Глава 26
Machine translation from the original · Show original
1–5. Conference on putting Christ to death. – 6–13. His anointing in Bethany with precious ointment. – 14–16. Betrayal of Judas. – 17–19. Preparation of the Easter supper. – 20–25. Denouncing a traitor. – 26–30. Establishment of the Sacrament of Communion. – 31–35. Prediction of Peter's denial. – 36–46. In Gethsemane. – 47–56. Taking into custody. – 57–68. Judgment and reproach. – 69–75. Peter's denial.
Matthew 26:1. When Jesus had finished all these words, he said to his disciples:
As one must think, it was on Tuesday of Holy Week, i.e. on the same day that the speeches set forth in the 24th and 25th chapters were spoken. The words of Luke 21:37-38 can be looked at as a short sketch of the previous history. But they can hardly be considered an introduction to the evangelist’s further speech. Beginning the story about the last days of Christ’s earthly life, Matthew uses a Jewish turn of phrase instead of the usual “then.” Literally: “and it came to pass when Jesus finished,” etc. This formula is repeated in Matthew five times (Matthew 7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1), each time at the end of the speeches of Jesus Christ, in Mark - 4 times, in Luke - 43 times, in Acts - 18 times. Here in Matthew the formula can be considered an exact indication of the time of pronouncing the further words of verse 2. But if the evangelist in the above quotes says simply: “and it came to pass when Jesus finished these words” or “instructions”, “parables” - then here πάντας is added to the expression “these words” - “all these words”. This means that the Savior has now finished all His preaching to the people.
In the further story of the weather forecasters before the Resurrection, indeed, no long speeches of Christ to the people are given. John's long speech in chapters 14–17 is addressed only to the disciples.
The first verse of the chapter under discussion relates closest, of course, to the speeches set out in chapters 24–25, but the verse can also be interpreted in a more general sense that Christ’s teaching activity had now ended and this coincided with the beginning of His high priestly ministry. Omnia dixerat, quae dicenda habuerat (he said everything that was necessary). “Although He often suffered from the wiles of the Jews, they could not do Him any harm, because the devil departed from Him for a time; He could not undergo suffering until he had finished all His speeches that He intended to deliver to His disciples” (Origen). Wed. Deut.31:1.
Matthew 26:2. you know that in two days there will be Easter, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.
(Cf. Mark 14:1; Luke 22:1; John 13:1).
Mark and Luke indicate only the coming of Easter in two days, and their words can be considered an introduction to subsequent events and an exact designation of their time. Matthew agrees with Mark and Luke in determining the time, but adds the words of the Savior, which they do not have. John has a general and vague designation of time - “before the feast of Easter” - referring to the Last Supper. The verse of Matthew under discussion presents a lot of difficulties in interpretation. First of all, it is not known whether both subordinate clauses should be supplied here depending on “you know”, or only the first of them. You can translate: “you know that in two days there will be Easter and that the Son of Man, etc.,” or as in the Russian translation. The latter should be considered correct. Christ could tell the disciples that they know when Easter will be, but it is doubtful that He could talk about the fact that they know about His upcoming crucifixion precisely during Easter.
The meaning of Christ’s words, according to the Russian translation, is that Christ, pointing to the day of Easter, connected with the time of this holiday another thing - His betrayal to death: you know that in two days there will be Easter, and I also tell you that on this same day the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.
Grammatically, one can also translate οἴδατε as imperative: “know!” But such a translation logically cannot be accepted, because Christ had no need to command his disciples to know what, of course, they knew well.
The main difficulty lies in the expression “after two days”, because it can be understood differently (from Greek - “after” or “after” two days). When were these words spoken? In one and a half or two days? If we assume that the words were spoken by Christ on Tuesday afternoon, then His prediction can be understood either in the sense that He will be crucified on Friday (Wednesday and Thursday - two days), or on Thursday (Tuesday and Wednesday - two days). In this case, weather forecasters not only do not come to the rescue when interpreting the Gospel of Matthew, but, on the contrary, only complicate the matter. Mark says that in two days there was (ἦν - in Russian translation - “ought to be”) the feast of Passover and unleavened bread, and Luke speaks of the feast of unleavened bread, called Passover. It was objected to this that the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are not one, but two different feasts. Hence the numerous fluctuations in the interpretation of all these expressions. Origen interpreted Matthew's expression in the sense that it pointed not to the holiday of the Jewish Passover, but to a new Passover.
The Savior did not say that “after two days there will be or will be Easter, not wanting to indicate the upcoming legal Easter, but that there will be (such) Easter as has never happened before, and that it will abolish the ancient Easter.” From this it is clear that Origen does not care about the exact interpretation of the Gospel words and expresses himself generally vaguely. Some modern exegetes thought that Christ was crucified on Thursday. Some have suggested that Matthew's expression contained an error originally made by Mark, which depended on a mistranslation of two Aramaic words, one meaning "after" and the other "two." According to this interpretation, Matthew's expression should be translated "in a few days" rather than "in two days." Without introducing the reader into various complex and confusing questions about this subject, let us say in advance that the order of the last events in Holy Week was such as is indicated by our church services during Holy Week.
If the reader agrees with this without preliminary explanation, then, we think, much will become clear to him in advance in the extremely complex and difficult subsequent gospel stories. Thus, without any evidence for now, let us assume in advance that Christ was crucified on Friday morning, the Last Supper took place on the eve of this day, on the night from Thursday to Friday. The words in this verse were spoken by Christ on Tuesday evening, after the discourses of the 24th and 25th chapters. This order is now accepted by all the best exegetes. As for the indication of two holidays (Passover and unleavened bread) and their convergence, it seems very doubtful whether they were distinguished in popular speech as strictly as would be desirable for many critics. That in the “biblical sense” Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were closely related is clear to anyone who takes the trouble to read Exodus 12:1–8. Luke clearly does not separate both of these holidays, according to him ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων was ἡ λεγομένη πάσχα (Luke 22:1).
Passover was the main holiday of the Jews, established in memory of their exodus from Egypt and liberation from Egyptian slavery.
“He will be betrayed,” literally “will be betrayed,” is an impersonal sentence without indicating by whom he will be betrayed.
Matthew 26:3. Then the chief priests and scribes and the elders of the people gathered together in the court of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas,
Matthew alone gives these details. The words "and scribes" are not found in the best codices and should be omitted.
“Then” is probably an accurate designation of time. It is possible that the meeting in Caiaphas's house also took place on Tuesday. This was not the first meeting. The decision to put Christ to death had already been made earlier (see Matthew 21:45–46). As usually happens, important decisions are not always implemented immediately. It is sometimes necessary not only to make a decision, but also to think about the means of enforcing it. The activities and speeches of Christ throughout the current Holy Week increasingly intensified the hatred of His enemies and made the decision they had once made irrevocable.
The “courtyard” here does not mean the palace of the high priest itself, in which he lived, but the space in the courtyard itself among the buildings arranged on its sides, perhaps representing something like a covered tent. More likely, it was just an open space in the yard. It is believed that the court of the high priest was divided into two halves, one of which was lower than the other (Mark 14:66), and that the meeting took place in an internal place, more distant from the entrance.
According to the law, the Jews had only one high priest. Matthew and Mark mention in their Gospels only Caiaphas, but Luke (Luke 3:2), John (John 18:13, 24), as well as the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 4:6) also mention Annas, who was Caiaphas' father-in-law. The high priest Annas, replaced by the procurator Valerius Gratus (Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews", XVIII, 2, 2), was, so to speak, a high priest "in retirement", but nevertheless continued to remain a high priest and, apparently, had significant influence, probably due to the relationship with his son-in-law Caiaphas (25-36 AD; according to Schürer and others - 18–36 AD). Caiaphas’s name was not his own; his proper name was Joseph (Josephus, “Jewish Antiquities” XVIII, 2, 2). As Schürer shows (Geschichte, II, S. 271, note 12), the high priest was called Caiaphas, and not Caiaphas (Kephas). Caiaphas was removed from office by the procurator Vitellius (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, 4, 3). In addition to the former and current high priest, the meeting could also include the heads of the priestly order, who in the Gospels are also called bishops or high priests.
The meeting took place, obviously, without any participation of Judas, about whom those gathered still know nothing.”
Matthew 26:4. and they decided in council to take Jesus by cunning and kill him;
(Compare Mark 14:1; Luke 22:2.)
All weather forecasters talk about the same thing, but all in different expressions. Συνεβουλεύσαντο - they did not consult, but decided, decided at the meeting (in Greek - aorist).
The Russian translation is correct. The verb is in the general voice to express reciprocity or interaction. Those who conferred decided not to take the direct path, but to use cunning, like an ambush. This was necessary because they did not want to act openly - “they were afraid of the people” (Matthew 21:46), who considered Christ to be a prophet. It was not about taking Christ, but how to take him - that was now the subject of their conferences.
Matthew 26:5. but they said: just not on a holiday, so that there is no indignation among the people.
(Cf. Mark 14:2; Luke 22:2).
Matthew sets out this whole story in more detail than other weather forecasters, but, essentially, in full agreement with them. Mark replaces the particle δέ in Matthew (ἔλεγον δέ) with γάρ. In both cases the meaning is different. According to Matthew, the enemies of Christ would like to immediately put Him to death, but (δέ) at the same time fears were expressed that there would be an indignation among the people. Mark puts the emphasis on the word “cunning” (Mark 14:1) and in the next verse explains (γάρ in the Russian translation is incorrect - “but”) why it was needed in this matter. Those who deliberated tried to avoid not so much the indignation of the people, but generally “noise” (the proper meaning of the word θόρυβος). Silent actions are always safer; careful people always try to act in such a way that no noise occurs. In making such a decision, those gathered obviously do not think at all about putting Christ to death on the cross. This execution would be nationwide and could be the cause of great popular unrest. They are conferring to simply catch Jesus Christ somewhere secretly and by surprise and kill him.
Only the events that quickly followed showed them that there was no need to resort to any tricks; They realized that they could act openly and betray Christ to death on the cross. Therefore, the intention of Christ’s enemies to get rid of Him “not on the holiday” does not in the least justify the conclusion accepted by many exegetes that Jesus Christ was not crucified on the very day of Easter. It often happens that both individuals and entire societies suddenly and quickly change their previous decisions when favorable circumstances occur.
Some suggested that those who deliberated wanted to put Jesus Christ to death before the Easter holiday. This opinion has no basis. By “holiday” we should understand not the first day of the holiday, but the entire week during which it lasted. On Easter, many people gathered in Jerusalem. No matter how desirable it was to get rid of a mortal enemy as quickly as possible, it was unthinkable. Let the people celebrate the holiday and go home to different places and cities. Then the bosses' hands will not be tied by anything. Feeding such fears, the enemies of Christ acted under the direction of an external force. “The devil did not want Christ to suffer on Easter so that His suffering would not become known; and they - so as not to cause indignation. Notice that they are afraid not of the wrath of God and not of the fact that the holiday time may increase their atrocities, but everywhere - dangers from people” (St. John Chrysostom). Such postponements of decisions were not unprecedented in the subsequent history of Christianity.
When Agrippa killed James Zebedee, John’s brother, “seeing that it was pleasing to the Jews, he took Peter also—then were the days of unleavened bread—and detained him and put him in prison... intending to bring him out to the people after Easter” and, of course, execute him (Acts 12:3–4).
Matthew 26:6. Now while Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
(Compare Mark 14:3; John 12:1).
First of all, the question is about the time when this happened. It must be determined based on John's account (John 12:1–8). True, the first verses of this story (John 12:1–4) do not at all coincide with the story of Matthew and Mark, but in John 12:5 (cf. Matthew 26:9; Mark 14:5) there is a strong coincidence, which is also noticeable in John 12:8 (cf. Matthew 26:11; Mark 14:7). This gives every right to consider the story told by the three evangelists to be identical (Luke says nothing about the anointing of Christ in Bethany). If so, then we must relate the event told by Matthew 26:6–13; Mark 14:1–9, to the earlier time, “six days before the Passover,” which John refers to. The anointing took place on the eve of Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark do not follow the chronological sequence of events here, which is also observed in other places, especially the Gospel of Matthew. Why? Because, apparently, both evangelists want to express a different idea here. Matthew's use of δέ at the beginning of verse 6 indicates the contrast of his further story with what was reported earlier (verses 3–5).
The enemies of Christ conspired to capture Him by cunning and kill Him, but they did not want to do this during the holiday because they were afraid of the people.
From the house of the high priest, the evangelist immediately takes us to a peaceful house in Bethany. There is enmity, hatred, deceit, malice, fear of the people. Here, those who love Christ, friends devoted to Him, are already preparing Him for burial. The first act consciously, they know what they are doing, but here the whole matter seems unintentional and unconscious, and in this sense is explained by Christ. There they want to turn the living body of Christ into a stinking corpse, but here, on the contrary, they want His body to smell fragrant. There is callousness, deceit, the malice of inveterate villains; here is the tender and sensitive love of a devoted woman who, without fully realizing it, only predicts that something bad awaits her Teacher and Lord. Thus, the chronological sequence is replaced in Matthew and Mark by a logical connection and relationship of the anointing of Christ to the machinations of His enemies and imminent death.
All this is so simple, understandable and natural that we do not have the slightest reason or right to reproach the first two evangelists for not trying to maintain chronological sequence here. The only consideration that could be put forward against identifying the two synoptic stories with the Gospel of John (John 12:1 et seq.) is that if the anointing of Christ falls on the previous Saturday, then too few events told by the synoptics remain on Wednesday. But this objection is completely eliminated if we assume that Wednesday was the day of rest of the Son of Man before His suffering on the cross and death and was spent by Him completely quietly among friends. Moreover, Matthew’s story is not confined to Tuesday and Wednesday of Holy Week, but in general to all the events outlined throughout Matthew 21:1–26:5 (Tsan).
This is approximately how Augustine understood the real story. “It may seem like a contradiction,” he says, “that Matthew and Mark, having reported that Easter will be after two days, then talk about the stay of Jesus Christ in Bethany and report about His anointing there with the precious oil, and John talks about this anointing six days before Easter. But those who are confused by this do not understand that Matthew and Mark could have placed the story of the anointing in Bethany right here. Not one of them, having said that after two days there would be Easter, made such a postscript: “after this, when (Christ) was in Bethany.”
Who Simon the leper was is unknown. Theophylact says that “Simon the leper is considered by some to be the father of Lazarus; The Lord cleansed him from leprosy and was treated to him.” This is just an unfounded assumption. Meyer even believes that Simon’s connection with the Lazarus family cannot be proven by anything. This is an exaggeration. Simon had some kind of relationship, unknown to us, with the family of Lazarus, if we consider the stories of the weather forecasters and John to be identical. Regarding the fact that Matthew and Mark do not mention either Lazarus or Martha and Mary, but only about Simon, the following opinion was expressed. The evangelists do this because it was dangerous to talk about Lazarus and his sisters at the time when the Synoptic Gospels were written. Therefore, the name of Lazarus is not found at all among the weather forecasters, and the name of Simon the leper is not found among John. Martha and Mary are not mentioned at all in Matthew and Mark. John (and partly, perhaps, Luke) did not have such fears when he wrote his Gospel, and therefore mentions both Lazarus and his sisters.”
Matthew 26:7. A woman came to Him with an alabaster vessel of precious ointment and poured it on His head as he reclined.
John 12:1-3 says that “six days before the Passover” in Bethany they “prepared” a supper for Christ, and Martha served” (cf. Luke 10:40), “and Lazarus was one of those who reclined with Him. Mary” (cf. Luke 10:39), “taking a pound of pure precious ointment from spikenard, anointed the Savior’s feet and wiped them with her hair” (cf. Luke 7:38). Matthew and Mark do not name the woman who did this. It is impossible to even conclude from their stories that this was a woman known to anyone at all, because there is no article before γύνη. Such uncertainty gave rise to numerous and confusing discussions on this subject by both ancient and modern exegetes. Some, paying attention to Luke 7:38 et seq., thought that the Gospels mentioned four women who anointed Christ. But Origen notes that there were only three of them: Matthew and Mark wrote about one of them (nullam differentiam expositionis suae facientes in uno capitulo - without contradicting each other in the same section), about another - Luke and another - John, because the last one is different from the rest.
Jerome says: “Let no one think that the same woman anointed the head and feet.” Augustine considers the woman about whom Luke talks (Luke 7:36 et seq.) to be identical with the one about whom John talks (i.e., Mary, the sister of Lazarus). She performed the anointing twice. Only Luke tells about the first, but the second is told equally by three evangelists, i.e. John, Matthew and Mark. Thus, Augustine distinguishes between two anointings - the one reported by Luke (Luke 7:37-39), and the one that took place in Bethany six days before Easter, suggesting that the anointing woman was the same. Chrysostom sees things differently. “This wife, apparently, is the same for all the evangelists; in reality, it’s not like that, but the three evangelists, it seems to me, talk about the same one, while John talks about some other wonderful wife, the sister of Lazarus.” Theophylact states: “Some say that there were three wives who anointed the Lord with chrism, which were mentioned by all four evangelists.
Others believe that there were two of them: the one mentioned in John, that is, Mary, the sister of Lazarus, and the other, the one mentioned in Matthew and which is identical with that mentioned in Luke and Mark.” Zigavin: “Three women anointed the Lord with myrrh. One, about whom Luke speaks, was a sinner... the second, about whom John speaks, named Mary... the third is the one about whom Matthew and Mark equally narrate, who came (to Christ) two days before Easter in the house of Simon the leper.” “And if,” says Augustine, “Matthew and Mark say that the woman poured ointment on the Lord’s head, and John on his feet, then there is apparently no contradiction here. We think that she anointed not only the head, but also the feet of the Lord. Perhaps someone will object in a slanderous spirit that, according to Mark’s story, she broke the vessel before anointing the Lord’s head and that in the broken vessel there was no peace left with which she could also anoint His feet.
But he who makes such a slander must note that the feet were anointed before the vessel was broken, and that there was enough ointment left in it when, having broken it, the woman poured out all the rest of the oil.”
Later exegetes have similarly varied opinions. Calvin instructed his followers to consider the two stories (one in Matthew and Mark and the other in John) to be identical. But Lightfoot says, "I wonder how anyone could mix the two stories." Even Zahn deduces from Matthew’s account that “the woman did not live in Simon’s house” (das Weib keine Hausgenossin des Simon war). Other exegetes said that if what was told in Matthew and Mark had happened in the house of Lazarus, and not Simon the leper, then the disciples would not have been “indignant” (ἡγανάκτησαν – ἀγανακτοῦντες; Matthew 26:8; Mark 14:4), because it would mean being indignant at one of the housewives who received them. This will be explained in the next verse. Now, on the grounds given above, we will say that the stories of Matthew, Mark and John should be considered identical. The contradiction between Matthew and Mark, according to which the woman anointed the head of Christ, and John, which anointed the feet, is not so great as to deny the identity of their stories.
It could have been both, with Matthew and Mark reporting one and John reporting the other. At the same time, there is no need to even assume that the fourth evangelist deliberately corrected his predecessors and that preference should be given only to his story. One can only say that the example of the woman described in Luke was a precedent and caused imitation. But the story of Luke 7:36 et seq. completely different from the present.
The word ἀλάβαστρον (ἀλάβαστρος, ἀλάβαστος) is found in the New Testament only in three places (Matthew 26:7; Mark 14:3; Luke 7:37) and means, in fact, alabaster, and then alabaster vessel, alabaster jar. Such vessels were used to preserve fragrant ointments. Pliny (Natural History, III, 3) says that unguenta optime servantur in alabastris (fragrant ointments are perfectly preserved in alabaster vessels). Among the gifts sent by Cambyses to the Ethiopians, Herodotus mentions an alabaster vessel with ointment (μύρου ἀλάβαστρον, “History”, III, 20). For the custom of anointing the head, see Eccl. 9:8. It is remarkable that, speaking of the anointing of Christ, Matthew does not mention that the woman poured it (i.e., ointment) on his head, but omits this word. The construction of the verse is different in Matthew and Mark. The latter has κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς; in Matthew - κατέχεεν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ἀνακειμένου. Mark, therefore, has the usual “post-Homeric” construction, simply with a genitive, while Matthew has a later one - with ἐπί. Ἀνακειμένου is considered a genitive independent and separate from αὐτοῦ. This is doubtful.
Of the two different interpretations: πολυτίμου (valuable or precious) and βαρυτίμου (same meaning), the first one, which is better proven, should be preferred.
Matthew 26:8. Seeing this, His disciples were indignant and said: Why such a waste?
(Cf. Mark 14:4; John 12:4).
John says that it was not the disciples who were “indignant,” but only Judas. If, they say, in Mark in the previous verse, where the woman breaks the vessel, the matter is presented crudely, then in the same form it is presented in the present verse. This is evidenced by ἀγανακτοῦντες (in Matthew - ἡγανάκτησαν) - a rude expression that completely violates the subtlety and harmony of the entire narrated event. John does not talk about the breaking of the vessel, nor about the indignation of the disciples, but only about Judas, with an explanation of the reasons why Judas spoke so. But the word ἀγανατεῖν, apparently, is not as strong here as in the Russian and Slavic translations. It simply means “to worry”, “to be dissatisfied”. The alabaster vessel with myrrh was πολύτιμος - valuable or precious. Judas estimates its cost at three hundred denarii (John 12:5) - about 60 rubles in our money 6. In view of the very recent teachings of Christ Himself, remembered by the disciples, that helping the hungry, thirsty, etc. was equal to helping the King Himself, it becomes quite understandable to us why the disciples could be dissatisfied.
Judas was especially dissatisfied as a man who greatly loved and valued money. It could be that in the present case his dissatisfaction was contagious to other students. As with people who are not accustomed to restraint, this dissatisfaction spilled out and was noticeable to the woman who performed the anointing (ἐνεβριμοῦντο αὐτῇ - Mark 14:5). Mary's feminine love elevated her above the entire community of Christ's disciples, and what was, perhaps, contrary to the demands of harsh logic and callous reason, was completely consistent with the demands of her feminine heart. There is no need to spend as much on this as was necessary to feed not only the crowd of beggars, but also to arrange a good feast for the arriving guests.
Origen notes: “If Matthew and Mark wrote about one Mary, and John about another, and Luke about a third, how come the disciples, who once received a reprimand from Christ about her act, did not correct themselves and cease their indignation at the act of another woman doing the same thing?” Origen does not solve this question, or, better yet, solves it unsatisfactorily. In Matthew and Mark, he says, the disciples are indignant out of good intentions (ex bono proposito), in John it is only Judas due to the love of theft (furandi affectu), and in Luke no one complains. But if in Luke no one complains, then it is clear that he is talking about a different anointing. And from the repetition of the report of murmuring in Matthew, Mark and John, we can conclude that the story they tell is identical.”
Matthew 26:9. For this ointment could have been sold for a high price and given to the poor.
(Cf. Mark 14:5; John 12:5).
In John, these words are again spoken by Judas alone.
After the word “this” in the original Matthew does not have the word (placed in the Russian translation) “mirro”, and it is considered here as an addition to the original text. But it is authentic in the parallel in Mark, and Mark and John add that the ointment could be sold “for more than three hundred denarii” (John simply: “for three hundred denarii”). Was this speech of the disciples correct? It seems correct only from the visible side. Without a doubt, many others reason in the same way as the disciples. But in reality hic discipuli non recte utuntur theologia comparativa (the disciples here are using comparative theology incorrectly). Suppose that the disciples' wish came true, some rich woman would buy her ointment from Mary and that then the proceeds could be distributed to the poor. But in this case, the woman who bought the ointment would ultimately do the same as Mary, would use it for anointing and anointing, i.e. would have spent it for the same purpose as Mary. No vessel of peace can exist forever and serve as a constant source of relief for the poor.
On the other hand, it could be that poor people were busy mining the world. Buying it from them in itself could be a help to them. The disciples’ reasoning was therefore erroneous.”
Matthew 26:10. But Jesus, realizing this, said to them: Why are you embarrassing the woman? She did a good deed for Me:
(Cf. Mark 14:6; John 12:7).
In John, the Savior’s speech is addressed (in the Greek text) to Judas.
The Savior recognized and understood (γνούς) what the disciples were discussing. These discussions apparently took place at some distance from Him. It is difficult to assume that all the disciples were dissatisfied; those who were dissatisfied made sure that the Savior did not hear their words. Only Judas could utter the words loudly, in the hearing of Christ, and with them confirm the correctness of his murmur.
“Why are you embarrassed?” – τί κόπους παρέχετε – “lead into difficulty”, “cause trouble.” Because (γάρ) if you believe that I am worthy of any good deed on the part of this woman, then you can see that she has now done such a good deed for Me. Ἔργον καλόν - not only good, but beautiful to look at, pleasant, good (see comments on Matthew 5:16). It was all the more beautiful and pleasant because the woman “she didn’t even know what she was doing,” and “the simplicity of her action only increased its beauty.”
Matthew 26:11. for you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me;
(Cf. Mark 14:7; John 12:8).
Mark adds: “and whenever you want, you can do good to them.” Otherwise, the words of Matthew, Mark and John are completely identical, with only a few words rearranged. Tsang says it is doubtful how to read (in Matthew): πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς πτωχούς, like Mark, or τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ πάντοτε, etc. The Savior’s words have, one might say, an eternal and indisputable meaning. No matter how simple the truth is that beggars exist and will exist everywhere and constantly, it was first expressed only by Him. The truth of His statement is verified by constant experience. Despite all kinds of measures to reduce beggary, beggars have always existed and still exist. But in contrast to the constant existence of the poor, Christ was not always with people.
Matthew 26:12. pouring this ointment on My body, she prepared Me for burial;
(Cf. Mark 14:8; John 12:7).
John said these words before speaking about the poor and bear little resemblance to the expressions of Matthew and Mark. If verse 7 said that the ointment was poured “on the head” of Christ, here He Himself says that it was poured on His “body.” In this expression one can find a hint of what John 12:3 says, that Mary anointed the feet of Christ. The word ἐνταφιάζειν does not mean “to bury,” but “to prepare for the tomb,” “to embalm.” Doctors embalmed Jacob in Egypt before his burial in Palestine (Gen. 50:2, 13). The woman “seemed to prophesy about the approaching death of Christ” (Zigavin).
Matthew 26:13. Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the whole world, what she has done will also be told in her memory.
(Compare Mark 14:9 – with minor differences).
“Pay attention,” says Jerome, “to His knowledge of the future, to the fact that, having suffered and died after two days, He knows that His Gospel will be glorified throughout the whole world.” The words of Christ are therefore considered argumentum pro veritate religionis christianae (proof of the truth of the Christian religion). No monarch, no matter how powerful he may have, can impart immortality to any of his actions (Bengel). Regarding the reading of the verse, opinions are divided. Some read it as in the Russian translation, i.e. with a comma after “in the whole world”; others like this: “Wherever this Gospel is preached, it will be spoken throughout the whole world, etc.” Tsang holds the latter opinion. The question is resolved by comparison with the words of Mark, where εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον (in all the world) clearly refers to the preceding κηρυχθῇ (will be preached), and not to the subsequent λαληθήσεται (will be spoken). Tsang's opinion should therefore be considered incorrect. Similar prophetic predictions were made on other occasions (Judith.8:32; 1Mac.3:7; Luke 1:48).
John added messages to the story of Mary’s anointing of Christ in Bethany (John 12:9–11), which are not found in the weather forecasters.
Matthew 26:14. Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the high priests
(Cf. Mark 14:10; Luke 22:3).
If the supper in Bethany together with the Evangelist John is attributed to the time before the triumphal entry of Christ into Jerusalem, then we have no information at all about how and where the Savior spent Wednesday during Holy Week. In solving these questions, we do not move beyond the realm of mere assumptions. The evangelists do not indicate chronological dates here, and where such indications are found, they are so confused and vague that to date not a single scientist has been able to escape from the labyrinth built here, although a huge amount of work was spent on this, expressed in a huge amount of literature in all European languages. When exactly Judas went to the high priests is impossible to determine with certainty. All the evangelists hint that it was after the supper in Bethany. But if it was before Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, then it seems incredible that Judas went to the high priests before this last event, because in the further history of the days of Holy Week the evangelists do not have any hint of his betrayal.
The most likely assumption, therefore, is that the betrayal of Judas took place either on Tuesday evening or on Wednesday. For his negotiations on the extradition of Christ, Judas could choose mainly at night.
The betrayal of Judas is not so much difficult to explain by considering individual traits of his character, but rather by the attitude of Christ Himself towards Judas. We have already talked about this (see comments on Matthew 10:4). At different times, many different opinions were expressed about the very fact of Judas’ betrayal. In our literature there are two essays about this, one of them belongs to L. Andreev, and the other to the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy M. Muretov. The first was written by a completely ignorant writer for completely ignorant readers, and it is very natural if it is highly valued by the latter. But it is clear that all of Mr. Andreev’s victories in this area can and are equal only to his complete defeat. As for the essay about Judas, the traitor, by Professor Muretov, he writes: “The law of moral balance, consisting in self-retribution of good and evil or love and selfishness, in its negative side is nowhere revealed so briefly and strongly as in the deeply tragic biblical stories about Cain and Judas.”
Judas Iscariot is the seller of the “innocent blood” of the Teacher because of the national-egoistic idea of political pan-Judaism, which turned out to be the powerless dream of a pitiful superman before the terrible truth of the betrayal of the innocent blood of the God-man and, a few hours after the crime, forced the traitor in terrible pangs of conscience to say: “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” - and go and hang myself (Matthew 27: 4-5 ). According to Professor Muretov, “the traitor had a deeper and more serious character than those many who were seduced by the cruel word of Jesus.” It can hardly be assumed that he was a psychologically very complex character. If we do not venture into the realm of fantasy and unfounded assumptions and do not leave the realm of facts, it turns out that the motive for Judas’ betrayal, at least the main one, was money, to which he felt an attachment that did not allow him to easily put up with the hardships and suffering that constituted one of the aspects of following Christ.
In this case, Judas was not any special person, but was like thousands of other people who try to make a profit out of everything and, if they fail, fall into despair and decide to do anything. This motif runs like a red thread in the Gospels, especially in John, who says that Judas not only carried the money box, but was also a “thief” (John 12:6). The same is true in the writings of church writers who wanted to interpret the act of Judas, and in our church songs (“then the wicked Judas, sick with the love of money, became darkened”; “see the wealth of the zealot”, etc.).
Pope Leo the Great wrote well about this. Judas “left Christ not because of fear, but because of greed for money. For the love of money is the lowest passion. A soul devoted to self-interest is not afraid of death even because of small things; there is no trace of truth in that heart in which covetousness has built its nest. The treacherous Judas, being intoxicated with this poison, while thirsting for gain, was so stupidly wicked that he sold his Lord and Teacher.”
The word “nedugovav” used in our church song throws more light on the matter than all the “ideological, national, religious and political nightmares” created by Mr. Muretov. The love of money was Judas’s mental “illness.” This illness could affect the rest of his spiritual structure and cause abnormality in his general thinking. This does not mean that Judas was crazy, because in that case he would be insane and would not be subject to any responsibility (cf. Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22). But, undoubtedly, he had partial madness, a partial eclipse of his mental abilities, which is proved mainly by his suicide, which, as we know, not a single person with a completely sound and normal mind decides to do voluntarily. Judas' love for money was initially, perhaps completely secret, nurtured and flared up like a smoldering fire, and led Judas to temporary self-denial and enduring all the hardships of life in communion with Christ, with constant hope for future benefits.
These hopes ultimately turned out to be unrealistic and threatened with something that was completely opposite to any earthly well-being. If Judas did not survive such a crisis to the end, then this is quite understandable.
If we were to mentally place Christ on one mountain of temptation, and Judas on the other, we would find that Judas’ responses to the devil’s temptations would be completely opposite to Christ’s. At the suggestion of the devil, Judas would not have refused to turn stones into bread, nor to reveal miraculous power before the people and to bow to the devil for the kingdoms of the world. But next to this main motive of Judas’s actions, the love of money, in the Gospels, very subtly, but quite clearly, another, additional, motive appears, which can be looked at as a consequence of the main motive. This is the desire to join strong people, their parties. It usually happens that in such cases there is no talk at all about the moral dignity of strong parties and the principles they preach. On the fly, their wildest, extravagant ideas are captured and then presented as something given, immutable, not subject to challenge or doubt. There is absolutely no criticism. While Judas saw that Christ, as an extraordinary Teacher and Wonderworker, was about to enter into power, he adhered to Him and did not leave Him.
But when he clearly saw that it was not Christ that was to prevail and come into power, but the party of high priests, elders and scribes hostile to Him, a party that in the eyes of Judas was supposed to bury the entire work of Christ and His personality, he joined it, and this happened as easily as Herod I declared his devotion to one Roman commander, then to another. The Gospel notes about Judas and, in general, about the last events of Christ’s earthly life are too brief. We cannot grasp the actual moments when it became clear to Judas that external force was not on the side of Christ, but on the side of His enemies. Christ’s own repeated statements about suffering, the Cross, and then the increasingly intensifying malice of the Jewish leaders, generally speaking, over time clearly showed Judas which side was more profitable to take, and he boldly leaves Christ and plunges into the whirlpool of political hatred and murder.
Τότε ("then") should be taken as a vague indication, as in many other cases. It is doubtful that this adverb was closely related to the previous one and indicated, according to the evangelist, the removal of Judas from the supper that took place in Bethany. The word πορευθείς Bengel explains: discipuli non erant clausï poterat abire malus (the disciples were not locked up, the evil person could leave). All weather forecasters use the addition: “one of the twelve” (in Luke: “one of the twelve”). The evangelists do not try to hide and do not hide the fact that the traitor was from the apostolic environment itself, and not only do not hide, but even emphasize this circumstance with the indicated expression. The apostles did not seem to suspect until now that there was a traitor in their own midst (although Christ Himself pointed to him much earlier - John 6:70). This fact was so unexpected and surprising for the students that the expression “one out of twelve” appeared somehow by itself and naturally.
Judas goes to the “chiefs,” but Luke adds (Luke 22:4) another στρατηγοῖς (in the Russian translation “chiefs” - inaccurate) - to the military commanders, who were probably invited to a meeting of the bishops' council. This connection between bishops and military commanders is very typical and typological.
Matthew 26:15. and said: What will you give me, and I will deliver Him to you? They offered him thirty pieces of silver;
(Cf. Mark 14:10–11; Luke 22:4–5).
Mark and Luke do not say that Judas began negotiations with the bishops and “leaders” (Luke) with a statement about the price for which he would agree to betray Christ. But in Matthew the negotiations begin precisely with this. Judas' statement, as Matthew relates it, is very typical. He makes his statement to people who he hopes will immediately understand it. The motive expressed by Judas is all-sufficient. This is the first and main motive in ordinary human relationships. Many put it in the foreground even when, so to speak, they want to block other, more serious motives, which they do not consider necessary to reveal prematurely. But many point to the latter, always leaving the main, monetary, motive in the background. It is rare to meet true idealists. The majority points to ideals, using their beauty to cover up the reprehensibility of the main motive.
Judas does not say: I will betray Him to you and want to receive so much for it. He could ask for less than they could give him. He initially does not set the price, but finds out about it. But he does not “sell” Christ, but “betrays” (παραδώσω). It should have cost less than the sale. Judas decides to do an essentially unimportant and easy task - to indicate the secret location of Christ so that He can be safely taken. It couldn't cost much. The bishops set a price for Judas that he probably did not expect. Thirty pieces of silver - for just an hour, an hour not even of difficult, strenuous work, but simply for trouble at night, for accompanying persons who could take Christ. For a hard day's work, a worker usually received only a denarius (about 20–25 kopecks 7 ). Judas was offered thirty pieces of silver. These were “church shekels”, which were “heavier” than ordinary ones. One shekel alone was equal to 4 denarii! Therefore, the price offered to Judas was 120 times higher than the daily wage of one worker.
For more than a third of the year it was necessary to endure the hardship of the day and the heat to earn such money. But the bishops and the church were undoubtedly rich. After the first service, a second and further ones might be required. It was only necessary to please, to strictly fulfill this order and then wait for further orders from influential persons, for which silver pieces would also fall into one’s pocket. For the greedy and money-loving Judas, the money-loving Judas may have had magnificent prospects for the future. Perhaps he even hoped to receive thirty pieces of silver every day! As soon as such a price was offered to Judas, he immediately agreed.
It is only unknown whether the money was given to him now or later. That they were given is beyond doubt (Matthew 27:5). But now it’s difficult to figure out what happened. All weather forecasters use different expressions. In Matthew, ἔστησαν - this term was used to denote the payment of the required amount, the assignment of a salary, but also means “to hang”, “to weigh out” (see translation of the Seventy 2 Kings 14:26; 1 Ezra 8:25; Job 6:2, 28:15; Is. 40:12; Jer. 32:9; Zechariah 11:12). Not all of these quotes are about money. But no matter how closely these quotes relate to the passage of Matthew under discussion, from the latter, based on the use of ἔστησαν, it cannot be concluded that the Jews at that very time weighed out and gave Judas the required amount. They just put it down and decided to give it to him. This conclusion is confirmed by Mark, who says that the bishops were delighted and only promised to give Judas the pieces of silver, and by Luke, according to whom they συνέθεντο - decided (in Russian translation - “agreed”) to give him money.
In this sense, Evfimy Zigavin explains this expression: “Mark said that they promised to give him (Judas) silver, and Luke said that they agreed. Apparently, they first agreed and promised, and then weighed (σταθμῆσαι). Some people think that ἔστησαν is put instead of συνεφώνησαν and ὡρίσαντο (determined, appointed).” If we translate ἔστησαν - “weighed”, then this will mean that the expression was borrowed from more ancient times, when precious metals, upon any payment, were weighed on scales without being minted. But Theophylact directly states that they “only agreed, decided to give it to him, and not that they weighed them out, as many people think.” The pieces of silver promised or given to Judas were ἀργύρια (Mark, Luke; not in John) - silver coins approximately the size of our ruble 8 .
Judas himself hardly imagined that, in betraying Christ, he acted in accordance with ancient prophecies. For him, the price promised and given by the Jews was high. On the other hand, the Jews, of course, did not think about the fulfillment of ancient prophecies in these events. But, by appointing 30 pieces of silver themselves, they almost certainly thought by this to humiliate Christ, because 30 pieces of silver were the usual price of a slave (Ex. 21:32). Such contempt was apparently shared by Judas, who does not call Christ by name, but says that he will betray Him (αὐτόν). On the other hand, the Jewish leaders, when Judas appeared to them, could not help but despise him in their souls. There was nothing sublime or noble in secret betrayal, and even the most vulgar and immoral people, who, however, were considered the heads of society, could look at it with disgust. The presence of military commanders at the meeting (στρατηγοῖς - Luke) was generally necessary to regulate the measures of taking into custody. The traitor's statement immediately changed the entire plan that was supposed to be executed. This happens often.
Matthew 26:16. and from that time on he sought an opportunity to betray Him.
(Cf. Mark 14:11; Luke 22:6).
“Opportunity” is inaccurate; in the original - “favorable” or, even better, “good, convenient time” (εὐκαιρίαν). It is clear that Judas's further actions are determined precisely by this goal. He behaves in such a way that, on the one hand, he does not arouse suspicion, and on the other, so as not to break his promise to the Jews. Judas hardly had to subject the matter to examination and study. He knew him very well. He knew that Christ often stayed with His disciples on the Mount of Olives. But precautions were necessary, because strong resistance could be expected from eleven strong men (not to mention other adherents and followers).
Matthew 26:17. On the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus and said to Him, “Where do you tell us to prepare the Passover for You?”
(Cf. Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7–9).
This verse of Matthew and its parallels have given rise to a vast amount of literature. Many articles and writings appeared about the “last Easter supper of Christ” in Russian (by Archpriests Gorsky, Khvolson, Glubokovsky, Troitsky, etc.). But the results so far have been unsatisfactory. “The subject under consideration,” wrote Professor Glubokovsky in 1893, “still remains a heavy scientific cross, the inscriptions of which have not even been approximately deciphered.” “As the question at presents stands,” wrote the English scientist Sandey thirteen years later, in 1906, “we can only ignore (given the present state of this issue, we can only admit our ignorance). Under such circumstances, it remains for us to state only what seems most probable.
Evangelists Matthew and Mark say that the disciples approached Jesus Christ with a question where He told them to prepare the Passover, on the first day of unleavened bread. But, they said, Passover and the Day of Unleavened Bread were two different holidays. Passover was celebrated according to the law from the 14th to the 15th of Nisan, at night, no further than 12 hours. Then on the 15th came a festival that lasted seven days until the 21st of Nisan, which was called the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Since, according to the literal meaning of the testimony of Matthew and Mark, the disciples approached Jesus Christ on the day when the Feast of Unleavened Bread began, this means that the Last Supper, when the Passover lamb was consumed, was later than the time established in the law, i.e. not from 14 to 15, but from 15 to 16. This objection is relatively easy to refute. There is no doubt that the day of the slaughter and eating of the Passover lamb was precisely defined in the law (Ex. 12:1-6; Num. 9:3), and deviations from the law when the day of Passover (Nisan 14) fell on Saturday are not easy to prove. Thus, it is possible to establish that Christ and His disciples celebrated the Passover at the time specified in the law, i.e. from 14 to 15 Nisan.
But what then will the expressions of Matthew and Mark (almost identical) mean: “on the first day of unleavened bread”? How could it be said that at this time they “killed Easter”, i.e. "Paschal lamb"? What day of the week is meant by the first day of unleavened bread? These are the most difficult questions. It can be answered that attempts to prove (Khwolson) that among the Jews the first day of unleavened bread never meant Passover itself, from the very time of its establishment to the present day, should be considered erroneous. But even if there were no error here, then even then it would be possible to recognize that Matthew and Mark are expressed here in the language of the people, who considered Passover to be the day of unleavened bread, and vice versa. This is fully confirmed by Luke (Luke 22:7), who says that on the day of unleavened bread “the Passover lamb must be slaughtered,” coming closest in this case to the testimony of Mark (Mark 14:12).
With this interpretation, there is no need to accept that the Easter holiday was celebrated not for seven, but for eight days and that the time from the evening of 13 to 14 was also called the Feast of Unleavened Bread, although this is precisely what Josephus asserts (“Antiquities of the Jews,” II, 15, 1).
The question of what day the Easter supper was on is resolved by the undoubted fact that Christ died on Friday evening and was in the tomb on the following Saturday (the day of rest). Therefore, Chrysostom’s interpretation is correct that “the evangelist calls the first day of unleavened bread the day preceding the Feast of Unleavened Bread, since the Jews always used to count the day from the evening. The Evangelist mentions the day on which the Passover lamb was to be slaughtered in the evening, since the disciples approached Jesus on the fifth day of the week.” But we cannot completely agree with Theophylact’s opinion: “So I think that the evangelist calls the day unleavened bread the first unleavened day. They were supposed to eat Easter, in fact, on Friday evening: it was called the day of unleavened bread, but the Lord sends His disciples on Thursday, which the evangelists call the first day of unleavened bread because it preceded Friday, on which evening they usually ate unleavened bread.”
As for the contradiction pointed out by John (John 18:28), that the Jews did not want to enter Pilate “into the praetorium, so as not to be defiled, but so that they could eat the Passover,” this is explained by the fact that here by Passover it is not meant the very day of Passover, but its continuation, the eating of holiday sacrifices (“chagigah”), etc., for participation in which it was also necessary to avoid defilement, as well as for eating the Passover. However, Sandey argues that no matter how attractive this opinion is, it should be abandoned due to lack of evidence. But this opinion is currently the only one on which one can base the chronological distribution of the last days of Christ’s life. The opinion that Christ celebrated Easter not on the 14th of Nisan in the evening, but from 13 to 14, expressed by our theologians (see, for example, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology of Metropolitan Macarius, 1868. Vol. 2. P. 376), should be considered doubtful.
“It is unthinkable for priests to allow a sacrifice brought to the altar at the wrong time, just as it is impossible for our priest to serve the Easter liturgy on the eve of Christmas to please someone (Khvolson).” However, the opinion that Passover took place from the 13th to the 14th of Nisan should now be considered generally accepted and widespread.
Matthew 26:18. He said: go to the city to so-and-so and tell him: The Teacher says: My time is near; I will keep the Passover with you with my disciples.
(Cf. Mark 14:13–15; Luke 22:10–12).
The shortest (to the point of vagueness) story here is in Matthew. Mark and Luke also talk about a man carrying a jug of water; the disciples must follow him and convey to the owner of that house (as opposed to the man carrying the jug of water) the Savior’s command regarding the room for celebrating Passover. But Matthew adds some expressions that other evangelists do not have. First of all, he has a special expression “to such and such” (πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα). It was assumed that the “master of the house” (Mark and Luke), who was a disciple of Jesus Christ (ὁ διδάσκαλος λέγει - the teacher speaks to the student), is not called here by name because Christ wanted to hide from the returning Judas the place of the Last Supper, and Judas therefore could not bring conspirators there who could capture Jesus Christ at the supper itself. In this regard, the further words “My time is near” are interpreted not as any special message, but simply as a “password” agreed in advance between Christ and the owner of the house, which could also have been unknown to Judas.
These interpretations do not seem probable, because it is very doubtful that Christ would resort to the kind of means of defense that are usually used in war. The presence of Judas at the supper may serve as an objection to this opinion. The course of events generally appears as follows.
On the morning of Nisan 14, Thursday, the disciples asked Jesus Christ where they could prepare the Passover lamb for Him. As can be seen from Luke's story, some preparations had already been made and Peter and John were sent for this (Luke 22:8). They had to bring the Passover lamb from 3 to 5 pm to the church and slaughter it themselves, and its blood was poured by the priests on the altar. While the disciples were doing all this (the opinion that there would not be enough time for this on Thursday should be considered idle and unfounded), the question arose about the place of the Last Supper. The inhabitants of Jerusalem willingly provided the pilgrims arriving in Jerusalem with the necessary premises, perhaps for a certain fee. Several groups could eat the Passover lamb in one room. The number of people who ate this Passover lamb was determined to be no less than 10 and no more than 20 people. There remains a legend that the house where the Last Supper was celebrated belonged either to the Evangelist Mark himself or to his father.
This opinion is supported by the fact that in Mark’s account of all these events there are more vivid and small details than in other evangelists. But the room that was prepared for Christ was separate and secluded. Apart from the disciples, apparently no one else was allowed to attend the supper. The fact that the name of the owner of the room is not mentioned is explained by the hatred of the Jews, which continued at the time when the Synoptic Gospels were written. Hence τὸν δεῖνα - “to someone”, “to such and such”, which Tsang considers equivalent to NN or “name”. It is doubtful, however, that Christ Himself did not name the owner during the embassy of the disciples, or that the disciples did not know about this before meeting the man carrying the jug of water and arriving at the house itself. “My time is near” is an indication of approaching death, which could be clear to the owner of the house from previous acquaintance and conversations with the Savior. The translation of ποιῶ through “I will accomplish” (Attic future) is incorrect; in the original it is the present tense and means “I will accomplish” in the meaning of the future.
Matthew 26:19. The disciples did as Jesus commanded them and prepared the Passover.
(Cf. Mark 14:16; Luke 22:13).
This meant that, after observing various formalities in the church, the Passover lamb was baked, as prescribed by law, placed on a table with unleavened bread and bitter herbs in a large, decorated, furnished and consecrated room (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:13). There were boxes placed near the table (like our couches or sofas).
Matthew 26:20. When evening came, He lay down with the twelve disciples;
(Compare Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14; John 13:2.)
This was, as said, on Thursday evening, from the 14th to the 15th of Nisan, and the 16th was Easter Saturday, the great day. The last supper of Jesus Christ mentioned in the Gospel of John and the Easter supper of the weather forecasters are one and the same. All four evangelists coincide with the same stories about the denunciation of the traitor, the prediction of Peter’s denial, and the removal of Jesus Christ after the Last Supper to Gethsemane. The name “Passover” meant the slaughter and eating of the Passover lamb and, apparently, the seven-day feast of unleavened bread, lasting from Nisan 15 to 21 (Lev. 23:5–6; Num. 28:16–17, 9:2 et seq.; Ezek. 45:21), just as we call Passover not only the first day of Passover, but the entire Passover week. The 15th of Nisan was “on the next day of Passover” (Numbers 33:3; for the time of celebration of Passover, see also Exodus 12:6, 8, 15, 18–19; Lev.23:5–8; Numbers 28:16–25; cf. Exodus 29:38–39). According to the law, the Passover lamb was to be eaten standing (Ex. 12:11), but later the custom of reclining was introduced. Jerus. Dog.
37, 2: mos servorum est, ut edant stantes, at nunc comedant recumbentes, ut dignoscatur, exisse eos e servitute in libertatem (slaves usually eat standing, but now they eat reclining, to show that they have come out of slavery to freedom). Along with the rest of the disciples, Judas was also present at the supper; this can be seen from the clear testimony of Matthew and Mark that Jesus Christ “lay down with the twelve disciples.” This is also indicated by further stories of the evangelists about the Last Supper.
Matthew 26:21. and while they were eating, he said, “Truly I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.”
(Cf. Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21; John 13:21).
Matthew, like Mark, skips here the long stories of Luke 22:15–18, 24–30 and John 13:2–21. The order of events at the supper, after comparing the testimony of the evangelists, was probably as follows. After arriving at the supper, Jesus Christ spoke the words set forth in Luke (Luke 22:15–18), then there was a dispute between the disciples about which of them was greater (Luke 22:24), washing of feet (John 13:2–11) and instructions on this matter (Luke 22:25–30; John 13:12–20). Some believe that after this there was the breaking of bread (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:23–24) and only then the denunciation of the traitor, as described in the verse under discussion. But it is better and more natural to attribute the establishment of the Sacrament to the time after the conviction of Judas, although Luke has a different order.
They ate the Passover lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Cooking and placing charoset on the table was optional. But, in all likelihood, this dish too - a mixture of fruits in which bitter herbs are dipped before eating - was on the table.
The words of verse 21, according to Matthew (and Mark), were spoken before the institution of the Eucharist; according to Luke - after. The order adopted by Matthew and Mark is more likely, although many think otherwise. The words: “one of you will betray Me,” in all likelihood, were not entirely clear to the disciples or even completely incomprehensible; they were so new and unexpected that no one could understand their real meaning except Judas. The rest of the apostles could understand them in the sense that the Teacher was in danger of some kind and that one of the disciples would become an involuntary and unreasonable cause of this danger. The apostles obviously do not know that Judas had already entered into relations with the high priests.”
Matthew 26:22. They were greatly saddened, and began to say to Him, each one of them: Is it not I, Lord?
John's story (John 13:22–29) is essentially similar to the story of Matthew, Mark and Luke (Luke 22:22–23), but with the addition of some details. The disciples' questions confirm what was said in the interpretation of verse 21, that they did not understand what was being said. The interrogative form (μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι, κύριε) requires a negative answer after itself. The disciples were aware of their complete innocence and the purity of their intentions, and therefore hoped that the Savior would not accuse any of them of betrayal. If an affirmative answer was expected, οὐ would be used instead of μή or μήτι. “Each” of the students asked. But whether Jesus Christ also gave the answer to everyone is unknown. In all likelihood, He limited himself to a general answer, which is stated in the next verse.
Matthew 26:23. He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand into the dish with Me, this one will betray Me;
In order to better understand Christ’s further words, it would be necessary to accurately establish the order in which the disciples sat at the supper. The Savior Himself, of course, occupied first or highest place. But, unfortunately, this is the only thing that can be established in the present case. As for the order in which the other students sat, nothing definite can be said. The most likely, based on all the speeches and actions at the supper, seems to be this arrangement.
The fact that John was next to Jesus Christ is clear from John 13:23. It was most convenient for Peter to make a sign to him (John 13:24) if he was opposite John. On the other hand, some of the Savior’s words were apparently spoken to Judas in a whisper, so that the other disciples might not have heard his denunciations from Christ. This is best explained if Judas took his place at the supper next to Christ. This assumption is also justified by the fact that Judas, not for the sake of a higher place in the new Kingdom, which he now no longer valued, but in order to better simulate his devotion to Christ and thus hide his intentions, tried to take a place as close to Him as possible. Nothing can be deduced from the Gospel expressions about the order in which the other disciples reclined.
Christ’s answer in verse 23 apparently did not have such a meaning: you see, whoever (now or just now) put his hand into the dish with Me, he will betray Me. It is more likely to assume that the answer contained a more general meaning. Without pointing out the identity of Judas, the Savior gave an affirmative answer to the questions of the disciples, saying that “one of the twelve” will betray (Mark 14:20), then he explained this expression more closely: it is the one who is now with Me (and you) and dips his hand into the dish with Me. All the students did this, and therefore the answer seemed uncertain. Its special meaning and significance could only be understood by Judas alone. Therefore ὁ ἐμβαπτόμενος (Mark), i.e. “dipping” is considered equivalent to ὁ ἐσθίων μετ´ ἐμοῦ - the one who eats with Me at the supper. Matthew replaces ὁ ἐμβαπτόμενος (“dipping”; the present tense indicates the duration and repetition of the action) with an aorist – ἐμβάψας – “dipped”, without an exact indication of time, an expression as vague as ὁ ἐμβαπτόμενος in Mark and John (John 13:18).
That it is truly indefinite can be seen from the next verse, where the person who will betray Christ is not called by name, but ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος - that person. The reasons for this uncertainty are clear. By denouncing Judas and saying what was completely clear to him, Christ did not want to reveal him clearly to the disciples, because this would probably be the reason for their common indignation and anger against Judas. The opinion that Judas, wanting to feign his devotion to Christ, tried to dip his hand into the dish with Him as often as possible is not based on anything. By dish we mean an ordinary dish or bowl; τρυβλίον δέ ἐστιν εἶδος πίνακος (Evfimy Zigavin).
Matthew 26:24. However, the Son of Man comes, as it is written about Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed: it would have been better for this man not to have been born.
(Cf. Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22).
Instead of “as written” it is better – “as written” (καθώς γέγραπται); instead of "by which" literally "through which"; instead of “it would be better” - “it was better” (καλόν ἦν). The entire verse in Matthew and Mark (in the Greek text) is literally the same, with the exception of Mark's initial ὅτι. Luke has different expressions. The meaning of them for all weather forecasters is that if the traitor (again without indicating the person) wants to make betrayal and the suffering associated with it dependent on himself, on his own actions, negotiations and deals with the Jewish leaders, then in fact all this does not depend on him. The Son of Man is betrayed because it is “written” about it in the sacred books, and what is written serves as an expression of what is predetermined in the very Council of God. No specific Scripture is referred to (cf. Luke 24:26–27). All the sacred books, all the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, pointed out that Christ had to suffer and die and thus enter into His glory.
This could give rise to the idea that the traitor was innocent, being only an involuntary instrument of the eternal Council of God. But that's not true. The Son of Man is betrayed, as it is written about Him, but (δέ) woe to that man who serves as an instrument (δἰ οὗ – through whom) of betrayal.
The Fathers of the Church and Church teachers generally interpreted this expression in agreement. Origen: “He did not say: woe to the man by whom he is betrayed, but: “through whom he is betrayed,” showing that he is betrayed to others, i.e. the devil; Judas himself was the perpetrator of this betrayal.” Chrysostom: “But another will say: if it is written that Christ will suffer like this, then why is Judas condemned? He did what was written. But he did it with the wrong thought, but out of malice. If you do not pay attention to intentions, then you will free the devil from guilt. But no, no! Both are worthy of countless torments, although the universe has been saved. It was not the betrayal of Judas that brought us salvation, but the wisdom of Christ, which wonderfully turned the atrocities of others to our advantage.” Evfimy Zigavin: “Some say that (Judas) is innocent because he did what was predestined. Let us say to such people that Judas betrayed not because it was predestined, but because he betrayed and it was predestined, since God foresees everything that will happen.”
The expression: “It would have been better for him if this man had not been born” (so literally) is explained as being a proverb often used by the rabbis (cf. Job 3:4-13, 10:18 et seq.). These words should not be understood in a strictly logical sense, but as a popular designation of the highest unhappiness. The main idea here, according to Jerome: multo melius est non subsistere quam male subsistere (it is better not to exist at all than to exist badly). This whole saying has a Semitic character.
Matthew 26:25. At this, Judas, who betrayed Him, said: Isn’t it me, Rabbi? Jesus says to him: You said.
This conversation is recounted only in Matthew. Judging by Luke's message, the disciples, after the Savior said: “And behold, the hand of him who betrayed Me is with Me at the table,” etc. (Luke 22:21–22), “began to ask each other which of them would be the one who would do this” (Luke 22:23). From this it is clear that the speech about betrayal was not as brief as it is in Matthew and Mark. The disciples asked not only the Savior about the traitor, but also talked about it among themselves. They tried to find out, extort, and understand exactly this incredible thing. Therefore, it is possible to assume that there was a general, probably quite loud talk. John gives here ( John 13:22-29 ) some vivid details in addition to what the other evangelists say. The disciples looked around at each other, wondering who Jesus Christ was talking about. Simon Peter signs to John to ask Jesus Christ about the traitor. The Savior, having dipped the piece, gives it to Judas with words that were not understood by the disciples: “whatever you are doing, do it quickly,” etc.
Probably, during these questions and negotiations, Judas, not in general silence and silence, but amid noise and chatter, asked the question of whether he was a traitor (verse 25). In form, Judas’ question differed from the questions of the other disciples only in that instead of “Lord,” Judas said to “Rabbi”: “Isn’t it me, Rabbi?” It is doubtful whether this was more callous and cold speech in comparison with the speech of other students. Christ's answer was given only to Judas and heard only by him. Among the general chatter and noise, the other disciples did not hear the Savior’s answer, with the exception of only a few. Judas soon left when, after σὺ εἶπας, he was given a “piece”, if all the disciples had heard Christ’s answer, then the story of John 13:27–30 and especially John 13:28 would have been completely incomprehensible to us. The expression “you said” was, of course, a confirmation of the words of Judas. But its explanation is not as simple as it seems at first. In the Old Testament Bible we find only similar, but not literal expressions (Exodus 10:29; 1 Kings 20:40). Among the Jews and Greeks such answers were not common. The existence of the formula σὺ εἶπας in rabbinic literature is doubtful.
But some argue that it was common among the Jews of that time. The meaning of Christ’s words was: “I do not need to repeat what you said.”
Matthew 26:26. And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take, eat: this is My Body.”
(Cf. Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:23–24).
From our previous presentation it is clear that Judas did not participate in the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The messages of Matthew, Mark and John tend towards this, and the latter does not speak at all about the establishment of the Sacrament, although his story in the 6th chapter is of a Eucharistic nature. If we accept the order of events according to Luke’s account, we will have to allow Judas’ participation in the Sacrament. But in this case, we will be forced to distinguish two separate moments in the establishment of the Sacrament, separated from one another by a more or less long interval, namely: after Luke 22:19 directly (in order to harmonize Luke’s story with the story of the other evangelists) put Luke 22:21-23, and only after this story - Luke 22:20, which talks about the giving of the cup.
It is generally impossible to determine the time of the establishment of the Sacrament at the Last Supper. The rabbinic regulations on eating the Passover lamb, set out in the Talmudic treatise Pesachim, are so confusing that they cannot provide any help in resolving the issue. There is always something left in the stories of the evangelists that cannot be fully explained. Church writers also provide little service to the exegete here. The contradictions they made regarding the question of whether Judas participated in the Sacrament or not deprive their testimony of almost any significance, which, by the way, dates back to a later period, when the exact order of events was known to them as much as to us. John Chrysostom, along with many others, believed that Judas participated in the Eucharist. “Oh, how great is the blindness of the traitor! Participating in the Mysteries, he remained the same and, enjoying the terrible meal, did not change.” At the same time, John Chrysostom admits some inaccuracy, which, however, does not change the meaning of what was said, attributing to Luke what John says (John 13:27).
“Luke shows this when he says that after this Satan entered into him (Judas), not because he despised the Body of the Lord, but mocking the shamelessness of the traitor. His sin was great in two ways: both because he approached the Mysteries with such a disposition, and because, having approached, he was not brought to his senses either by fear, or by good deeds, or by honor.” Jerome: “After the Passover celebration and when (Judas) ate lamb with the apostles, he accepted bread.” But Hilary directly states that Judas corpus Christi non sumpsit (did not accept the Body of Christ). Of the newest exegetes, many consider the departure of Judas before the Sacrament of Communion to be more probable than his presence. True, the weather forecasters do not talk about Judas leaving the supper, but in Matthew 26:47; Mark 14:43; Luke 22:47 removal is assumed to be certain. If Judas had left at the end of the supper, then, as is rightly noted, he would not have had time to bring the crowd. Thus, of the two possibilities, whether Judas was or was not a participant in the supper, we must give preference to the one that he was not; This is confirmed by various other considerations.
The words of Christ: “now is the Son of Man glorified,” etc. (John 13:31–32), spoken during the supper, could indirectly indicate the irrevocability of Judas’ decision to betray Him and served as an introduction to the establishment of a new Sacrament.
“Christ began His activity with Baptism and ended with Communion.”
One must think that the Sacrament was established after the Jewish Passover and had a connection with it only in time. It cannot be supposed that even the ancient rites were strictly observed at the time of Christ, much less that Christ conformed to them at the institution of the Last Supper. The breaking of unleavened bread when eating the Passover lamb was assigned to the host of the supper, and it could be that the Savior Himself broke this bread and distributed it to the disciples. But, as they think, not all the bread was broken, but only half, and the other half (afikomon) remaining on the table was the matter during the establishment of the Sacrament of the New Testament. This assumption is very doubtful. The use of afikomon does not date back to an early time, but to a later time, when after the destruction of the church the Jews lost the custom of slaughtering the Passover lamb. There was a law that after eating the lamb, nothing else should be eaten until midnight. Perhaps on this basis it should be assumed that the initial supper was completely Old Testament and Easter, and then the New Testament was celebrated after midnight.
It is incredible that Christ left the afikomon for a new supper. At least, there is no indication of this in the Gospels. It is well known that with the beginning of Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread began and that the Jews were not supposed to eat anything sour, removing it from their houses and burning it in advance. If so, then we must assume that Christ performed the Sacrament of Communion on unleavened bread. This is accepted by the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches.
But, on the other hand, there is no reason to think that the establishment of the Eucharist in any of its points was adjacent to the Jewish Passover. The Old Testament Easter Supper was completely over when a new Passover was established, which was supposed to replace the old one. There is no reason to think that if the (week-long) Passover holiday was called the Feast of Unleavened Bread, then the Jews did not eat anything else except them. This does not happen even now. In our country, Easter is the name for the entire Easter week, but this does not mean that during the entire week they eat only Easter and Easter cake. Something similar could have happened then. It is incredible that the Jews ate only unleavened bread during the entire Passover week. The compilers of the Talmud understand that even water can be a “sour” object (see Tractate Pesachim), and, however, it is impossible to allow it to be completely withdrawn from use during the entire Jewish Passover. Even during the eating of the Passover lamb, wine was consumed (a later, not the original Old Testament custom), which, undoubtedly, was “sour.”
In the subsequent church practice closest to the time of Christ, unleavened bread was undoubtedly not used during the celebration of the Sacrament of Communion. It is impossible to prove in any way that, having met with the disciples on the way to Emmaus, Jesus Christ, even during Easter week, took unleavened bread and gave it to the disciples (Luke 24:30). The Apostle Paul celebrated the Eucharist on a ship during a storm (Acts 27:35), and one cannot think that he had not ordinary bread, but unleavened bread, prepared for this purpose.
Thus, there is data showing, at least, that what kind of bread to eat for the Sacrament, unleavened or sour, at the very beginning of the history of the Christian Church was considered a matter of indifference. Some derive the word ἄρτος (bread) from ἄρω – apto, compingo – “adjusting”, “attaching”, “connecting”, etc. But, firstly, the existence of such a verb in the Greek language is doubtful, and, secondly, even if it existed, the production from it ἄρτος would be doubtful. It is better to produce from αρω - “I raise”, although one cannot fully vouch for the accuracy of such production. But, in any case, the evangelists clearly distinguish ἄρτος from ἄζυμος (ἄζυμος is, in fact, an adjective). Philo has ἄρτους ἀζύμους, in the expression τὰ ἄζυμα one cannot mean ἄρτοι, and this difference is based, apparently, on the distinction between both of these terms by the Jews. The Jews called unleavened bread “matza”, the plural – “mazzot”, and ordinary bread – “lechem”, i.e.
all kinds of food, victuals and showbread, which were probably not unleavened (although the biblical expressions about them are unclear). When translating verse 26 into Hebrew, in no case could the Hebrew “matza” – unleavened bread – be substituted for ἄρτος.
Much more important is the question about the very meaning of the words spoken by Christ: “this is My Body.” The question of this has given rise to a huge amount of literature, and, of course, we cannot here at least briefly outline all the debates on this issue. Discussion of it is the subject of dogmatic theology, and we refer the reader to works on this science. We will try only to present the essence of the matter from the exegetical side with the greatest possible brevity.
Protestants, as we know, rejected the Catholic (and Orthodox) doctrine of the transubstantiation of bread and wine and replaced this word with the term “coexistence” (consubstantiatio and inconsubstantiatio) or the presence of Christ in, cum and sub pane. To justify such a teaching, many Protestant scholars tried to prove that in Aramaic, in which the words “this is My Body” and “this is My Blood” were originally spoken by Christ, there is no connective “is”; in Greek, it does not mean that bread and wine are indeed the Body and Blood of Christ, and the verb ἐστί serves only as a connection between the subject and the predicate. With this interpretation, it was possible to give only a symbolic meaning to the sayings of Christ, i.e. Christ wanted to say that bread and wine serve only as symbols or signs of His Body and Blood. This teaching of the Protestants appeared as a protest against the medieval teachings about transubstantiatio.
Without going into a detailed study of this entire issue, we will only point out the fact that the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine of transubstantiation was alien to the original Christian Church, and this term appeared only in the Middle Ages. But this does not mean that both in the original Christian Church and for a long time after that, bread and wine were considered only symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. Even heretics, not to mention the Orthodox, rebelled against such teaching. Thus, Theodore of Mopsuetsky wrote: τοῦτο τοῦ αἵματός μου, ἀλλὰ τοῦτόἐστι τὸ σῶμα μου καὶ τὸ αἵμα μου (did not say: this is a symbol of My Body and My Blood, but this is My Body and My Blood). That the words of Christ were understood in this and no other sense by the ancient Church can be traced throughout many centuries after the ascension of Christ. We found an exception only in Origen, to whom, apparently, the idea of transubstantiation was alien.
“It was not this visible bread, which (Jesus Christ) held in His hands, that God the Word called His Body, but the word, in the sacrament of which this bread was broken. And he did not call this visible drink His Blood, but the word, in the sacrament of which this drink was poured out. For the Body of God the Word or Blood can mean nothing other than the word that nourishes and the word that produces joy.”
But if, in the absence of a special term transubstantiatio, ancient church writers recognized bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ, then what did this mean? What meaning did the words of Christ Himself have when establishing the Sacrament? How can bread and wine be transformed or transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ? In answer to these questions, let us say first of all that neither Jesus Christ Himself nor His apostles explained how this happens. But there is no doubt that, teaching bread and wine, Christ Himself truly considered them His Body and His Blood; no other interpretation is possible if you pay attention to the direct meaning of His words and do not indulge in the subtleties of medieval or any theology. We cannot understand how this happens, this is a Sacrament; Nor can we explain the meaning of Christ’s words by their very essence. The term consubstantiatio, considered in itself, is as obscure as transubstantiatio.
But for us now there seems no need to understand the very essence of the Sacrament. Let us pay attention only to what natural, accessible and understandable meaning lies in the doctrine of transubstantiation developed later. It is not the explanation of the meaning of the Sacrament itself, but the explanation of what was the psychological and religious process by which people came to the idea of transubstantiatio, that seems deeply interesting. The long historical process that led to the concept of transubstantiation will help us partly explain which doctrine is more correct, the doctrine of transubstantiation or the doctrine of “existence” and other doctrines. From the very words of Christ, Who broke the bread and held it in His hands and then commanded them to drink from the cup, it was clear that this bread was not simple, ordinary bread, and the wine was not ordinary wine. But initially, apparently, they did not pay much attention to this. We are little familiar with the “essences” of things, they are inaccessible to us, and therefore even now we cannot reason about them. The ancient Christians did not talk about this at all.
Everything we see is just phenomena. But, not knowing anything about essences, we, however, very often consider the same objects from different points of view and therefore evaluate them differently. If, perhaps, in the initial Christian times the real power and meaning of the words of Christ were not completely clear, then over time this became clearer and the meaning of bread and wine was more and more appreciated in proportion to how higher and higher the merit of Christ itself seemed to the consciousness of people. The higher this merit, the higher, therefore, is the gift that was bequeathed by Him “in His memory.”
It should be noted that, admittedly, we find the oldest news about the establishment of the Sacrament of the Eucharist not in the Gospels, but in the First Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:23–30), which was written before the Gospels. The Apostle Paul was, of course, well aware of the dignity of Christ's merit; Accordingly, the apostle evaluates the gift bequeathed by Him. The Apostle Paul quite clearly distinguishes Eucharistic bread and wine from ordinary bread and wine. The latter can be eaten and drunk at home. But when the Corinthians gather for the Lord's Supper, they do not eat simple bread and wine. This eating is the announcement of the death of the Lord until He comes again. To eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily means to be guilty against the Body and Blood of the Lord. Therefore, in order not to be unworthy, a person must test himself before proceeding to the Eucharist. Thus, the apostle gives the highest dignity to the Eucharistic bread and wine, without speaking at all about transubstantiatio.
Over time, any restrictions on the dignity of bread and wine began to seem like restrictions on the very dignity of the redemptive work of Christ. Since the dignity of the latter was infinite and the merit of Christ was immeasurable (which became more and more clear with the passage of time), then the gift He bequeathed in the eyes of people acquired higher and higher dignity and significance, until, finally, things came to the point that even the thought that bread and wine do not change in their very essence began to seem like a limitation of the very work of Christ and His merit.
Was this psychological thought process correct and logical? We have no doubt that it is correct. It is so natural and ordinary that we have even stopped noticing similar exaggerations in our everyday lives (please understand the word “exaggeration”, “exaggerated” in its exact meaning and not in the sense of reproach). Many examples could be given from which it would be clear that we hold exaggerated views on many subjects. A book given to someone for success and behavior is more valuable to him than a book purchased; a thing bequeathed by a father is more expensive than one purchased on the market. Paper money in itself, of course, is worth nothing, but it is worth more than its weight in gold. This depends on the availability of gold in the state treasury. In the same way, the gift bequeathed by Christ just before His suffering has the highest value as the gift of the Redeemer of mankind, richest in His merit.
Therefore, so to speak, any deviation from the highest point, from the thought of transubstantiation, should have seemed and seemed to be a decrease in the value of the gift bequeathed by Christ and at the same time the redemptive merit of Christ.
The key to understanding Christ's words should be found in His speech after feeding the five thousand with five loaves (John 6). Externally, the words of Christ could be related to the Jewish formula, which was pronounced in response to the question: “What is this?” “This is the body of the lamb that our fathers ate in Egypt.” Christ himself, apparently, did not eat bread or drink wine from the cup, although John Chrysostom claims the opposite (τὸ ἑαυτοῦ αἷμα αὐτός ἔπιεν). The word ἄρτον serves as an addition to four verbs - λαβών, εὐλογήσας, ἔκλασεν and δούς.
Matthew 26:27. And taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them and said, “Drink from it, all of you,
(Cf. Mark 14:23; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25).
As stated above, the use of wine during the Passover supper among the Jews was not the original institution, but came into use later, but before the time of Christ. Three or four cups were usually filled. Which of them served to establish communion is difficult to determine; most likely the third. When the dishes were prepared and the company began to eat, the first cup was distributed, blessed by the owner with words of thanksgiving, and drank in order by those gathered (Luke 22:14-17). After this, after washing the hands, the holiday opened with everyone taking bitter herbs and eating, then some sections from the law, chosen in advance, were read. Then the second cup of wine was distributed, and the owner of the house, according to Ex. 12:26 et seq., explained to his son the purpose and meaning of the holiday; then - hallel (alleluia - Ps. 112-117), during which, at the end of the singing of Psalms 112-113, the cup was drunk (what was already sung in ancient times during the celebration of Passover, shows Is. 30:29). Only then followed the eating, with blessing, of broken mazzots and a baked lamb.
This was, in fact, a holiday, during which everyone reclined and ate and drank as desired. At the end of the meal, the host again washed his hands, thanked God for the given holiday and blessed the third cup, which was mainly called the cup of blessing (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16; Matthew 26:26 et seq.; Luke 22:19 et seq.), and drank it together with his comrades. Then the fourth cup was passed around, the hallel was again sung to the Psalm. 114–117, and the host blessed the cup with the words of Ps. 117:26 and drank it with the guests (cf. verse 29). The poor were supposed to have these four cups; those in need received them from society. Sometimes there was a fifth bowl, and at the same time the singing of Psalms 119–136 took place - by choice.
“Why,” notes Theophylact, “he didn’t say above: “take, eat everything,” but here he said: “drink from it all”? Some say that Christ said this for the sake of Judas, since Judas, having taken the bread, did not eat it, but hid it to show the Jews that Jesus calls the bread His flesh; he drank the cup reluctantly, not being able to hide it. Therefore, it is as if the Lord said: “drink, all of you.” Others interpret this in a figurative sense, namely: since not everyone can take solid food, but only those who are of perfect age, but everyone can drink, then for this reason he said here: “drink everyone,” because the simplest dogmas are common to everyone.” These words of Theophylact seem to be contrary to the teaching of the Roman Church, according to which the laity is forbidden to drink from the cup. “Everyone” - this word probably referred primarily to the apostles present at the supper. But it undoubtedly applies to all Christians. The word ποτήριον in Matthew and Mark is placed without an article (according to the best readings), in Luke and the Apostle Paul - with an article (τὸ ποτήριον).
Matthew 26:28. for this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(Cf. Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25).
Christ's words are somewhat reminiscent of Ex. 24:8 and Zech. 9:11, but only in form. It is highly doubtful whether He spoke here in quotations from the Old Testament. The word τοῦτο does not refer to ποτήριον and is correctly rendered in Russian. Of course, it was impossible to say about the cup itself that “this” is My Blood, but about what was contained in the cup, i.e. about wine. Γάρ shows that the speech in this verse serves as proof of the previous one: drink everything from it, because (γάρ) the wine poured into the cup is My Blood. The meaning of this expression is the same as about bread.
The word “new” is not found in the best codices, but it appears in ACD, minuscule and translations. Διαθήκη means, in general, a will in case of death; among the Greeks it was used in the singular and plural. The Hebrew word “beret” actually means an agreement, a condition, an alliance. In the Seventy this word is constantly translated through διαθήκη, with the exception of 1 Kings 11:11; Deut.9:15, but other Hebrew words are translated with the same word. The word used by Christ does not mean covenant, condition, or contract. It means, in fact, the location (such as the location of a camp or army), structure, position of the foundation for a future building. The figurative meaning may even be that “this is the blood of the Kingdom I am establishing, the blood of My religion.” This blood is shed for many—for everyone. Περὶ πολλῶν, ἀντὶ τοῦ, ὑπὲρ πολλῶν... Πολλοὺς γὰρ τοὺς πάντας ἐνταῦθα καλεῖ (about many instead of for many... for here Zigavin calls everyone many). In Mark and Luke, as well as in the Apostle Paul, the expressions are similar in meaning, but different in form.
The Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 11:25) literally repeats only part of Luke's words, without adding τό ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυόμενον. The blood of Christ is shed for the remission of sins. These words are not found in other synoptics, neither in Paul nor in Justin (Apologia, I, 66), where the establishment of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is discussed. The assumption that these words are authentic and strongly proven, but cannot be considered the words of Christ, but are only an interpretation that has come down from tradition, cannot be accepted. The expression that the blood of Christ is shed for the remission of sins is full of the deepest meaning and cannot be attributed to anyone other than Christ Himself.
“When the law was given at Sinai,” says Tzan, “there was no lack of sacrifice, Ex. 24:11, but drinking sacrificial blood would have seemed monstrous to every Israeli. Despite the annexation of the entire (new Christian) institution to the Passover festival and the comparison of His death with the sacrifice established in the law of Moses, Jesus rises above all analogies of the Old Testament cult.” The establishment of the New Covenant was foretold in Jeremiah 31:31–34. The thought of Christ is explained in detail in the 7th and 9th chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Matthew 26:29. But I tell you that from now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink new wine with you in the kingdom of My Father.
Instead of Matthew's δέ, Mark has ἀμήν; instead of οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπ´ ἄρτι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήματος , in Mark – ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήματος “with you” Mark skips; instead of the last expression τοῦ πατρός μου, Mark has τοῦ θεοῦ. Otherwise the expressions are the same. The words of Christ are very difficult to explain. Their direct meaning is that He will not drink wine with the disciples until His resurrection. The question of whether Christ drank wine with his disciples at the supper itself can be answered in the affirmative, because this was required when eating the Passover lamb by Jewish rites (but not by law). But He undoubtedly did not drink the Eucharistic cup at the establishment of the Sacrament of Communion, because it is difficult to imagine that He drank His own Blood. All the terms used in establishing the Sacrament point precisely to this. Whether Christ drank new wine with His disciples after His resurrection, information about this is so scarce that nothing positive can be said.
The only place where we can get an indication of this is contained in Acts 10:41, but this place has too general and unclear a meaning for anything to be deduced from it. Perhaps, therefore, that the words of Christ in the verse under analysis are simply a solemn farewell to the disciples, where the idea is figuratively expressed that this close communication with them at the evening is the last and will not happen again until the time of His resurrection, when a completely new relationship will begin between Him and His disciples. According to Luke (Luke 22:18), these words were spoken by Christ before the establishment of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Matthew 26:30. And having sung, they went to the Mount of Olives.
(Cf. Mark 14:26; Luke 22:39; John 14:3).
After the words set forth in the previous verse were spoken, Christ continued the speech, which is set out in John 13:33-38 and then Luke 22:31-38, and the last part of John 13:38 coincides in content with Luke 22:34. Then a long speech was given to the disciples, set out in John 14:1–17:26. The weather forecasters here come into contact with John only at a few points, and one of them seems to be the present verse. Other matches will be noted below. This is the most likely order of events.
‘Υ´μνος, ὑμνέω were used by the ancient Greeks to designate songs of praise in honor of the gods. The main characteristics of a hymn are singing and praise. The Church initially avoided using this word, as well as templum, because it was reminiscent of pagan worship. But then the word “anthem” received citizenship rights. Hymnus scitis quid est: cantus est cum laude Dei. Si laudas Deum et non cantas, non dicis hymnum. Si cantas et non laudas Deum, non dicis hymnum. Si laudas aliquid, quod non pertinet ad laudem Dei, et si cantando laudes, non dicis hymnum (know what a hymn is, it is a song of praise to God. If you praise God and do not sing, then this is not a hymn. If you sing, but do not praise God, then this is not a hymn. If you praise something that does not relate to the praise of God, then even if you praise with singing, it is is not an anthem). The Jews, as stated above, had a certain “halleluia” when eating the Passover lamb. It is unknown whether Jesus Christ Himself took part in the singing. Saepe orasse in mundo Jesum legimus; cecinisse, nunquam (we read that Jesus Christ often prayed in the world, but we never read about it for Him to sing). But Justin the Martyr (“Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew,” 106) says that the Savior took part in the singing. It was not necessary to stay in Jerusalem all night during the Passover celebration.
Just as the first Passover was accompanied by the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, so the New Testament Passover ended with the exodus of Christ and His disciples from Jerusalem.”
Matthew 26:31. Then Jesus said to them: You will all be offended because of Me this night, for it is written: I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered;
(Cf. Mark 14:27; John 16:31–32).
The coming night indicates a horror that the disciples will not be able to withstand. This night will be a time of temptation even for the closest disciples of Christ; they will be scattered just as sheep are scattered when the shepherd is stricken. The disciples will all be scattered. Reference to Zechariah 13:7. In the quotations of the evangelists, only the thought of the original is briefly conveyed, but in the expressions there is no similarity either with the Hebrew original or with the translation of the Seventy. “Strike” among the evangelists is replaced by the word “smite,” because if the first word had been used, then the words of Christ would not have applied to the present case. According to Alford, the quotation is taken literally from the Alexandrian text of the translation of the Seventy, with only πάταξον being replaced by the word πατάξω. Fui sxandalizantur, non in die sxandalizantur, sed in noxte illa in fua proditur Xhristus (Those who are offended are not offended by day, but on the night in which Christ is betrayed) (Origen). Πάντες ὑμεῖς - with the exception of Judas, who was not with the disciples. Wed. Ps.68.
Matthew 26:32. After My resurrection I will go before you to Galilee.
The words of the evangelists are almost literally similar. Προάγω means “to lead forward”, “to bring out”, “to precede”, “to anticipate”, “to get ahead of someone”. The prediction about the phenomena in and around Jerusalem is omitted. All the disciples (except Judas) were from Galilee, and Jesus Christ indicates to them that He will meet them or appear to them in their homeland.
(Cf. Matthew 28:10; Mark 16:7; John 21:1.)
Matthew 26:33. Peter answered and said to Him, “Even if everyone is offended because of You, I will never be offended.”
People usually think that these words were a consequence of Peter’s self-confidence. It is much better and more correct to explain them as an expression of love for Christ. Judging by the fact that Luke places Christ’s conversation with Peter before they went out to the Mount of Olives (Luke 22:31–34; cf. Luke 22:39), we can think that Peter expressed his devotion to Christ more than once. Peter's statement was the opposite of all the actions and behavior of the traitor. Οὐδέποτε - never, and not just this one night.
Matthew 26:34. Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.”
(Cf. Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34).
All weather forecasters have a difference in time readings. According to Matthew, there will be threefold denial before the rooster crows; according to Mark - it will be before the rooster crows twice; Luke generally agrees with Matthew, but instead of the positive three times (τρίς) - up to three times (ἕως τρίς; in the Russian translation of Luke is inaccurate). Here is just an approximate indication of the time of renunciation - the earliest, morning rooster crowing (see comments on Matthew 20:3). This was one of the Jews' ways of determining time. And, probably, the words of Christ were not understood in a different sense. There was a lot of mockery about the heteroglossia of the evangelists. But the whole matter can be explained by the fact that Matthew and Luke express themselves more briefly, and Mark more fully. In a prophetic prediction or in its presentation, in any case, one cannot demand such accuracy as is desired by many critics. There was a lot of speculation about whether there were roosters in Jerusalem or not. They said that among the Jews they were rare, but the Jews could not prevent the Romans from keeping them.
Here we will only say that if neither the Jews nor the Romans had any roosters in Jerusalem, then even then Christ’s prediction and its fulfillment would not have lost any of their power. The main purpose of the prediction directed against Peter's statements about devotion to Christ is to prove that, despite his assurances, very soon, when the roosters crow, he will deny Him. The deep originality and, so to speak, completely unexpected turns of this entire event indicate its historical reality, which we can fully accept even regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of particular designations of the circumstances or details of this event.”
Matthew 26:35. Peter said to Him: Even though I had to die with You, I will not deny You. All the disciples said the same thing.
(Compare Mark 14:31 – with differences in expressions).
Wanting to discover his love, Peter here loses faith in the truth of Christ’s words and objects to Him only with the warmth of love. Peter's mistake was based on insufficient and inaccurate knowledge of the nature of upcoming events. Even death itself with Christ seemed less terrible to Peter than what soon happened in reality. The apostles declared their allegiance following the example of Peter. It can be assumed that the atrocity of Judas, who left the supper, is now at least partly explained to them and they hasten to express their protest against his actions, declaring that they will not act as Judas did. In the statements of Peter and the disciples one can see an indirect indication of what the personality of the Savior seemed to them. He was not an ordinary person in their eyes, but one with whom one could even die (σὺν σοὶ ἀποθανεῖν - Matthew, συναποθανεῖν σοι - Mark). A circumstance important for apologetics.
Matthew 26:36. Then Jesus comes with them to a place called Gethsemane, and says to the disciples: sit here while I go and pray there.
(Cf. Mark 14:32; Luke 22:40).
Jerome explains the word “Gethsemane” as vallis pinguissima (the most fertile valley), most likely derived from “get shemet” - an oil press. The place was on the western side of the Mount of Olives, below, and was the first place after leaving Jerusalem and crossing the Kidron stream. It was not fenced for a long time, but recently it was fenced in and a garden was planted. The fenced area currently occupies almost a quadrangle of approximately 23x21 square fathoms and is in the possession of Catholic monks, who are allowed into the garden and show it to travelers. There are currently eight old olive trees growing there. Probably, those olive trees that grew there at the time of Christ were cut down, and in their place new ones grew, which also aged. Near the Catholic Gethsemane, the same garden was built by the Greeks. Which place was really the place of Christ's prayers cannot be decided. But, approaching or entering the enclosed gardens, the traveler can be sure that he is on the site of the most sacred events of Christian history.
The word "Gethsemane" is spelled differently in Greek: Γεθσημανεί, -σημανί and -σημανή. Of these readings, the first is considered more likely.
“Sit here” – μείνατε, verse 38, “here” is the original Greek expression αὐτοῦ instead of ὧδε, as in the Seventy (Gen. 22:5; Acts 15:34, 18:19, 21:4). The adverb ἐκεῖ is more likely to refer to ἀπελθών - “having gone there” - ἐκεῖσε, and not to “I will pray there”, as in the Russian translation. The expression shows that, having left the disciples, the Savior went to a shadier part of Gethsemane to pray. “He used to pray without them,” i.e. without disciples (St. John Chrysostom). Since Easter was always celebrated by the Jews during the March full moon, one should think that the moon at that time illuminated Gethsemane with its quiet brilliance.”
Matthew 26:37. And, taking Peter and both sons of Zebedee with him, he began to grieve and yearn.
Mark names all three disciples, Peter, James and John. The 36th verse of Matthew sets forth Christ's intention, now His action, which consisted in moving away from the eight disciples along with the three most trusted ones who were with Him at the resurrection of Jairus' daughter and on the Mount of Transfiguration. He walked a little with them at first, and they could notice how sorrow, sorrow (λυπεῖσθαι) began to comprehend His soul, and He began to “yearn.” This last Russian word is accurate, but it does not express the entire meaning of the Greek ἀδημονεῖν. It comes from δῆμος with the negation ἀ and means, in fact, “to move away from the people,” “to hide,” “to hide, to be unsociable.” The meaning is that the Savior, being among people, seemed to be in a deserted desert and felt what people usually feel when they retire to distant countries from their fatherland - longing for their homeland. The Savior’s grief and longing were not, of course, in the proper sense longing for one’s homeland, but they were very similar to this difficult feeling that is characteristic of exiles from their beloved fatherland.
This is an extremely difficult and overwhelming feeling. It can be, they say, even completely unbearable, and a person sometimes sacrifices everything to return to his homeland. We will more clearly imagine how difficult this feeling was if we say that it was combined with a premonition of imminent death and was at the same time a “worldly sorrow”, which is characteristic of a few too refined and sublime natures. But generally speaking, we cannot comprehend the Savior’s sorrows and anguish in all their depth, because “we cannot emerge from our organic sphere, just as an eagle cannot rise above the atmosphere in which it flies.”
Matthew 26:38. Then Jesus said to them: My soul is sorrowful unto death; abide here and watch with Me.
Excessive sadness and sorrow are expressed in both evangelists in two words: περίλυπος - valde tristis and ἕως θανάτου - until death - as if such sorrow, which in itself can lead to death, is sorrow characteristic of all living beings when separated from life. It is not known whether there were any external manifestations of the Savior’s grief, other than the words He spoke, noticeable to the disciples, i.e. expressed in His outward appearance, or the disciples learned about His grief only after He told them about it. The invitation addressed to the disciples to stay close to Him in these difficult moments and to stay awake (γρηγορεῖτε - do not sleep) serves as an expression of the most severe grief, during which a person especially seeks the closeness of people to himself and cares about their special sympathy.
Matthew 26:39. And going away a little, he fell on his face, prayed and said: My Father! if possible, let this cup pass from Me; however, not as I want, but as You want.
(Cf. Mark 14:35; Luke 22:41).
Luke explains: he moved away from the disciples to the distance at which one could throw a stone - an approximate definition of the distance, quite understandable. At such a distance, the three disciples could not hear all the prayer words spoken by the Savior, but they were able to catch some moments of His prayer. Oddly enough, in many codices a word is used here that is completely opposite to the word “departing”, and means “coming up” (προσελθών) in Matthew and Mark. This was considered an error by the copyist, who here inserted an extra σ and wrote προσελθών instead of προελθών (as in BMPS, Vulgate and Syro-Sinaitic). Consequently, according to some readings, the expression does not mean that the Savior moved away from the disciples a little, but that he approached them a little. It is not easy to consider this expression a scribal error, because σ is found in two evangelists. One might therefore think that the Savior, having moved away to a distance at which one could throw a stone, then again approached the disciples a little.
This interpretation reconciles the testimony of Matthew and Mark with the testimony of Luke, who speaks only of removal (ἐπισπάσθη). It is clear that μικρόν (a little) can only refer to προσελθών, and not to ἔπεσεν. During His prayer, the Savior “fell on His face,” i.e. fell to the ground and, perhaps, prostrated himself, although this latter cannot necessarily be concluded from ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ (Matthew) or ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (indicating a repeated fall on land - Mark). Both of these expressions can be understood to mean that He only bowed his knees (Luke) and bowed his face to the ground. Whether the Savior repeated the same words during His prayer or added others is unknown. The three disciples to whom they were heard retained only what was stated in the verse and parallels being analyzed. The Savior prayed that, if possible, He would not undergo suffering, which He calls “the cup of suffering” (see comments on Matthew 20:22). But at the same time He rejects, so to speak, the action of His own human will and wants everything to be as it pleases the Father.
Matthew 26:40. And he comes to the disciples and finds them sleeping, and says to Peter: Could you not watch with Me for one hour?
Instead of προσέρχεται (“comes”), now both evangelists simply have ἔρχεται – “goes.” “And” is repeated three times in Matthew and Mark: “and he goes,” “and finds,” “and speaks.” In this repetition they see the “simple pathos” of the gospel story. In all likelihood, the disciples initially followed Christ’s prayer with tension. But as a result of this very tension, their fatigue increased even more during a sleepless and terrible night. The eyes of Christ's friends are heavy with sorrow (Luke 22:45), and this was while His enemies were awake. Approaching the disciples, the Lord turns to Peter. He, more than anyone else, could show Him sympathy, support and console Him during the grave agony of death. But, turning to Peter, He says to all the disciples: “Couldn’t you?”, i.e. So, do you really lack the strength, patience, and self-control to keep yourself from sleeping? The word “so” indicates the contrast between what actually was and what should have been. The disciples should have been awake, but instead they slept.
There is no shadow of reproaches or accusations in the speech, but rather the same sadness and sorrow are expressed in it. Μίαν ὤραν - “one hour” - is considered to indicate that Christ prayed for one hour. But this word should be taken in the general sense of a short time, although it is possible that Christ prayed for about an hour.
Matthew 26:41. Watch and pray, lest you fall into temptation: the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
The simplest, completely laconic and alien to any reproach explanation of the condition of the students. They fell asleep, but they needed to stay awake and pray. They were faced with temptation. Staying awake would force them to be on guard, and prayer would become a tool for them to repel temptations. Advice to all people who are threatened by temptation. The spirit itself is always cheerful, but it yields to the weakness of the flesh. It is not the spirit, but the flesh that causes a person’s temptation. The Savior Himself at this time was subjected to a strong temptation - to pass by the cup of suffering that the Heavenly Father gave Him to drink. Submission to the will of the Father, vigilance and prayer protected Him from agreeing to this temptation.”
Matthew 26:42. Again, going away another time, he prayed, saying: My Father! If this cup cannot pass from Me, lest I drink it, Thy will be done.
Now Matthew and Mark have ἀπελθών instead of προσελθών, as in verse 44. The disciples woke up and were abandoned again. “Another time” seems to some to be a pleonasm, a repetition of the word “more.” But if we were to omit the expression, then one would think that Christ approached the disciples and left them several times. Mark, however, misses this expression. But Matthew wants to be particularly precise in this case. The words “this cup” are not found in the best manuscripts. Instead of them, “this” (τοῦτο): “if this cannot pass Me by...”. According to Mark, the Savior’s words were the same as He had spoken the first time. But, according to Zigavin, εἰκός δὲ καὶ ἐκεῖνον (i.e. word), καὶ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν (apparently, said both), i.e. both the first words and those set forth in Matthew. Now this prayer contains a request addressed to God, not so much for Christ to pass the cup of suffering, but for the fulfillment of the very will of God. The prayer is similar to the third petition of the Lord's Prayer.
Matthew 26:43. And when he came, he found them sleeping again, for their eyes were heavy.
(Cf. Mark 14:40; Luke 22:45).
Mark has minor changes in speech and the addition: “and they did not know what to answer Him.” The fact that these words of Luke and subsequent ones refer precisely to this moment of suffering in Gethsemane seems more likely than attributing them to the initial moments of prayer.
Matthew 26:44. And leaving them, he went away again and prayed a third time, saying the same word.
Mark does not say that the prayer was three times. But, according to Mark 14:41, the Savior returns to the disciples “for the third time.” In the prayer for the fulfillment of the Father's will, agreement was expressed to surrender Himself into the hands of death, which was the path of Christ's return to the bosom of the Father. Repeated returns to his students testified, as it were, to his love for the life he was leaving behind. Tsang compares these actions of Christ with the oscillations of a magnetic needle, which, being deflected from the pole, after some time after trembling and oscillating, again becomes motionless and indicates in which direction the pole is located. One cannot think that during prayer Christ repeated the same words.
Matthew 26:45. Then He comes to His disciples and says to them: Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is being delivered into the hands of sinners;
(Cf. Mark 14:41; Luke 22:45–46).
Some considered Christ's words “you still sleep and rest” as irony, reproach and sarcasm. We cannot agree with this, because it is absolutely incredible that the Savior would begin to be ironic or express himself sarcastically at such important and solemn moments of His suffering. Τὸ λοιπόν, found in Matthew and Mark, means “to the end”, “finally”, “however” (in the Russian translation - “still”; in the Vulgate - jam). It is quite difficult to express the Greek speech here in other languages, and therefore the expression is translated differently, and sometimes not translated at all. Evfimy Zigavin arbitrarily adds εἰ δύνασθε - if you can, sleep and rest. Some considered this speech interrogative.
Meaning: the end has come, there is very little time left. Sleep and rest! Then a quick and unexpected turn of phrase: “behold, the hour has come!” The word ἰδού indicates the surprise and importance of upcoming events; it is used twice, in this and the next verse. But its meaning in both verses is not the same. This indicates the importance of the moment when the Son of Man is given into the hands of sinners.
Matthew 26:46. Arise, let us go: behold, he who betrayed Me has drawn near.
The opposite of the speech of the previous verse: sleep and rest. Now: awaken, arise (ἐγείρεσθε). The words set forth in verses 45-46 were undoubtedly spoken simultaneously and without interval. Inimitable realism in depicting the rapid change of historical events. Ἄγωμεν instead of πορευώμασθε - among the Greeks, the word was often used by generals as a military term when it was necessary to call soldiers to fight, exploits and suffering.
Matthew 26:47. And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the elders of the people.
(Cf. Mark 14:43; Luke 22:47; John 18:3).
All weather forecasters repeat the expression “one in twelve.” As if it seemed especially amazing to them, incongruous and extremely monstrous! The secretly prepared betrayal of Judas now turns into his open activity. Judas became the leader. As can be seen from a comparison of gospel notes scattered in different places, he led a detachment of a Roman cohort with a chiliarch (σπεῖρα - John 18:3, 12), high priestly servants and slaves. It is possible that some of the high priests and elders themselves were present here, if we take the words of Luke (Luke 22:52) literally. Matthew calls this entire crowd ὄχλος πολύς (“multitude of people”), and Mark and Luke simply ὄχλος. A large crowd was obviously necessary because failure was feared due to popular indignation. Private (non-military) individuals were added to the Roman cohort in order to obviously give this entire crowd a more impressive appearance. Perhaps only the soldiers from the Roman cohort were armed with swords; the rest walked with sticks or clubs (ξύλα, φυστεσ).
John adds: “with lanterns and lamps.”
Matthew 26:48. He who betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying: Whomever I kiss is He, take Him.
Mark adds: “and drive carefully.” Some asked the question why Judas gave the sign when Christ was well known to everyone. Origen gives a very original answer to this question: “The tradition has reached us that He (Jesus Christ) had two appearances: one - the one in which He appeared to everyone, and the other - during His Transfiguration before the disciples on the mountain, when His face shone like the sun. Moreover, everyone saw Him as they were worthy to see. And when He Himself (here) was, He seemed to many to be not Himself. Therefore, although He was often seen by the crowd walking with Judas, it was necessary, because of His Transfiguration, for Judas to point to Him.” Pointing to John 18:4–6, Origen remarks: “You see that He was not recognized, although He was often seen, due to His Transfiguration.” We do not think that to explain the sign given by Judas it is necessary to resort to such an interpretation. An indication or sign was required simply because it was night, Jesus Christ was not alone, and the very place where He was found, perhaps, provided the possibility of escape.
The sign of Judas can therefore be viewed as a simple precaution and precision, eliminating any possibility of error. So that there is no mistake, - this is how Judas could say to the crowd accompanying him, - take the one whom I kiss. It was a sign that surpassed all other signs in its clarity and certainty. But, not considering Origen’s opinion suitable for explaining the reasons for the sign given by Judas, we can, however, fully admit that Origen’s words have a very deep meaning. Not only Christians, but also pagans knew and know about Christ. But He appears to everyone in thousands of different forms, according to education and development, mental and moral. One can even say that each person carries his own Christ in his soul. Remaining one and the same, He appears in different forms to men and women, healthy and sick, rich and poor, learned and simple. The tradition to which Origen refers could only be a reflex of this highly remarkable, easily understood and historical fact.
If Christ possesses such power, exceeding to the highest degree the power of other famous and famous personalities in history in the spiritual sphere, then it cannot be completely denied that, while in the flesh, He also appeared to different persons under different appearances, and they either recognized Him or did not recognize Him (cf. Matt. 14:26; Mark 6:49; Luke 7:49; John 1:10).
Ἔδωκεν (“gave”) – dedit, probably at the very approach to Christ or a little earlier. It was more of an improvised sign than a premeditated and agreed sign.
Matthew 26:49. And immediately approaching Jesus, he said: Rejoice, Rabbi! And kissed Him.
(Cf. Mark 14:45; Luke 22:47). Luke's speech is shorter than that of other weather forecasters. They miss the entire story of John 18:4–9.
According to the Russian translation, “immediately” refers to “coming up.” Meyer explains: immediately after Judas gave the sign. In the Syro-Sinaitic Code the order is slightly changed, first talking about kissing, then about greeting. The words "and kissed Him" are omitted from the Codex Alexandrinus. What happened is well expressed by Mark: “And when he came, he immediately approached Him and said: Rabbi!” (once - according to the best readings) “and kissed Him.” The evangelists generally point to the speed of Judas’ actions, but the smallest details of the event are difficult to determine based on their testimony. The verb κατεφίλησεν (kissed) is different from φιλήσω (kissed) used in verse 48 and is not expressed in Russian and other translations. It’s better to convey its meaning like this: “kissed” - maybe several times, but most likely only once, and the kissing was not only visible to everyone, but also heard. Judas seemed to smack while kissing Christ. What a contrast this is to any true, unhypocritical kissing that comes from love! What deep and undoubted truthfulness of the story!
Who could invent something simpler and at the same time, in a few words, so well express the entire depth of human fall! It would not be surprising if the “kiss of Judas” became a proverb. In a nutshell, there is a whole psychological essay, a whole moral system. On the one hand, Judas wants to cover up his spiritual baseness and extreme meanness with his kiss. On the other hand, kissing - a sign of love - becomes a symbol of the most terrible betrayal and malice. Anyone who thinks about this will say that this happens, and even very often in real life. The word “rejoice” (χαῖρε) was a common greeting and in meaning is quite equal to our “hello!”
Matthew 26:50. Jesus said to him, “Friend, why have you come?” Then they came and laid their hands on Jesus and took Him.
(Cf. Mark 14:46; Luke 22:48).
In the Russian translation, the speech is interrogative: “Why did you come?” When interpreting this verse, very serious philological difficulties are encountered. It has been proven that if the speech were interrogative, then instead of ἐφ´ ὅ πάρει there would be ἐπὶ τί πάρει, and no exceptions have been found from this in the monuments of Greek literature that have reached us. On this basis, Christ’s speech to Judas in no case (contrary to Russian and other translations) can be considered interrogative. And based on internal considerations, it is clear that the Savior could not ask Judas such a question, could not ask him why he came, because this was, without a doubt, well known to Christ. But if this speech is not interrogative, then only one subordinate clause is obtained without the main one: “why did you come?” To explain this, they resorted to various guesses and assumptions. Blass (Gram., S. 172) considers it absolutely incredible to use ὅστις or ὅς in a direct question, except in cases where ὅ, τι - “why” - is apparently put instead of τί. So in Matthew 9:11, 28; Matthew 2:16, etc.
Despite this statement, however, Blass says that ἑταῖρε is a corrupted αί῀ρε - “take what you came for.” This opinion, however, seems to be an unfounded guess, because the reading ἑταῖρε, ἐφ´ ὃ πάρει is strongly proven. In the Elsevier edition: ἑταῖρε, ἐφ´ ὃ πάρει - this reading should be rejected, although Chrysostom, Theophylact and others accept it (Jerome has an interrogative sentence, as in the Vulgate: amice, ad quid venisti?). Euthymius Zigavin notes that ἐφ´ ᾧ πάρει should be read not as an interrogative sentence, for the Savior knew why Judas came, but as a proclamation, for it means: do what you came for (implied πράττε) according to your intention, leaving the veil. Finally, some understood the expression as an exclamation: friend, what are you coming or appearing for! Πάρει can be derived from εἰμί and from ἰέναι (Tsang). It seems most likely that there is simply unspoken speech, after which an ellipsis could be placed.
The meaning is that Jesus Christ had not yet finished speaking His words to Judas, when the soldiers approached and laid hands on Christ. With this interpretation, further speech can only be implied, but what exactly is meant is very difficult to say.
The word ἑταῖρε (“comrade”, “friend”, in Luke 22:48 - Jude) is used not in the sense that Christ wanted to call Judas His friend or comrade, but as a simple address that we use in relation to persons unknown to us: “dear”, etc. Luke added: “Do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?” - an expression that also can not be considered interrogative: “Judas, you betray the Son of Man with a kiss” - a simple statement of fact and denunciation of Judas for his hypocritical act.
At the sign given by Judas, those who arrived quickly approached, laid their hands on Jesus Christ, undoubtedly bound them (John 18:12), took them and led them with them.
Matthew 26:51. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus, stretching out his hand, drew his sword, and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear.
(Cf. Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50; John 18:10).
The weather forecasters express themselves vaguely - one of them, someone, someone who was with Jesus, etc. But John here names Peter. This silence is seen as one of the proofs of the early origin of the Synoptic Gospels, when directly mentioning the name of Peter was dangerous. Peter's action is quite consistent with his usual ardor and intemperance. But where did he get the sword (μάχαιρα - all evangelists)? Did only Peter have a sword, or did the other apostles also? Did all of them or only Peter carry their swords with the permission of Christ or only, so to speak, without His knowledge? These are the most difficult questions. But however we explain this passage, we must firmly establish in advance that there is not the slightest approval of the death penalty here, contrary to the opinions of various modern scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites, because even from a purely a priori point of view, it cannot in any case be admitted that Christ, even if only in exceptional cases, ever approved of the death penalty.
Chrysostom and others explained the presence of the sword on Peter by saying that it was not a sword, but simply a knife needed for the slaughter of the Paschal lamb, taken by Peter from the Paschal supper. This opinion is the only one that can be accepted. The word used here is μάχαιρα Lat. culter, heb. “cherev” means, first of all, a knife, which was used when slaughtering sacrificial animals, then a dagger and generally a short sword, and a large and wide sword was called ῥομφαία. In all likelihood, Peter alone - but hardly John, who prepared the Easter supper with Peter (Luke 22:8) - took this knife with him without asking Jesus Christ, since otherwise it would have been difficult to explain Christ’s further words in the 52nd and subsequent verses. The knife was taken, of course, not for military purposes, but in case of danger - foresight, very characteristic of Peter. When taking Christ, Peter wanted to defend himself, without reasoning that it was useless.
He, stretching out or stretching out his hand, “drew a sword” - probably not from its sheath, but tied - the expression in John 18:11, "sheath" (in Matthew - "place") can generally mean any place where you can put a knife (θήκη) - and struck the high priest's servant, perhaps with the intention of cutting off or cutting his head, but, obviously, he missed and I only cut off his ear. “Ear” in Greek is not οὖς, but (in Matthew and John – ὠτίον, in Mark – ὠτάριον) a diminutive of οὖς and actually means “ear”. Diminutives ( τὰ ῥυνία - spouts, τὸ ὀμμάτιον - peephole, στηθίδιον - breast, χελύνιον - sponge, σαρκίον or σαρκίδιον - little body, piece of meat) were often used in Greek folk speech.
Matthew 26:52. Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword;
(Cf. Luke 22:51; John 18:11).
The Savior commands Peter to leave his knife unused. The following is the reason why this is so. Alford considers “they shall perish by the sword” a commandment and says that here is not only the future, but also the imperative future: let them perish or must perish by the sword. With such an interpretation, the meaning of Christ’s words would be clear, but in the original there is no imperative mood of the future tense. Hilary says: “Not everyone who carries a sword is usually killed by the sword. Many die from fever or from some other case - those who use the sword either as judges or due to the need to resist robbers.” Augustine found it difficult to interpret these words. Others think that there is a general idea here, reminiscent of the ancient law of revenge (Gen. 9:6), or a popular expression (proverb), according to which everyone is punished by his shortcomings (cf. Rev. 13:10).
These words cannot be attributed only to Peter, because - regardless of their general meaning - there is no doubt that Peter never after that raised a sword against anyone and, however, he himself died from the sword; or that the saying referred to the Jews who died from the sword of the Romans, because in this very crowd that took Christ, it was the Romans who probably wielded swords. There is nothing left but to understand the expression only in a general sense, and if we open the Old Testament Bible, we will find many similar general sayings, for example, in Sirach, in Proverbs, etc., which cannot be taken in a completely unconditional sense, not allowing any exceptions. Likewise, the words of Christ admit of many exceptions, without ceasing to be completely true in their general meaning. What is certain is that Christ, speaking His words, forbade all people to have a sword and use it as a defense or to carry out violence.
The old man’s deviations from this truth due to necessity or any other reasons can have dangerous consequences for himself - by raising the sword, he εο ιπσο approves of the raising of it by others, and this can fall on his own head.”
Matthew 26:53. or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will present to Me more than twelve legions of Angels?
Only in Matthew. Literally: “Do you really think that I cannot call on My Father and He will not place around Me more than twelve legions of Angels?” The word “beg” is not its own translation of the Greek verb παρακαλέω, composed of παρά - “y” (meaning closeness) and καλέω - “I call”, which means I call someone to myself so that the one being called is close. “Pray”, “beg” is expressed by another verb - προσεύχεσθαι, which is used specifically to denote prayer. The entire sentence should be considered interrogative, and not just ending with the words “My Father.” But the last half of the verse has more of an affirmative than a questioning meaning. “Twelve” is put in correspondence not so much with the number of apostles, of whom there were now eleven, but with the number of apostles along with Jesus Christ Himself. The meaning is that, according to Peter, twelve persons could now come out against the people who came out to take Christ. But, says the Savior, neither He nor the apostles need any protection.
If protection were required, then twelve legions of Angels would be sent by God. Legion is a detachment of Roman troops of up to 6,000 people. It is clear that Christ’s expression should be understood in the general sense that a great multitude of Angels would come to His defense. “Now” is placed in some manuscripts before “beg” (as in the Russian translation) and after the words “will provide” in others. The latter reading is more likely (as in the Vulgate - modo). The word was probably inserted before “beg” because it seemed inappropriate to the scribes that Christ could not immediately beg the Father and not say anything about it.
Matthew 26:54. How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, that this must be so?
(Compare John 18:11 (end) - in different expressions and on almost a different subject).
The sentence is interrogative, although some thought differently. The reference is not to individual passages of Scripture, but to all of Scripture (cf. Luke 24:44). The consciousness of Christ in such moments, when He was led to suffering, that it was now and precisely on Him that the words of Scripture were fulfilled, is unusual for ordinary people.
Matthew 26:55. At that hour Jesus said to the people, “It is as if you came out against a thief with swords and staves to take Me; Every day I sat with you, teaching in the church, and you did not take Me.
(Cf. Mark 14:48–49; Luke 22:52–53).
John notes that “the soldiers and the captain and the officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound Him” (John 18:12). The words cited by the weather forecasters were probably spoken during the journey to Jerusalem, as indicated by the vague designation of time used in Matthew (“at that hour”), i.e. at the hour when Christ was taken and bound. A bitter reproach can be heard in the words of Christ. The very first reproach was that He was “counted among the evildoers” (Is. 53:12). But He was not a λῃστής, a robber. This is strongly expressed in the words “I sat” (ἐκαθεζόμην), which, on the one hand, indicate the custom of Christ to teach in the church “sitting”, and on the other hand, the complete opposite of His peaceful and calm activity - the activity of the robbers, mobile, secret and full of dangers. Such exposure of all the nonsense of what had been done did not and could not influence the people who took Christ, because they were simple executors of the highest commands, both in a very narrow (the commands of the high priests) and in the broadest (the commands of God) sense.
But if the words of Christ were not edifying for those around Him (although perhaps not unconditionally), then they are deeply edifying for us. How often has it happened that people who were engaged in completely peaceful activities were opposed with weapons and darts! Luke adds: “but now is your time and the power of darkness.”
Matthew 26:56. All this happened so that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left Him and fled.
Speech in Mark: καὶ οὐκ ἐκρατήσατέ με ἀλλ´ ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί (and you did not take Me, but let the Scriptures be fulfilled) shows that the words in Matthew were spoken by Christ Himself, and are not an interpolated remark by the evangelist. This understanding is natural. First, the Savior told the disciples that the Scriptures should be fulfilled in Him (verse 54); now He speaks to the people accompanying Him about the same thing and in almost the same words. Both there and here there is no reference to certain passages of Scripture. By “writings of the prophets” is meant the entire Old Testament. Ὅλον (all) shows that Christ's words applied to all the events of His taking into custody.
Seeing the futility of resistance and feeling fear, the disciples fled. This flight indirectly shows how terrible and serious the events that followed were and how terrible were those people into whose hands Christ was delivered. From the Gospels it is not clear that at the very beginning of the capture of Christ anyone touched or even suspected the disciples of anything. However, they were attacked by such horror that they considered it necessary to flee. All the students fled, not excluding the most devoted ones. Christ remained alone among His enemies. This was predicted by Him (Matthew 26:31). The fulfillment of the prediction bears such internal and external signs of historical authenticity that only a few can doubt the reality of the events being transmitted. Mark (Mark 14:51–52) here has an additional story about a young man who followed Christ.
Matthew 26:57. And those who took Jesus took Him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and elders had gathered.
(Cf. Mark 14:53; Luke 22:54; John 18:13–14).
John testifies clearly that at first Jesus Christ was taken to the high priest Anna. But whether the first interrogation was with Anna is doubtful. Anna was formerly a high priest, but now he was supernumerary and was in retirement, as stated above. Both of them, Annas and Caiaphas, were evil people and, apparently, completely insignificant. It is not known whether those who took Christ wanted to express their respect for Anna by their action, or whether he took an active part in Christ’s conspiracy and everything was done according to his orders. Annas sent the bound Christ to his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas, where, according to Matthew, “scribes and elders” gathered, according to Mark - “high priests and elders and scribes,” and Luke mentions only the house of the high priest. This was an informal meeting of the Sanhedrin at night. Annas and Caiaphas probably lived in the same courtyard, although in different houses.”
Matthew 26:58. Peter followed Him from afar, to the courtyard of the high priest; and going inside, he sat down with the servants to see the end.
(Cf. Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54–55; John 18:15–16).
John here provides vivid eyewitness details of how Peter managed to enter the courtyard of the high priest. Initially, the students ran away. They, of course, could not run away somewhere far. When the panic had passed and they saw that they themselves had nothing to fear, then, under the cover of darkness, some of them at least made their way unnoticed into Jerusalem, and they even managed to enter the very courtyard of the high priest. These were Peter and John. Nothing was heard about the rest until the time of the Resurrection. Peter probably especially wanted to know what the end would be. Wanting to see him, he allows actions that, one might say, were more acts of love and devotion than strictly deliberate ones.
It is very difficult to explain the further order of events presented by the evangelists here. If we follow Luke (Luke 22:56–62), then the further event was the denial of Peter (Matt. 26:69–75; Mark 14:66–72). If Matthew and Mark, then Matthew 26:58 and Mark 14:54–55 should be considered as an introduction to the further tragedy of Peter’s denial, now interrupted by the interrogation of Christ. We will naturally follow Matthew's account.
Matthew 26:59. The chief priests and elders and the entire Sanhedrin sought false testimony against Jesus in order to put Him to death,
The word "elders" is not found in the best codices, nor is it found in Mark, whose account is similar but not literal. The word was probably originally written in the margins and then passed into the text. Speaking about this event, Merckx argues: “Why did they (i.e., Christ’s judges) need to look for false testimony when they were convinced that Jesus was guilty? False witnesses are invited earlier in order to act with certainty, but here everything seems to be a matter of chance. The Eastern ones know very well how to obtain evidence, even false ones. Ψευδομαρτυρία is an ancient (uralte) tendentious forgery that has penetrated into all Greek, Latin, Armenian and Memphite codes.” However, even when we first become acquainted with the testimony of the evangelists, we see that for them the whole matter seems to be implicitly completely natural. Initially, the enemies of Christ want to wait, to take Him after the holiday, so as not to cause popular unrest. But through the betrayal of Judas, they are given an unexpected and favorable opportunity to carry out their plan at the festival itself.
We must not forget that in order to be put to death, an affirmative verdict from Pilate was required. All this prompts them to immediately look for “false testimony.” It is necessary and cannot be done without it. Contrary to Merckx's opinion, it is difficult to provide and present a more vivid and clear picture of what was than what the evangelists did. Here anyone who knows what evil, dishonest, vile people are like will find a completely objective and accurate account of events. Everything forced the enemies of Christ to hurry, both in view of the approaching Easter Saturday and due to fears that the Accused would escape the punishment predetermined to Him. The meeting probably took place after 12 o'clock at night (according to our count), after eating the Passover lamb. It was forgotten, as is often forgotten under similar circumstances, that the Feast of Passover had arrived and that sporadic and unclear decrees of the oral and written law prescribed that nothing should be done on the Day of Unleavened Bread, which followed the Passover Supper.
All this is so deeply characteristic and understandable that it does not even require explanation.”
Matthew 26:60. and were not found; and, although many false witnesses came, they were not found. But finally two false witnesses came
It is obvious that, contrary to the desire of Christ’s enemies to get rid of Him with as little noise as possible, events had already begun to stir up this noise and threatened with a popular outbreak. “Much people came out to take Christ” (verse 47). This circumstance alone shows that it was impossible to hesitate and hide. The enemies of Christ now looked like people who had joined a moving crowd of people, which was gradually growing. They began to move with the crowd, not where they might have wanted, but where the crowd was moving. This movement of the crowd fully explains the appearance of πολλῶν προσελθόντων ψευδομαρτύρων - an expression that is explained in Mark, πολλὰ γὰρ Literally: many bore false witness against Him and These testimonies were not equal (to false evidence on the basis of which one could be sentenced to death). The crowd seemed to grasp the desires and intentions of their people's leaders. They didn't need anything except false witnesses. And the crowd immediately sends them out.
But they are worthless, their evidence is contradictory and does not lead to the goal. It is not known what these many false witnesses said. But if the evangelists had told us that as soon as Jesus Christ was brought to trial before the high priest, the false witnesses he had invited in advance immediately came forward and accused Him of crimes punishable by death, then we would probably not easily or quickly believe their stories. False witnesses were needed as soon as possible - but there were none! What is this if not the most real, genuine and unfalsified historical truth? But, finally (ὕστερον), two witnesses came forward, whose evidence, with this obvious false witness poverty and absurdities, could at least somewhat resemble the case and stop this hasty and tedious search for false evidence. Two witnesses were enough. This was according to the law (Deut. 19:15). Matthew’s expression in Greek (according to the best readings) is somewhat more characteristic than in the Russian text: “but finally two came (“false witnesses” are not in the original according to the best readings).” Wed. 1 Kings 21:13.
Matthew 26:61. and they said: He said: I can destroy the church of God and build it in three days.
In three days - for the duration (διά) of three days. Matthew's speech is short, simple and laconic. But in Mark you can even hear (in Greek) how the false witness language is being woven here. The invited false witnesses had to speak before the highest people's leaders. Naturally, if they became embarrassed and spoke awkwardly, rudely and discordantly. The witnesses themselves once heard Christ’s speech to the Jews (John 2:19), and they themselves found it amazing and strange that He declared that such a huge building could be built in three days! Those who sought false witnesses and brought false testimony brought charges against Christ of deviating from the truth. False witnesses present the speech of Christ (John 2:19) in their own words, completely different from how it is presented by the evangelist. But they convey the essence of the matter quite accurately. It is clear that the witnesses were from a simple crowd and probably did not stand at the same legal height as the assembled judges themselves. The latter could bring more serious charges against Christ, of course, from their own point of view.
They might accuse Him of, for example, breaking the Sabbath or casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. But, being judges, they could not be witnesses and therefore do not make accusations that are incomprehensible to the common people. Outside witnesses testify only to what seemed especially incongruous to them, struck their eyes and disturbed their ears.”
Matthew 26:62. And the high priest stood up and said to Him: Why don’t you answer? What do they testify against You?
In Russian translation there are two questions. The first question is clear, the second: “What do they testify against You?” - No. The High Priest could not and, of course, did not want to ask Christ about what the witnesses said about Him. There is one question in the Vulgate: nihil respondes ad ea, quae isti adversum te testificantur? – You don’t respond (can’t say or answer anything) to the fact that they testify against You? This translation is correct and understandable. But the newest German translators return to the previous construction adopted in the Russian translation (nichts autwortest du? Was zeugen diese wider dich?), with two questions. Blass also accepts this construction (Gram., S. 172 note). The reason for accepting two questions was mainly that ἀποκρίνομαι requires πρός after itself, so that if there was one question, then ἀποκρίνῃ πρός τί would be posed. But this does not always happen; ὑποκρίνομαι is combined with both the dative and the accusative without πρός (Kremer, Wort. S. 566). Thus, it is more correct to consider the entire speech of verse 62 as one question, and τί in the present case may be ὅτι, although this last assumption does not seem particularly necessary.
The real meaning of the high priest's question, independent of philology and form, is clear. No matter how weak and shaky perjury may be, the defendant must answer it. There is a lot of psychology here and there is a very accurate acquaintance of the evangelists with reality. Very often, even now, the most insignificant charges are brought against the person who they want to accuse, in which no “corpus delicti” is visible. And, however, such accusations require an answer. In such cases, there is a complete separation of formal truth and real truth, and in such a trial, which always testifies to the low moral level of the judges themselves, people who are really pure in heart before God and people are very often made guilty of various crimes that in fact cannot be imputed to anyone as crimes. Neither false testimony nor the testimony that Christ intended to destroy the church and restore it in three days pointed to such acts in which the “corpus delicti” would be visible.
And yet, the high priest demands an answer to such accusations.”
Matthew 26:63. Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to Him: I adjure You by the living God, tell us, Are You the Christ, the Son of God?
Jesus Christ was silent because the false testimony did not indicate any crime. In addition, silence is always the best response to all kinds of slander and false testimony. People who lie and intend to lie are always difficult to convince of the truth, because they respond to refutations that explain it with new lies. It is clearly seen that all these false testimonies were only a pretext for accusations, while the most real and main point for which the high priests needed to condemn Christ, like some kind of ghost, is relegated to the very background. Thus, political beliefs are often not persecuted in themselves, but a person suffers from various criticisms, sometimes having no connection with those acts that are considered the main crime. What often happens in the field of politics often happens in the field of religion. The novelty of the religion of Christ, its moral inconsistency with the understandings, customs and activities of the den of thieves - this is what, in essence, was the crime of Christ in the eyes of this den.
But it was inconvenient to talk about this, because, in essence, it was not a crime. Therefore, there is pickiness only to small facts - it doesn’t matter whether they are imaginary or real. But the judges of Christ understand well that these petty accusations and false testimonies do not amount to (Mark 14:59), do not correspond to the purpose that was in mind - to put Christ to death. This calls the high priest to take a more decisive step. Why collect these petty false testimonies? Why waste time on small issues? We need to get to the most important thing. Caiaphas probably stood up from his place, located in the very center of the judge's semicircle, and walked towards the defendant. Among the judges, as one must assume, deep silence reigned. And so the high priest utters solemn words: “I adjure You by the living God...” Caiaphas uttered not an oath, but a spell. He conjured Christ with the living God to tell him the truth. The High Priest knew that Christ had previously called Himself that way.
This was, in his opinion, self-exaltation, such an appropriation of the highest dignity that no person can decide to do. The High Priest now wants to formally and before everyone force Christ to admit that He is really guilty of such a crime.”
Matthew 26:64. Jesus says to him: You said; I even say to you: from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.
Luke 22:66–70 should probably be attributed to the second, daytime meeting of the Sanhedrin (ὡς ἐγένετο ἡμερα - Luke 22:66), when Christ repeated the same confession. But some consider Luke's account to be parallel to the present account on the basis of the similarity Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69. This question is difficult, and it is now impossible to solve it. The real confession of Christ was completely opposite to that to which the devil tempted Him, inviting Him to throw himself down from the roof of the church. This would not be a verbal, but a pragmatic confession before people of His own dignity as the Son of God. Then it would have been solemn and the amazed crowd would have immediately recognized in Him the powers characteristic only of the Son of God. But by the power of God, Christ was elevated instead of the mountain of temptation to the Mount of Transfiguration. From this high mountain He seemed to rush down and now appeared before people in the true, and not the imaginary, dignity of the Son of God. But He now appears not in the form of a King, but a bound and humiliated Servant of Jehovah, and people completely refuse to applaud and celebrate His appearance.
They even doubt whether He really is the Son of God. They conjure Him to tell them about this. And Christ answers this spell in the affirmative.
Σὺ εἶπας, cf. verse 25. Just as this expression was not an oath there, so it must be taken in the same sense here. Many argue that Christ swore an oath here on the grounds that the Jews did not have the custom, when answering an oath, to repeat the same words that were contained in the oath formula. But against this we can say that in the expression σὺ εἶπας there is no the most important word with which the Jews expressed that their words were pronounced under an oath, namely: “shevua” or, perhaps, “amen” (see treatise Shevuot: Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich, vol. 4, pp. 359–402, especially ch. 3–4). It is incredible that Christ, who said “do not swear at all” (Matthew 5:34), now uttered an oath Himself. Origen wrote: “He did not deny that He is Christ, the Son of God, and did not clearly confess it (nec manifeste confessus est), but, as if making the exorcist himself a witness, because he himself in the question declared Him to be Christ, the Son of God, he says: “you said.” Many other considerations have been put forward to support the idea that Christ swore an oath here, but it might seem forced under such circumstances.
Similar words were spoken to Pilate, but without a curse (Matthew 27:11). They even explained the words of Christ in the sense that “it is you who pronounce the oath, not I,” “I leave it to your own conscience to answer the question you have given.” We cannot agree with this last interpretation. Christ did not take any oath. Nevertheless, His words contained a statement of the thought expressed by the high priest, tantamount to “yes, yes” (Matt. 5:37). That Christ's answer was in the affirmative is evident from the fact that it was understood in this very sense by the high priest, as can be seen from verse 65. "The enemies of Christ should not have thought that He would establish His Kingdom by force and weapons, and that if He was now deprived of the opportunity to do so, He doubted both His own calling and Himself" (Tzan).
Ἀπ´ ἄρτι ("from now on") was referred to as λέγω ἡμῖν (I tell you from now on) or to καθήμενον (from now on sitting). Mark omits this word, and Luke (if Luke 22:69 can be considered a parallel) ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπ´ ἄρτι refers to καθήμενος. It is more correct to attribute ἀπ´ ἄρτι in Matthew to ὄψεσθε (as in the Russian translation). They also thought that it was necessary to read not ἀπ´ ἄρτι (from now on) but ἀπαρτί (exactly, directly, evenly).
But what does all this mean? The words of Christ will seem completely incomprehensible to us if we assume that they indicate something similar to His solemn appearance, for example, as in Matthew 25:31. Because when did it happen that Caiaphas and the rest of the judges saw Him like this “from now on”? The words of Christ must be understood in a completely opposite sense; He is speaking here not about His solemn appearances, but about His extreme humiliation, suffering, Cross and Resurrection, which were equal to His full greatness, sitting at the right hand of Power and walking on the clouds. Therefore, Christ’s saying contains a very subtle and deep theological meaning. The extreme humiliation of Jehovah's Servant is where His extreme greatness lay. His enemies saw this, so to speak, negative glory of Christ personally. Christ speaks here in the words of Ps.109:1 and Dan.7:13.
Matthew 26:65. Then the high priest tore his clothes and said: He is blaspheming! What more need do we need witnesses? Behold, now you have heard His blasphemy!
Matthew 26:66. what do you think? They answered and said: He is guilty of death.
The true meaning of Christ's words was obviously not understood by His judges. The circumstances in which He found Himself were completely contrary to the statement He had made that He was the Son of God, seated at the right hand of the Power, and walking on the clouds of heaven. Such a statement seemed blasphemous to them and would indeed have been such if it had been uttered by any ordinary person. So the high priest tore his clothes. This would be a touching action if it did not stem from extreme malice, hypocrisy, hatred and meanness (cf. 2 Kings 18:37, 19:1; Acts 14:14). In Lev.10:6, 21:10 the high priest was forbidden to tear his clothes, but from the following verse it can be concluded that he was not supposed to tear his clothes only as a sign of grief for the dead, even his father or mother. An example of clothing being torn in other cases is found in 1 Mac 11:71. The opinion that Caiaphas considered Christ to be a mesite seducer (see Sanhedr. VII, 10; Talmud, trans. Pereferkovich, vol. 4, pp. 291–292) is erroneous. Blasphemy was punishable by death (Lev. 24:15–16).
Therefore, in response to the statement of the high priest, those present immediately began to say that Christ was “guilty of death.”
Matthew 26:67. Then they spat in His face and strangled Him; others struck Him on the cheeks
(Cf. Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63–64).
The same attitude that occurs in other cases towards criminals, “deprived of all the rights of the state.” True, the verdict of the Sanhedrin has not yet been officially approved. But it was clear from everything that the judges would not give up their decision. Mockery of persons deprived of the rights of fortune is characteristic not only of sinners, but also of many righteous people. In this case, it is assumed that the convicted person no longer has the right to bring complaints to anyone and that those who mock him are, in any case, not subject to strict liability. The inner feeling, the feeling of shame, the demands of conscience are drowned out by the rudeness and cruelty of a natural person, and he becomes like a predatory beast, alien to all compassion and mercy. And religious hatred is always stronger than any other. All this was the reason why Christ was now subjected to reproach. They spat in his face to express contempt, hit him with fists (ἐκολάφισαν αὐτόν) and choked him (ἐράπισαν - omitted in Russian translation), i.e.
they beat them on the cheeks with their palms, but perhaps not only with their palms, but also with sticks or whips, rods, rods (ῥαπίζω also has this meaning). It is unclear whether members of the Sanhedrin took part in all these abuses. But judging by the fact that Matthew 26:67 and Mark 14:65 are a continuation of the previous verses, there is nothing incredible about this.
Matthew 26:68. and they said: Prophesy to us, O Christ, who struck You?
(Cf. Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64).
The people around Him treated Christ not only as they usually treat a convicted criminal, but also as they behave towards a convicted person and, therefore, a false Messiah and Prophet. Spitting, hitting and strangling were mixed with even more rude, especially under those circumstances, mockery of His personal dignity as the Messiah. These were moral insults, not without causticity, but rude and cynical.
Matthew 26:69. Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a certain maid came to him and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.”
(Cf. Mark 14:66–67; Luke 22:56; John 18:17).
At the time when Christ was being mocked, in the same courtyard of the high priest events were taking place that in any other history would have seemed microscopic. But in the history of the sufferings of Christ, terrible horror and bloody tragedy are noticeable in them. While the Savior was subjected to spitting, strangling and other insults, Peter, who came into the courtyard of the high priest (verse 58), during the entire interrogation, apparently, sat with the high priestly servants and “warmed himself by the fire” (Mark 14:54; Luke 22:56). How much terrible tragedy and realism there is in this simple expression! What was happening inside, in Peter’s soul, was not noticeable to anyone, but outwardly it was only visible that he was warming himself by the fire! Naturally, being near a material flame, Peter had to strenuously extinguish and restrain any internal flame simply so as not to betray himself and his intentions. He was in the position of a man who sees a drowning man from the shore and has neither the strength nor the means to help him in any way. This is generally one of the most painful states of all kind and loving people.
What mental anguish Peter experienced while warming himself by the fire is hidden from people’s eyes. John, showing himself for a moment (John 18:15–16), quickly throws a veil over his own person and disappears into the darkness of the night. Only Peter remains with his outer calm. The “power of darkness” (Luke 22:53), which engulfed his Teacher and took possession of Him, like a menacing cloud during a dark night flashes with lightning and strikes with thunder strikes, soon spreads over Peter’s head. This is a temptation. Peter gradually, without suspecting anything, enters a limited area of temptation. He never needed the prayer: “And do not lead us into temptation.” There are no contradictions in the evangelists' stories about the initial temptation of Peter; everywhere in the foreground they have some unknown “maidservant” ( τις), whom John calls “the doorkeeper” (παιδίσκη ἡ θυρωρός – John 18:17). This is a personality completely unknown to us, or, probably, to the first Christians, as if accidentally exposing his dark face in the darkness of the night.
She peers at Peter (Mark 14:67; Luke 22:56) and then suspiciously says out loud: “And you were with Jesus the Galilean.” Even if all these stories were fictitious, then we would have to say that this is an extremely skillful, highly artistic selection of all the circumstances. Why this maid, the doorkeeper? Why didn’t the compilers of the fiction force one of the men to speak with Peter, for example, at least the same Malchus, whose ear Peter cut off? This would be much more natural in any fiction, even fiction. But reality always falls short of any fiction. The men were busy with other things and thoughts; and the powers of observation, keen vision and unrestrained language of women are known to everyone. Judging by the expressions (παιδίσκη), she was a young slave, maybe even an adult girl. The brave and courageous Peter was put in an extremely difficult and dangerous position not by a sword raised over him, not by an arrow or pike aimed directly at his heart, but by a frivolous question from some unknown and talkative young slave.
The Gospel καί (for all evangelists) here is significant: “and you were.” If “you too,” then, consequently, someone else who was with the Galilean was there, and Peter with him. Who was this other one? Some suggest that the maid pointed here to John, others to Judas. But perhaps the maid’s words mean: “you are along with many others who are now not in this courtyard.”
Matthew 26:70. But he denied it in front of everyone, saying: I don’t know what you are saying.
(Cf. Mark 14:68; Luke 22:57).
For the first time, Peter’s denial does not appear clearly, although it was, in essence, such. He seems to give a somewhat evasive answer. There were many people when Jesus Christ was taken, probably the high priests themselves were there. Peter does not know whether the servant considers him among Christ’s friends or enemies. If among the enemies, then what is surprising if he was in Gethsemane with Jesus the Galilean and returned with Him from there? He does not know (οἶδα - Matthew and Luke) and does not understand (ἐπίσταμαι - Mark) what exactly the woman is talking about. But John has a short, stern, unmitigated and direct denial: οὐκ εἰμί (not I, I was not with Him).
Matthew 26:71. When he went out of the gate, another saw him, and said to those who were there, “This one too was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
(Cf. Mark 14:68–69; Luke 22:58; John 18:25).
Peter saw that, although his answer seemed apparently satisfactory to the people around him and to the maid herself, his position, however, was unsafe. It is difficult, of course, to determine here the exact sequence of very small and in themselves insignificant facts. Only, apparently, after the first denial of Peter, John (John 18:18–24) introduces a story about the slaves and servants who warmed themselves by the fire, and about the interrogation of the high priest (some think - Anna - based on John 18:24, but, more likely, Caiaphas, because otherwise the gospel stories about the interrogation of Christ and the denial of Peter would be reconciled extremely difficult, if not impossible). In any case, it cannot be assumed that a rather significant period passed after the first and second renunciation. Luke (Luke 22:58) testifies that the second denial was “soon afterwards” (μετὰ βραχύ). Peter now heads towards the gate, obviously intending to leave the yard entirely.
But here the “other” maid turns to him with almost the same speech as the first - so according to Matthew; according to Mark - the same, according to Luke - “different”, and according to John (John 18:25) - it is unknown which people: (they) “told him”. Reconciliation between evangelicals seems particularly difficult here. Even in the writings specifically devoted to the consideration and reconciliation of the Gospel “disagreements,” we did not find an analysis and reconciliation of these facts. And exegetes hardly talk about them at all, apparently due to extreme difficulty. At this time, the rooster crowed (Mark 14:68 - these words are not in several of the best codes, but they are considered authentic in view of Mark 14:72).
Matthew 26:72. And he again denied with an oath that he did not know This Man.
(Cf. Mark 14:70; Luke 22:58; John 18:25).
According to Jerome, some said that Peter denied Christ only as a man, and not as God. “So,” says Jerome, “they defend the apostle, accusing God of lying... For if Peter did not deny, then the Lord spoke a lie, who predicted: “You will deny Me three times.” Peter now denies “with an oath” (μετὰ ὅρκου), which indicates the strengthening of his first denial.”
Matthew 26:73. A little later those standing there came up and said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for your speech also convicts you.”
(Cf. Mark 14:71; Luke 22:59; John 18:26).
Peter, in order to avoid danger, had to either immediately flee or return back to ward off all suspicions. If he had done the first, he would probably have been immediately chased, and then he could have been accused as a suspicious spy. Therefore, Peter prefers the latter and, in order to eliminate all suspicions, apparently with outward calm, again sits down with the servants by the fire. Here the initial babble of two maids or a maid and one man after about an hour (Luke) turns into almost a noisy hubbub. Initial suspicions grew. Peter's peculiar Galilean accent or accent served as strong confirmation that he was indeed with the Galilean and "one of them."
Matthew 26:74. Then he began to swear and swear that he did not know This Man. And suddenly the rooster crowed.
(Cf. Mark 14:71; Luke 22:60; John 18:27).
Matthew, Luke and John say that at this time the rooster crowed, meaning for the first time. Mark clearly indicates that the rooster crowed a second time. There have been many attempts to explain this discrepancy. But it doesn't seem particularly important. Of course, the evangelists did not intend to make an exact count of how many times the roosters crowed at this time. For them, what was more important was the personality of Peter and the circumstances of his temptation, as well as the unexpectedly original, unexpected and purely historical, and not a fictitious justification of what was predicted by Christ. At first Peter simply denied, then he denied with an oath. For the reader of the Russian Gospel, the strengthening and, so to speak, growth of the oath is completely imperceptible. This can only be understood by someone who reads the Greek text. Instead of “to swear and swear” in the original there is now “to curse” (καταθεματίζειν, but not καταναθεματίζειν) and “to swear” (ὀμνύειν). In Mark - ἀναθεματίζειν (to curse) and ὀμνύσαι (to swear).
Luke greatly smoothes out the expressions of the first two weather forecasters, and John again expresses himself briefly: “Peter again denied; and immediately the rooster crowed."
Matthew 26:75. And Peter remembered the word that Jesus had spoken to him: Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times. And going out, he wept bitterly.
(Cf. Mark 14:72; Luke 22:61–62).
Curses and oaths were heard from the lips of Peter at a time when his suffering Lord and Teacher Himself was in sight. Matthew and Mark do not mention this, but Luke is clear. Therefore, Peter immediately noticed as soon as the Lord “looked” at him. This caused him to feel extreme shame and remorse. Now not paying attention to anyone, he rushed headlong from the yard (ἐπιβαλών - Mark) and ran out into the darkness of the night, not pursued by anyone; left somewhere alone, he burst into caustic, burning (πικρῶς - Matthew and Luke) tears - such as perhaps few people have cried since that time, because these secret tears of Peter became famous over time.
Corresponds to the cost of approximately 50 grams of gold. – Approx. ed.
This amount in Russia in 1867–1917. equaled the cost of 4.5 g of silver. – Approx. ed.
Those. weighing approximately 20 g - Approx. ed.
You might be interested in: