to Luke 22:59, approximately an hour elapsed between the first two denials and the third.

They that stood by. John (ch. 18:26) identifies Peter’s third accuser as a servant of the high priest, a kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had severed. Peter immediately realized the seriousness of the situation. If he should be identified as the man who had struck Malchus, there was danger of his being haled into court as an attempted murderer.

Speech. Apparently Peter’s Galilean accent, or pronunciation (see Mark 14:70). The Galilean dialect was broader and rougher than that of Judea, and no doubt the people of Jerusalem listened condescendingly to the speech of the ruder provincials. Galilean pronunciation of the gutturals is said not to have been so smooth as that of the Judeans.

Bewrayeth. Old English for “betrays.” The Greek reads literally, “makes evident.”

74. Curse. This was in direct violation of the principle of pure and simple speech laid down by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (see on ch. 5:33–37). Peter’s false oath was no guarantee of the truthfulness of his words, and it was this very evil against which Christ warned. For the moment, Peter was no better than the false witnesses who were testifying against Jesus.

75. Peter remembered. All too obviously Peter had forgotten Jesus’ repeated warnings, first spoken in the upper room and again on the way to Gethsemane (see on v. 34). The root of his error was in his own self-confidence and boasting (v. 35). Now, too late, he remembered. Unwittingly, he had fulfilled the words of Jesus. Humility and willingness to heed good counsel are often one’s best protection against making foolish blunders.

He went out. That is, out of the courtyard he had entered some two or three hours earlier. According to Luke 22:61 Jesus glanced in the direction of Peter just before he made his hasty departure. After wandering about aimlessly for a time Peter found himself in Gethsemane, on the very spot where his Master had so recently lain prostrate (see DA 713).

Wept bitterly. Or, “burst into tears.” Had Peter been as earnest in heeding Jesus’ admonition to “watch and pray” (v. 41) as he now was in shedding tears for his traitorous words, he would never have uttered them. But though it no doubt seemed to Peter that all was lost—himself included—the Saviour’s love buoyed him up and brought him safely through his tragic experience. So it may be with us. No hour is so dark, no experience of chagrin and defeat so bitter, but that the light of the love of Jesus can strengthen and save. See DA 382.

additional notes on chapter 26

Note 1

All four Gospels agree that Jesus and His disciples celebrated the Last Supper on the night preceding the crucifixion, that He lay in the tomb over Sabbath, and that He arose early Sunday morning. The Synoptics, however, call the Last Supper, the night preceding the crucifixion, “the Passover,” whereas according to John, the Jews celebrated the Passover supper on the night following the crucifixion. The statements of John and the Synoptics thus appear to be in conflict.

Most critical commentators dismiss this apparent conflict with the casual observation that, obviously, either John or the synoptic writers were mistaken. But those who believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures reject such an explanation and propose, instead, one of various possible solutions to the problem. In order to evaluate intelligently these solutions it is necessary, first, to review Biblical and secular data relating to the time and typical significance of the Passover, and to time factors connected with the Last Supper and the crucifixion.

Time of the Passover.—The paschal lamb was slain in the late afternoon of Nisan 14, following the regular evening sacrifice, and eaten, with unleavened bread, after sunset that same night, during the early hours of Nisan 15 (Ex. 12:6–14, 29, 33, 42, 51; 13:3–7; Num. 9:1–5; 33:3; Deut. 16:1–7; Josephus Antiquities ii. 14. 6; iii. 10. 5; xi. 4. 8 [311, 312; 248, 249; 109, 110]; War v. 3. 1 [98, 99]; vi. 9. 3 [423]; Philo De septenario, sec. 18; Mishnah Pesahim 5. 1, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 287). Nisan 15, a ceremonial sabbath, also marked the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Ex. 12:8, 18, 34, 39; Lev. 23:5, 6; Num. 28:16, 17; Deut. 16:3, 4, 8; Antiquities iii. 10. 5 [249]; cf. ii. 15. 2 [318]). On Nisan 16, the second day of this feast, the wave sheaf of the first fruits was presented in the Temple (see Lev. 23:10–14; Antiquities iii. 10. 5 [250, 251]). The term “Passover” was originally applied to Nisan 14 only, but in the time of Christ it was sometimes used of the Feast of Unleavened Bread as well (Antiquities ii. 14. 6; xi. 4. 8; xiv. 2. 1 [311–313; 109–111; 21]; xvii. 9. 3; War ii. 1. 3; v. 3. 1 [10; 99]). Apparently, also, the term Feast of Unleavened Bread was similarly used to include the Passover (Luke 22:7; Acts 12:3, 4; cf. ch. 20:6).

Tables that purport to give the Christian Era dates for each paschal full moon during the ministry of our Lord are of no real help in this problem for all such tables are based on modern Jewish methods of computing the time of the Passover. How the Jews of Christ’s time coordinated their lunar calendar with the solar year is not known today, all supposedly learned statements to the contrary notwithstanding. It is therefore impossible to determine with absolute certainty the day of the week or even, always, the month in which the Passover of any year of our Lord’s ministry may have occurred. For a discussion of this problem see Vol. II, pp. 100-105; Vol. V. pp. 250-264.

A notable perversion of Biblical data regarding the time of the Last Supper is the Wednesday crucifixion theory, which assumes: (1) that the Christian Era date of the paschal full moon of the crucifixion year can be determined with absolute accuracy (see p. 258), (2) that the Hebrew idiomatic expression “three days and three nights” indicates a period of 72 full hours (see Vol. I, p. 182; Vol. II, pp. 136, 137; Vol. V, pp. 248-251), and (3) that the Greek of Matt. 28:1 (see comment there) assigns the resurrection to Sabbath afternoon. This theory does not bear the marks of sound scholarship and is utterly at variance with Biblical meanings of terms. Therefore it is untenable.

Some have assumed that the expression “in the evening,” of Ex. 12:6, literally, “between the two evenings,” denotes the moment of sunset beginning Nisan 14, or the period between sunset and dark. Although some modern commentators have adopted this theory, a careful examination of other Biblical passages, of the writings of Josephus and Philo, and of the tractate Pesahim (see Mishnah Pesahim, 4. 1, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 243; 5. 1, 10, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 287, 325; Talmud Pesahim 58a, Soncino ed., pp. 287–290; and other references cited above) provide no clear evidence in support of it. See p. 265.

Typical Significance of the Passover.—The paschal lamb prefigured Christ, “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), “Christ our passover,” who was to be “sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7). Similarly, the wave sheaf of the Feast of Unleavened Bread typified “Christ risen from the dead, … the first-fruits of them that slept” (1 Cor. 15:20, 23).

The Last Supper and the Crucifixion.—The following chronological statements appear to be either explicit or implicit in the Gospel narrative and are rather generally accepted by Bible students:

a.   The crucifixion took place on “the preparation [eve] of the passover,” that is, on Nisan 14 (John 19:14; cf. Talmud Pesahim 58a, Soncino ed., p. 288;Sanhedrin 43a, Soncino ed., p. 281; Ex. 12:6; cf. GC 399).

b.   The death of Christ took place on a Friday afternoon (Mark 15:42 to 16:2; Luke 23:54 to 24:1; John 19:31, 42, 20:1), about the time of the evening sacrifice (DA 756, 757; cf. GC 399).

c.   Accordingly, in the year of the crucifixion, Nisan 14, the day appointed for slaying the paschal lambs, fell on a Friday; the preparation for (or eve of) the Passover coincided with the preparation for (or eve of) the weekly Sabbath (John 19:14; cf. vs. 31, 42; ch. 20:1). The first ceremonial sabbath of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, thus coincided with the weekly Sabbath (Lev. 23:6–8; cf. Mark 15:42 to 16:2; Luke 23:5 to 24:1).

d.   The Last Supper took place the night preceding the crucifixion (Matt. 26:17, 20, 26, 34, 47; Mark 14:12, 16, 17; 22:7, 8, 13–15; John 13:2, 4, 30; 14:31; 18:1–3, 28; 19:16; cf. DA 642; GC 399), that is, during the early hours of Nisan 14 (see Vol. II, p. 101) and thus on a Thursday night.

e.   The synoptic accounts call the Last Supper a Passover supper (Matt. 26:17, 20; Mark 14:12, 16, 17; Luke 22:7, 8, 13–15; cf. DA 642, 652; GC 399).

f.    John’s account places the official Jewish celebration of the Passover supper 24 hours later than the Last Supper, and thus on Friday night following the crucifixion, during the early hours of the weekly Sabbath (John 18:28; 19:14, 31; cf. DA 774), which would be Nisan 15.

g.   At the time of the Last Supper (John 13:1), during the course of the trial (Matt. 26:5; Mark 14:2; John 18:28; 19:14; cf. DA 703, 723), and on the way to Calvary (cf. DA 742), the official celebration of the Passover was apparently yet future.

h.   Jesus lay in the tomb over the Sabbath (Matt. 27:59 to 28:1; Mark 15:43 to 16:1; Luke 23:54 to 24:1; John 19:38 to 20:1), which would be Nisan 15.

i.    Jesus arose from the tomb early Sunday morning, Nisan 16 (Matt. 28:1–6; Mark 16:1–6; Luke 24:1–6; John 20:1–16; see on Mark 15:42, 46; cf. GC 399; DA 785, 786).

Proposed Solutions of the Problem.—In the light of the foregoing let us examine the problem of the time of the Passover in the crucifixion year. Conservative commentators have generally sought to solve the problem on the basis of one of the four following assumptions:

a.   That when referring to the Last Supper, the synoptic writers describe, not the Passover meal, but a ceremonial meal that preceded it by 24 hours. According to this assumption Nisan 14 fell on Friday in the year of the crucifixion and the Passover of John was the official Passover meal.

b.   That “the passover” to which John refers was not the Passover meal, but a ceremonial meal connected with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. According to this assumption Friday was Nisan 15, and the Last Supper the preceding night was a celebration of the official Passover meal, at the regular time. This explanation is the reverse of the preceding one.

c.   That the Last Supper was a true Passover meal, as in the Synoptics, even though celebrated only by Jesus and His disciples, 24 hours in advance of the official Passover meal referred to by John, and thus of the time other Jews celebrated it. According to this assumption Friday was Nisan 14.

d.   That in the time of Christ sectarian differences with respect to calendrical reckoning, as to whether Nisan 14 and 16 should be correlated with certain days of the week, had led, in actual practice, to a celebration of the Passover on two successive days, that is, a double celebration. According to this assumption one religious faction (the Pharisees and other conservatives) would have considered that Nisan 14 fell on Thursday in the crucifixion year, and the other (the Boethusian Sadducees and other liberals), that it fell on Friday. Christ and the disciples thus, presumably, celebrated the Passover with the first group—the “passover” of the Synoptics—and the Jewish leaders celebrated it the following night—the “passover” of John. This assumption differs from the preceding one in that here Christ and the disciples were not alone in their celebration of the Passover.

For a more detailed discussion of the various attempts that have been made to harmonize the statements of John and the Synoptics with regard to the time of the Last Supper in relation to the Passover, over, the reader is referred to the following: Grace Amadon, “Ancient Jewish Calendation,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 61, part 4, 1942, pp. 227-280; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, pp. 38–41; J. H. Bernard, International Critical Commentary, on St. John, vol. 1, pp. cvi-cviii; D. Chwolson, Das Letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag Seines Todes; The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, art. “Chronology of the New Testament”; J. K; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, tr. Herbert Danby, pp. 326–329; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, on Matt 26:17; John 18:28; H. L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 2, pp. 812, 813. (See bibliographical notes on pp. 82, 102, 265.) For a full discussion of the calendrical problems involved see pp. 248-264.

Evaluation of Proposed Solutions.—These four proposed solutions to the problem may be evaluated as follows:

a.   The view that the Last Supper was a preliminary ceremonial meal in advance of the regular Passover meal assumes that the Synoptics use the word “passover” in an accommodated sense. While it may be granted that the word “passover” could have been used in this sense (see p. 533), available evidence is strongly against such an accommodated use: (1) This view rests on the conjecture that such a preliminary ceremonial meal may have been celebrated in the days of Christ. (2) The more natural and obvious reading of these passages in their context (see references listed on p. 534, par. e) points to the conclusion that the synoptic writers consistently and repeatedly speak of the Last Supper as “the passover.” (3) The comment of both Mark (ch. 14:12) and Luke (ch. 22:7), that the day preceding the Last Supper was “the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover” (see Mark 14:12), would seem to preclude any possibility that the “passover” of the Synoptics could have been anything but a true Passover meal (cf. DA 642, 646, 652, 653; EW 165: GC 399). The disciples apparently took for granted that Thursday was the day of preparation for the Passover, that is, the day on which the paschal lamb should be slain and roasted (see p. 533).

b.   The view that “the passover” of John 18:28; 19:14 was a ceremonial meal connected with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, 24 hours after the official Passover supper, which was on Nisan 15, assumes that John uses the word “passover” in an accommodated sense. In favor of this view, it may be noted that common usage in NT times, as reflected, for instance, by Josephus (see p. 533), commonly applied the term Passover to the combined celebration of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. But although it may be granted that John could have used the word “passover” in this accommodated sense (see p. 533), available evidence is strongly against his so doing in the passages cited: (1) There is no clear use of the word “passover” in this sense anywhere in the NT. (2) The more natural and obvious reading of John’s statements in their context points to the conclusion that the Passover meal to which the apostle refers was the official celebration of the Passover, at least the one generally recognized by the Jewish leaders. (3) The anxiety of the Jewish leaders to conclude the trial and execution of Jesus immediately, before the feast, in order to avoid delaying the case until after the feast, would appear to preclude any possibility that the feast had already begun (Matt. 26:3–5; Mark 14:1, 2, cf. DA 703). (4) Jewish law, as later codified in the Mishnah and the Talmud, prohibited the trial on a feast day of a case involving the death penalty (Mishnah Bezah 5. 2, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 185; Sanhedrin 4. 1, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 185), or purchases such as that of the linen shroud and possibly also of spices for embalming the body of Jesus (Mark 15:46; Luke 23:56; however, see Mishnah Shabbath 23. 5, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 771). The violation of these regulations—if they were in force in earlier times, as seems probable, and if, indeed, heed was given to them, which, however, cannot be established (see Note 2)—would appear to rule out the possibility that the arrest, trial, and crucifixion took place on Nisan 15, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and a ceremonial sabbath. (5) Preparations for embalming the body of Jesus (Luke 23:54 to 24:1), such as the women made on the day of the crucifixion, were considered labor, and as such would seem to be inappropriate even for a ceremonial sabbath (Lev. 23:7; however, see Mishnah Shabbath 23. 5, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 771). (6) At sunset of the crucifixion day the women “rested the sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56), obviously a reference to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. (7) If, as this view assumes, the crucifixion fell on Nisan 15, the first day of unleavened bread, then the resurrection fell on Nisan 17, or the third day. But the offering of the first fruits, a type of the resurrection of our Lord, took place on the second day, or Nisan 16 (see Lev. 23:10–14; 1 Cor. 15:20, 23; GC 399; DA 785, 786). According to this view, then, the resurrection did not occur at the time called for by the ceremonial type of the wave sheaf. (8) In Jewish literature “the preparation of the passover” (John 19:14) is consistently applied to Nisan 14, never to Nisan 15, as this view would require (see Mishnah Pesahim 4. 1, 5, 6, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 243, 268, 271). (9) “The Passover was observed [by the Jews generally] as it had been for centuries [in other words, during the early hours of Nisan 15 (see p. 533)], while He to whom it pointed had been slain by wicked hands [late on Nisan 14], and lay in Joseph’s tomb” (DA 774; cf. GC 399).

c.   The view that the Last Supper, although a true paschal meal, took place 24 hours prior to the time when the Jews, generally, celebrated it assumes that such a practice was possible. This view, unlike the preceding one, does take into account the fact that the crucifixion occurred in fulfillment of the type provided by the slaying of the paschal lamb on Nisan 14. It was, admittedly, impossible for Christ to eat the paschal lamb at the usual time, and also, as Himself the true paschal Lamb, to be slain at the usual time for the slaying of the Passover lambs. It would seem more important that His death should synchronize with the death of the Passover lambs than that His eating of the Passover should synchronize with the official time for eating that meal (pp. 533, 534; GC 399). Accordingly, His eating of the Passover would take place earlier than the time regularly set for it if the types of the slaying of the lamb and the offering of the first fruits were to be fulfilled “not only as to the event, but as to the time” (GC 399). However, this view is also confronted with difficulties. It is difficult to see how Jesus and the disciples, as sole exceptions to the rule, could have celebrated the Passover a day in advance of the usual time. Note that: (1) There is no historical evidence of anyone else having ever eaten the Passover early. The Passover lambs were to be slain at the Temple (Mishnah Pesahim 5. 5–7, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 323, 324) at a specified time (see p. 533), and, consistently as far as the record goes, there was no provision for slaying them at any other time than the late afternoon of Nisan 14 (for an exception see Num. 9:6–11). (2) The disciples apparently recognized Thursday as the day on which preparations for the Passover should properly be made, in the crucifixion year (see Matt 26:17; Luke 22:7), and seemed to take for granted that Thursday night was the proper time for eating the paschal meal. Whether the subject had been under discussion and Jesus had informed them that the time of celebration would be an exception and come on Thursday rather than Friday night, or whether they considered that Thursday night was a normal time for the celebration, we are not informed. The synoptic writers are silent as to anything out of the ordinary about the eating of the Passover on Thursday night by Jesus and the disciples.

d.   The view that there was a double celebration of the Passover is based on one or another of various conjectures. What is perhaps the most plausible of these conjectures assumes that the “passover” of the Synoptics was the one celebrated by the Pharisees and other conservative Jews, whereas that of John was the one observed by the more liberal Boethusian Sadducees and others sympathetic with their interpretation of Scripture. (The Boethusian Sadducees of Christ’s day are known to have contended that the “sabbath” of Lev. 23:11 referred to a weekly Sabbath instead of a ceremonial sabbath.) Those who set forth this view conjecture that in a year like a.d. 31, when, they assume, Nisan 16 would normally have fallen on the weekly Sabbath, the Sadducees would advocate the adjustment of the Jewish lunar calendar to make Nisan 16 fall, instead, on the first day of the week. This could, it is granted, have given rise to a double celebration of the Passover, but there is no evidence that, in actual practice, it ever did so. However, in that it makes the “passover” of the Synoptics and that of John both valid occasions for the celebration of the Passover, theory offers a possible solution of the apparently contradictory statements of the various gospel writers.

Conclusions.—We have here one more instance where our present-day ignorance of ancient Jewish practices appears to be the cause of our inability clearly to harmonize the seemingly conflicting statements of John and the Synoptics. However, on the basis of all available evidence, but without accepting any one of these four proposed explanations, this commentary suggests the possibility of the following sequence of events connected with the Last Supper, the crucifixion, and the Passover:

a.   That in the year of the crucifixion, whether as a result of controversy between liberal and conservative elements of Judaism, or because of other circumstances now unknown, there may have been a double celebration of the Passover.

b.   That, with other conservative Jews, Christ and the disciples celebrated the Last Supper on Thursday night, during the early hours of what was officially Nisan 14, and that the Last Supper was a true celebration of the Passover.

c.   That Jesus died on the cross about the time of the evening sacrifice and the slaying of the paschal lambs, on Friday, Nisan 14.

d.   That, in the year of the crucifixion, the official celebration of the Passover came on Friday night, after the crucifixion.

e.   That Jesus rested in the tomb over the weekly Sabbath, which, in that year, coincided with the ceremonial, or annual, sabbath, Nisan 15, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

f.    That Jesus arose from the tomb early on Sunday morning, Nisan 16, the day when the wave sheaf, which typified the resurrection, was presented in the Temple.

Happily, it is not necessary to solve this problem in order to avail ourselves of salvation through “Christ our passover,” who was “sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7).

Note 2

The leaders of the nation had already reached their decision as to what to do with Jesus; all they now lacked was plausible evidence with which to justify their action. They had fully determined to condemn Him to death, but knew not how to do this and yet maintain the appearance of legality. As the council gathered, the leaders were in a tense state of mind, fearful that their unscrupulous plan might fail. They were afraid: (1) that the people, who increasingly took the side of Jesus in opposition to them (see John 12:19), might attempt to rescue Him; (2) that delay in disposing of the case, particularly postponement of the trial until after the Passover season, might lead to a public reaction in His favor that they could not resist; (3) that some of their own number might speak in His defense, as upon previous occasions (see on Matt 26:66), and demand justice; (4) that, in spite of all their efforts, they might fail in their purpose to condemn Jesus; (5) that Caiaphas might not be able to prosecute the case through to a conclusion; (6) that an attempt might be made to examine the nature of Jesus’ Sabbath miracles; (7) that Jesus might excite the conflicting prejudices of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and thus split the council, as Paul did upon a later occasion (Acts 23:6–10), so making action on the case impossible; (8) that Jesus would reveal unsavory facts about their personal lives, and also about the illegal devices by which they were proceeding against Him. As the trial progressed Jesus also gave them reason to stand in mortal fear of the great final day of judgment. See DA 698–708.

Two fundamental steps were necessary to condemn and execute Jesus: (1) the religious trial before the Sanhedrin (see on v. 57), in order that action against Him might appear to be justified on the basis of Jewish law, and (2) the civil trial before Pilate (see on v. 57), in order to secure Roman approval for executing the death sentence. The charge preferred against Jesus before the Sanhedrin, and on the basis of which He was sentenced to death, was blasphemy, specifically His claim to being the Son of God. The charge preferred against Him before the Roman authorities was that of sedition and insurrection. There were altogether seven stages in the trial (see DA 760), four of these being before the religious authorities and three before the civil authorities. The purpose, nature, and result of each of these seven hearings and trials were as follows:

1.   Preliminary hearing before Annas. (See on John 18:13–24; cf. DA 698–703.) Annas (see on Luke 3:2) had been high priest from about a.d. 7–14. He was honored and respected as the elder statesman of the nation, and “his counsel was sought and carried out as the voice of God” (DA 698). Because of Jesus’ popularity with the people it was considered necessary to preserve the appearance of legality in dealing with Him. The Sanhedrin had already decided to do away with Jesus (John 5:16, 18; 7:19; 8:37, 40; 11:53; cf. Matt. 12:14; Mark 3:6; John 10:31, 39), but, after two years of effort to make a case against Him (see DA 213, 699), they had not yet been able to formulate a plan by which to accomplish their purpose. It was therefore considered expedient that Annas should conduct a personal examination of Jesus in order to secure, if possible, charges that might be preferred against Him. This preliminary hearing occurred approximately between 1:00 and 2:00 o’clock Friday morning. Annas failed completely and was utterly silenced by the incisive logic of Jesus’ reply (John 18:23; DA 700).

2.   Preliminary hearing before Annas and Caiaphas. (See DA 703, 760.) Having taken Jesus into custody, Annas and Caiaphas summoned a carefully selected group of members of the Sanhedrin (see on v. 59) for an immediate session, in the hope of convicting Jesus before His friends could speak in His favor and before the weight of public opinion could be brought to bear against their decision to do away with Him. According to The Desire of Ages (p. 703), Annas and Caiaphas made a second attempt to elicit incriminating evidence from Jesus that might be used in the trial while the selected members of the Sanhedrin were assembling, but met with no success. As high priest, Caiaphas was ex-officio president of the Sanhedrin, and would therefore preside at the trial, but his comparative lack of experience (see DA 698) aroused fears that he might not be able to press the case through to a decision. The gospel writers do not mention this, the second, informal hearing preliminary to the first trial before the Sanhedrin, which took place approximately between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. (see DA 703).

3.   Night trial before the Sanhedrin. (See on ch. 26:57–75; cf. DA 703–714.) According to Jewish law the court was to sit in judgment over capital cases during the day. The Mishnah states the rule thus: “Civil suits are tried by day, and concluded at night. But capital charges must be tried by day and concluded by day” (Sanhedrin 32a [p. 200]). The leaders feared a popular attempt to rescue Jesus if He remained in their own custody. They remembered also that previous attempts to dispose of Jesus had been thwarted by certain influential members of the Sanhedrin (see on v. 66). Hence they determined to settle the case, and put Jesus in the custody of the Romans, before anyone should have opportunity to speak in His defense. This trial occurred approximately between 3:00 and 4:00 o’clock in the morning. At this season of the year day dawns at about 4:00 in the latitude of Jerusalem, and the sun rises about 5:30, local time. This trial resulted in a unanimous verdict of death (see on v. 66), but the verdict must be affirmed by daylight in order to be legal (see statement from Sanhedrin 32a above).

4.   Day trial before the Sanhedrin. (See on Luke 22:66–71; cf. DA 714, 715.) Jewish law forbade the holding of trials at night in cases where death might be the penalty, nor could a verdict in capital cases, under any circumstances, be issued at night (see on No. 3). Accordingly, the decision of the Sanhedrin unanimously arrived at during the night must, in order to preserve a show of legality, be reaffirmed by daylight. This the Sanhedrin did when they reassembled soon after sunrise. They condemned Jesus as being worthy of death and agreed to hand Him over to the Roman authorities for execution.

5.   First trial before Pilate. (See on Luke 23:1–5; John 18:28–38; cf. DA 723–728.) Pilate was aroused early in the morning, at approximately 6:00 o’clock or soon thereafter. During his investigation he acquainted himself with the facts in the case and became convinced of Jesus’ innocence. Except for the obvious animosity of the Jews he would have released Him. Learning that Jesus was from Galilee, he sent Him to Herod Antipas, who at that time was in Jerusalem, having come probably to attend the Passover.

6.   Hearing before Herod Antipas. (See on Luke 23:6–12 cf. DA 728–731.) Although the arrest had taken place in Jerusalem, Jesus was a Galilean, and Herod Antipas, Roman puppet king of Galilee and Peraea (see on Luke 3:1, 2), could hear the case and pass sentence. He was convinced that Jesus was innocent, and was at first minded to set Him free, but declined to pass sentence, and sent Him back to Pilate. This hearing took place at approximately 7:00 o’clock Friday morning.

7.   Second trial before Pilate. (See on Matt. 27:15–31; John 18:39 to 19:16; cf. DA 731–740.) The Roman governor of Judea and Samaria sought various means to release Jesus, but in vain. When the Jews threatened to make his conduct of the case an issue with the authorities in Rome, Pilate capitulated to their demand that he crucify Jesus. This trial probably began about 8:00 a.m. and ended before 9:00 a.m. (Mark 15:25).

Various aspects of the judicial proceedings against Christ were in contravention of Jewish law, as later codified in the Mishnah, a collection of Jewish oral tradition down to about the end of the 2d century a.d. Certain sections of the collection reflect a tradition later than the time of Jesus. But to the extent that various laws were already in force in the time of Jesus. But to the extent that various laws were already in force in the time of Jesus, their violation represents a perversion of justice in the conduct of His trial.

Following is a partial list of Mishnaic judicial laws:

1.   Charges involving the penalty of capital punishment must be tried by day (Sanhedrin 4. 1, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 200; see DA 710). This was also true of civil cases.

2.   The verdict in capital cases must be rendered by day. “Capital charges must be tried by day and concluded by day” (Sanhedrin, 4. 1, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 200).

3.   An unfavorable verdict in a capital case must be postponed until the day after all evidence has been heard. “Capital charges may be concluded on the same day with a favourable verdict, but only on the morrow with an unfavourable verdict” (ibid.).

4.   Because an unfavorable verdict in a capital case had to be postponed till the day after the hearing closed, such a case could not be heardon Friday or on the day preceding a religious festival. “Therefore trials are not held on the eve of a Sabbath or Festival” (ibid.).

5.   Witnesses who bore contradictory testimony were to be disqualified and their testimony rejected. If witnesses “contradict each other … their evidence is void” (ibid. 5. 2 [p. 256]).

6.   The charge of blasphemy, on the basis of which Caiaphas demanded the death penalty (vs. 65, 66), was invalid. According to ibid. 7. 5 (p. 378), “The blasphemer is punished only if he utters [the divine] Name” itself, that is Yahweh (Jehovah), and the punishment for blasphemy was death by hanging (ibid. 6. 4 [p. 300]) or stoning (ibid. 7. 4 [p. 359]). Jesus did not use the sacred name for God (see on v. 64).

7.   At least in the case of a man condemned to death by stoning, every opportunity was to be given for witnesses to testify in his behalf: “A man was stationed at the door of the court with the signalling flag in his hand, and a horse-man was stationed at a distance yet within sight of him, and then if one says, ‘I have something [further] to state in his favour,’ he [the signaller] waves the flag, and the horse-man runs and stops them. And even if he himself says, ‘I have something to plead in my own favour,’ he is brought back, even four or five times, providing, however, that there is substance in his assertion. If then they find him innocent, they discharge him; but if not, he goes forth to be stoned. And a herald precedes him [crying]: so and so, the son of so and so, is going forth to be stoned because he committed such and such an offence, and so and so are his witnesses. Whoever knows anything in his favour, let him come and state it” (ibid. 6. 1 [pp. 275, 281]). Obviously these provision were disregarded at Jesus’ trial. There was no excuse for the failure to summon defense witnesses.

Other infractions of the Jewish criminal code at Jesus’ trial were:

1.   Trial before a group of judges selected because of prejudice against the accused, with the deliberate exclusion of members friendly to Him (cf. DA 699, 710).

2.   Treatment as a condemned criminal before being legally tried and found guilty (cf. DA 703, 710). According to Jewish law, a man was considered innocent until proved guilty (see DA 699). “Civil suits may be opened either for acquittal or condemnation” (Sanhedrin 4. 1 [p. 199]).

3.         Sentence of death based upon His own testimony (see DA 715).

Ellen G. White comments

6    DA 557, 716

6–13DA 557–568

7–9EW 165, 268

7–104T 551

8     DA 565, 720; 5T 268

8–12DA 560

11   PP 535; 3T 391; WM 17

12–14DA 563

13   4T 551

14–16CS 139; DA 716; EW 166

15   DA 564; EW 268; 4T 41

20–29DA 652–661

21   DA 720; 4T 41

21–25DA 654

26–29DA 653, 659

27, 28  MH 333

29   DA 149

30   DA 672

31   DA 673, 688, 743; EW 166

32   DA 674

33   DA 811; EW 166, 169

35   2T 204

36–56DA 685–697

37, 38  AA 539; DA 686

38   DA 685

38, 39  2T 206

38–412T 204

39   CH 376; DA 687, 759; GW 218; MH 230; 9T 102

40   DA 688; EW 167

41   CT 412; DA 688, 713; FE 349; MYP 265; 4T 124; 5T 485

42   DA 690, 693, 753

42, 43  2T 205

45   DA 694; 2T 205

46   DA 694

47   EW 167

48   DA 695, 721

49   GC 263

49–54DA 696

51–54EW 168

55, 56  DA 697

56   EW 168

57–75DA 698–715

58   EW 169

63   DA 706

63, 64  MB 67; 1T 203

64   DA 707, 710; GC 643

65, 66  DA 708

67   EW 169, 170

67, 68  DA 715

69–75AA 62, 516, 537; EW 169; 5T 427

71–74DA 711

72   DA 712

75        DA 713