Matthew · Chapter 26

V. 1. When Jesus had finished all these discourses-When he had spoken all he had to speak. Till then he would not enter upon his passion: then he would delay it no longer. Mark 14:1; Luke 22:1.

Verse 1. When Jesus had finished all these sayings] He began these sayings on Mount Olivet, Matthew 24:1, and continued them till be entered into Bethany, whither he was going.

Verses 1, 2. When Jesus had finished all these sayings — The sayings or discourses which he began to deliver on his leaving the temple, (Matthew 24:1,) and continued, till he had declared all that is contained in the two preceding chapters; He said unto his disciples, Ye know, &c. — When he sat down on the mount of Olives, he was so far on his way to Bethany, and before he rose up to depart, he thought fit to add a word or two concerning his own death. For, as the greatest trial that his disciples were ever to meet with was now approaching, in their Master’s humiliation and sufferings; therefore, to prepare them for this scene, he foretold those sufferings, together with the particular time and manner of them; and thus proved, that he perfectly knew whatever was to befall him, and that his sufferings were all voluntary and necessary. After two days is the passover — The manner wherein this was celebrated gives much light to several circumstances that follow. The master of the family began the feast with a cup of wine, which, having solemnly blessed, he divided among the guests, (Luke 22:17.) Then the supper began with the unleavened bread and bitter herbs; which when they had all tasted, one of the young persons present, (according to Exodus 12:26,) asked the reason of the solemnity. This introduced the showing forth, or declaration of it: in allusion to which we read of showing forth the Lord’s death, (1 Corinthians 11:26.) Then the master rose up and took another cup, before the lamb was tasted. After supper, he took a thin loaf or cake, which he broke and divided to all at the table, and likewise the cup, usually called the cup of thanksgiving, of which he drank first, and then all the guests. It was this bread and this cup, which our Lord consecrated to be a standing memorial of his death.

1. Came to pass — Our Lord’s public ministry has terminated, and the evangelist proceeds to the closing events — the crucifixion and ascension. It is at the great feast of the passover that the last act commences. In this chapter Matthew first states our Lord’s announcement of that fatal passover, 1-2; next the secret conspiracy of the Jews, 3-4; then he describes a certain supper at Bethany, at which he was perfumed with the precious ointment, 6-16; and then narrates the preparing of their paschal supper and its ominous events, 17-29. From the supper he traces the Saviour over Mount Olivet, 30-35; and thence to Gethsemane, where he is arrested, 35-56. His appearance before Caiaphas and denial by Peter are the remaining scenes of that sad night which Matthew details, 57-75.

1. When Jesus had finished all these sayings — All the sayings of the preceding chapter. From the scenes of glory and judgment which he had described in that discourse, he now turns, in sad contrast, to the scenes of his humiliation. All these sayings, therefore, concluded all the public ministry of the Saviour. His enemies could have no power over him until he had delivered his whole message. So it has been said that “a true minister is immortal until his work is done.” His whole work as a prophet at last being performed, his work as a priest in the sacrifice of himself now commences. He said unto his disciples — He has finished now with the world, and he turns to the inner circle of his chosen ones.

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

CHAPTER 26. Verse 1. All these sayings — All these discourses.

V. 2. After two days is the passover-The manner wherein this was celebrated gives much light to several circumstances that follow. The master of the family began the feast with a cup of wine, which having solemnly blessed, he divided among the guests, Luke 22:17. Then the supper began with the unleavened bread and bitter herbs; which when they had all tasted, one of the young persons present, according to Exodus 12:26, asked the reason of the solemnity. This introduced the showing forth, or declaration of it: in allusion to which we read of showing forth the Lord's death, 1 Corinthians 11:26. Then the master rose up and took another cup, before the lamb was tasted. After supper, he took a thin loaf or cake, which he broke and divided to all at the table, and likewise the cup, usually called the cup of thanksgiving, of which he drank first, and then all the guests. It was this bread and this cup which our Lord consecrated to be a standing memorial of his death.

Verse 2. The passover] A feast instituted in Egypt, to commemorate the destroying angel’s passing over the houses of the Israelites, when he slew the firstborn of the Egyptians. See the whole of this business largely explained in the Notes on Exodus 12:1-27. This feast began on the fourteenth day of the first moon, in the first month, Nisan, and it lasted only one day; but it was immediately followed by the days of unleavened bread, which were seven, so that the whole lasted eight days, and all the eight days are sometimes called the feast of the passover, and sometimes the feast or days of unleavened bread. See Luke 22:1-7. The three most signal benefits vouchsafed to the Israelites were,

1. The deliverance from the slavery of Egypt; to commemorate which they kept the feast of unleavened bread, and the passover.

2. The giving of the law; to commemorate which, they kept the feast of weeks.

3. Their sojourning in the wilderness, and entrance into the promised land; to commemorate which, they kept the feast of tabernacles. See these largely explained, Exodus 23:14; Leviticus 23:2-40. The Son of man is betrayed, (rather delivered up,) to be crucified.] With what amazing calmness and precision does our blessed Lord speak of this awful event! What a proof does he here give of his prescience in so correctly predicting it; and of his love in so cheerfully undergoing it! Having instructed his disciples and the Jews by his discourses, edified them by his example, convinced them by his miracles, he now prepares to redeem them by his blood! These two verses have no proper connection with this chapter, and should be joined to the preceding.

Verses 1, 2. When Jesus had finished all these sayings — The sayings or discourses which he began to deliver on his leaving the temple, (Matthew 24:1,) and continued, till he had declared all that is contained in the two preceding chapters; He said unto his disciples, Ye know, &c. — When he sat down on the mount of Olives, he was so far on his way to Bethany, and before he rose up to depart, he thought fit to add a word or two concerning his own death. For, as the greatest trial that his disciples were ever to meet with was now approaching, in their Master’s humiliation and sufferings; therefore, to prepare them for this scene, he foretold those sufferings, together with the particular time and manner of them; and thus proved, that he perfectly knew whatever was to befall him, and that his sufferings were all voluntary and necessary. After two days is the passover — The manner wherein this was celebrated gives much light to several circumstances that follow. The master of the family began the feast with a cup of wine, which, having solemnly blessed, he divided among the guests, (Luke 22:17.) Then the supper began with the unleavened bread and bitter herbs; which when they had all tasted, one of the young persons present, (according to Exodus 12:26,) asked the reason of the solemnity. This introduced the showing forth, or declaration of it: in allusion to which we read of showing forth the Lord’s death, (1 Corinthians 11:26.) Then the master rose up and took another cup, before the lamb was tasted. After supper, he took a thin loaf or cake, which he broke and divided to all at the table, and likewise the cup, usually called the cup of thanksgiving, of which he drank first, and then all the guests. It was this bread and this cup, which our Lord consecrated to be a standing memorial of his death.

Verse 2. After two day is the passover. This is the literal import of the Greek word pasca pascha, and the Hebrew word jsp pesach, because the Israelites, after eating the paschal lamb, passed over the Red sea. The jews had a tradition, probably from the prophets, that they should be delivered at the passover, which tradition is still in the Cabalists. And it is very remarkable, that Christ should redeem the world at the very festival when he redeemed the Hebrews from Egypt. He is our passover, and not a bone of him was broken. See the Reflections on Exodus 12. The passion week was observed in the primitive church with an augmentation of the offices of piety; they were not willing to be eclipsed by the devout jews in their purifications for the passover.

1. Dominica, the Lord’s day, on which the Saviour entered Jerusalem.

2. The second holy day was that in which he caused the figtree to wither.

2. Ye know — Our Lord begins with telling them what they knew; but he finished by telling them what they do not know until he tells them. The true teacher leads his pupils from the known to the unknown. The disciples knew that the passover was coming; Jesus knew that the crucifixion was coming. Though his mission as prophet was discharged, his foreknowledge as a prophet was not diminished. He is prophet, that is, master, by clear, calm foresight, of the whole train of transactions.

After two days — This was uttered probably at sunset on Tuesday; just twice twenty-four hours before the time of his paschal supper with his disciples, which took place on the Thursday evening preceding the Friday of the crucifixion.

Passover — This was the great feast of the Jews in commemoration of their departure from Egypt, when the destroying angel who cut off the first-born of the Egyptians was made to pass over the residences of the Jews harmless. A victim was upon that occasion slain by divine command, and his blood stricken on the two door-posts and upon the lintel, or top cross-piece, as a sign that the house was the abode of an Israelite. See Exodus 12:1-30. In annual commemoration of this the following passover rites were appointed: On the tenth day of the month Nisan, (corresponding nearly to our April,) a male lamb without blemish, of either sheep or goats, was selected. It was to be kept until the fourteenth day of Nisan, when it was to be slain by the priest between the two evenings of three and six o’clock, and the blood was to be poured at the foot of the great altar. At evening each family, including not less than ten persons, was to eat the lamb. They were originally commanded to do this with all the tokens of rapid departure. Their feet were to be shod, their loins girt, their staff in hand, and they were to eat not reclining, but standing, and their bread was to be unleavened, and the whole was to be done “with haste.” “Bitter herbs” were to be eaten, as a symbol of their bitter sufferings in Egypt. Seven days were set apart (Exodus 12:15) as a feast of unleavened bread. The first and last were to be days of holy convocation. The first day commenced with the eve on which the paschal lamb was eaten. In the Passion Week it was Friday. See note on verse 5. We here remark that the victim was a true vicarious sacrifice. Egypt for his sins was punished by the selection of a human representative, namely, his first-born. Israel too was a sinner; but he suffered by substitution of the “lamb without spot.” The paschal lamb was slain, and was to be, not boiled like other sacrifices, but roasted, to indicate by fire the terrible agonies of the atoning victim; and being roasted upon the cross-spit, he was literally crucified. The blood of the first victim sprinkled upon Israel’s lintel is a most remarkable symbol of that blood sprinkled upon our souls, whereby God knows us for his own and spares us when he makes inquisition for blood.

The passover lamb is indeed a wondrous type of “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world;” by whose sprinkled blood we are saved from death and redeemed from spiritual bondage. It was on the passover night that our Lord instituted the sacrament as a bloodless continuation of the same commemoration, divested of its special Jewish significance. And our Lord himself was slain at this very feast, which was appointed by Moses to predict beforehand his death. On this occasion the Jews slew, not only the typical victim, but the real victim typified by their feasts and sacrifices.

Verse 2. Is the passover. — This was one of the great annual festivals of the Jews, instituted with great solemnity by Divine direction, to commemorate the PASSING of the destroying angel OVER the houses of the Israelites, and their deliverance from Egypt. It was a grand instituted TYPE of our redemption, and therefore Christ is called our PASSOVER sacrificed for us.” The paschal sacrifice derives its appellation from jsp, which signifies, to pass, by or over. In the Septuagint and the New Testament to pasca signifies both paschal lamb, and also the paschal feast. The institution is explained Exodus 12:27: “It is the sacrifice of THE LORD’S passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses.” The victim was to be a male of the first year, without blemish, from the sheep or from the goats. It was chosen on the tenth day of the month Abib in every year, kept till the fourteenth day of the same month, and then slain in the evening. A lamb or a kid was killed in each family; and if the number of the family was not sufficient to eat it, they might associate two families together. It was eaten with unleavened bread, and was followed by the seven days of unleavened bread, so that the whole feast lasted eight days. These words seem to have been spoken by Jesus on the fourth day of the week, that is, on Wednesday in the afternoon; and on Thursday in the evening, that is, on the evening which followed the fifth day, the passover began, and was continued from Thursday evening to Friday evening, when the Sabbath, or seventh day, began.

Is betrayed. — Will be delivered up; the present being put for the future, as a significant manner of denoting a certain and approaching event.

V. 3. The chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people-(Heads of families.) These together constituted the sanhedrim, or great council, which had the supreme authority, both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs.

Verse 3. Then assembled together the chief priests] That is, during the two days that preceded the passover.

The high priest, who was called Caiaphas] Caiaphas succeeded Simon, son of Camith, about A. D. 16, or, as Calmet thinks, 25. He married the daughter of Annas, who was joined with him in the priesthood. About two years after our Lord’s crucifixion, Caiaphas and Pilate were both deposed by VITELLIUS, then governor of Syria, and afterwards emperor. Caiaphas, unable to bear this disgrace, and the stings of his conscience for the murder of Christ, killed himself about A. D. 35. See Joseph. Ant. b. xviii. c. 2-4.

Verses 3-5. The chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders — They together constituted the sanhedrim, or great council, which had the supreme authority both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs. Assembled together unto the palace of the high-priest — Namely, to deliberate how they might take Jesus, and put him to death; and consulted how they might take him by subtlety — Privately, by some artifice, without giving an alarm to his friends. But they said, Not on the feast-day — This was the result of human wisdom. But when Judas came, they changed their purpose. So the counsel of God took place, and the true paschal Lamb was offered up on the great day of the paschal solemnity.

3. The third day was a feast day.

4. The fourth was the market day.

3. Then assembled — The evangelist suddenly changes the scene. While Jesus is innocently, with his disciples, predicting his own death, a dark band of conspirators are assembling to make his prediction true. Assembled… chief priests… scribes… elders — The three classes of men here mentioned made up the Sanhedrim, or great council of seventy, the supreme legislature, especially in ecclesiastical matters, of the Jewish nation. The chief priests were, (in addition to the high priest,) the ex-high priests, the heads of the priestly courses, and eminent men of the priestly order. The elders were laymen of age, wisdom, and ability. The scribes were the learned class, whether of Levitical descent or otherwise. How the members of the Sanhedrim were elected is not certain. Of this body the high priest was the usual summoner and president. At his right hand sat the vice-president; at his left the hakim, or counsellor, who gave legal opinions. From these the members sat extending in a semicircle, around the council-room. From the heat of the climate, this council often held its sessions very early in the morning, as in the case of our Saviour’s arraignment. The Sanhedrim’s session-room was at the hall Gazith, at the southeast corner of the Court of Israel. See Plan of Temple. High priest — The high priest was at the head of the Jewish sacerdotal system, the sacred representative of the nation. Aaron, brother of Moses, was first consecrated high priest, and the orifice remained in his family for some fifteen hundred years. To him belonged the most solemn of the sacred rites, and the decision of difficulties in religious matters. The high priest was often judge in general matters and supreme magistrate of the nation. When invested with the ephod and the urim and thummim, he became the medium of prophetic responses.

The exterior vestments of the high priest were his tunic or gown, richly embroidered, extending to his feet. Next the robe of the ephod, which was a garment put on by an opening at the top, and hung down part of the way to the feet, having suspended on its lower border a row of alternate bells and pomegranates. Over this the ephod, consisting of two richly adorned oblong pieces of cloth, hanging so as to cover the breast and the back, and fastened at the top by shoulder-pieces, gemmed with an onyx; around these was a broad girdle of fine linen, purple, blue, and scarlet. On his head was a turban or mitre, with an inscription on the forehead: “Holiness to the Lord.” The breastplate rested upon the ephod, and was studded with four rows of precious stones, three in a row, bearing the names of the twelve tribes. To these were originally added the urim and thummim, in regard to the form of which scholars differ, while they agree that it was a divine oracle by which God made revelation through the high priest. Until the time of Herod this dignity descended with due regularity in the Aaronic line; but the Herodian and Roman rulers made changes at will, and appointed a new high priest so frequently that the office became almost annual, and a number of ex-high priests were living. These formed a part of the chief priests mentioned in this verse.

Caiaphas — Joseph Caiaphas succeeded Simon son of Canith as high priest about the year 27, in the reign of the emperor Tiberius. His wife was daughter of Annas, who had formerly been high priest, and was still highly revered by the Jews, and before whom, according to John, Jesus was first brought. Caiaphas was deposed in the year 38, after which nothing is known of his history.

Palace of the high priest — The word aulh, here rendered palace, signifies more properly the court, or square yard, enclosed in the centre of the building, and under the open sky. The meaning was, however, extended sometimes so as to include, or at any rate imply, the entire building or mass of buildings.

Verse 3. The palace of the high priest Caiaphas. — Aulh, rendered palace, properly signifies an enclosed area, open to the air; but is often applied, as here, to the whole mansion or palace of kings, or persons in authority. Caiaphas was the high priest at this time, and during the whole period in which Pilate was governor. He married a daughter of Annas, who also is called high priest, because he had long enjoyed that dignity. From Acts 5:17, it appears that Caiaphas was of the sect of the Sadducees.

Verse 4. And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty] The providence of God frustrated their artful machinations; and that event which they wished to conduct with the greatest privacy and silence was transacted with all possible celebrity, amidst the thousands who resorted to Jerusalem, at this season, for the keeping of the passover. It was, doubtless, of the very first importance that the crucifixion of Christ, which was preparatory to the most essential achievement of Christianity, viz. his resurrection from the grave, should be exhibited before many witnesses, and in the most open manner, that infidelity might not attempt, in future, to invalidate the evidences of the Christian religion, by alleging that these things were done in a corner. See WAKEFIELD in loco.

Verses 3-5. The chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders — They together constituted the sanhedrim, or great council, which had the supreme authority both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs. Assembled together unto the palace of the high-priest — Namely, to deliberate how they might take Jesus, and put him to death; and consulted how they might take him by subtlety — Privately, by some artifice, without giving an alarm to his friends. But they said, Not on the feast-day — This was the result of human wisdom. But when Judas came, they changed their purpose. So the counsel of God took place, and the true paschal Lamb was offered up on the great day of the paschal solemnity.

§ 120. REMAINING TRANSACTIONS OF TUESDAY PRECEDING THE CRUCIFIXION, 1-14.

Verses 4, 5. That they might take Jesus by subtlety, &c. — Ordinarily great criminals, and especially false prophets and raisers of sedition, were reserved for execution till the time of their great feasts, because the concourse of people at Jerusalem being so great on those occasions, it was thought that the example would be more influential. But in the case of our Lord they were anxious to dispense with this custom, and to put him to death by stratagem. But they said, Not on the feast, lest there should be an uproar, a popular tumult, among the people. At these festivals it appears from Josephus that tumults of a formidable kind often took place, a seditious and restless spirit having long been nursed by the peculiar political circumstances of the nation. And doubtless had our Lord designed to proclaim himself a king, and to assume the earthly attributes with which they invested the Messiah, and which probably they feared, and had he laid any plans for that purpose, vast numbers of the people, as especially those from Galilee, would have declared in his favour. His enemies therefore appear to have designed to leave the matter until the festival of the passover and unleavened bread, which together occupied a space of eight days, had terminated, and the mass of the people had dispersed. Our translators have rendered, mh en th eorth, not on the feast day; thereby confining it to the day of the passover merely; whereas it ought to be extended to the seven succeeding days of unleavened bread, and have been simply rendered the feast, the reason which they give for not apprehending Christ being equally forcible throughout the whole duration of the festival. The plan was changed by the offer of Judas to betray him, and the whole was overruled by Heaven to accomplish its own purposes; which were, not that Christ should be put to death privately by assassination, or even by regular trial, when there should be comparatively few to witness his death, and the strange signs which accompanied it; but that there should be multitudes of witnesses of this event, that it should take place when many thousands of Jews and proselytes from all parts were assembled at Jerusalem, and that the account both of his crucifixion and resurrection should be transmitted by these means to distant places, and finally, as one has well observed, that infidelity should never have it to allege that these capital events, which constitute the very basis of our religion, were “done in a corner.”

V. 5. But they said, Not at the feast-This was the result of human wisdom. But when Judas came they changed their purpose. So the counsel of God took place, and the true paschal Lamb was offered up on the great day of the paschal solemnity.

Verse 5. Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar] It was usual for the Jews to punish criminals at the public festivals; but in this case they were afraid of an insurrection, as our Lord had become very popular. The providence of God directed it thus, for the reason given in the preceding note.

He who observes a festival on motives purely human violates it in his heart, and is a hypocrite before God. It is likely they feared the Galileans, as being the countrymen of our Lord, more than they feared the people of Jerusalem.

Verses 3-5. The chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders — They together constituted the sanhedrim, or great council, which had the supreme authority both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs. Assembled together unto the palace of the high-priest — Namely, to deliberate how they might take Jesus, and put him to death; and consulted how they might take him by subtlety — Privately, by some artifice, without giving an alarm to his friends. But they said, Not on the feast-day — This was the result of human wisdom. But when Judas came, they changed their purpose. So the counsel of God took place, and the true paschal Lamb was offered up on the great day of the paschal solemnity.

5. The fifth day, that which preseded the day of unleavened bread, when the passover was prepared: ver. 17.

5. Not on the feast day — They thus decided that it should not be on the feast day, that is, on Friday; but God overruled them, and it took place on that very day. It was in fact customary with the Roman rulers to select the passover as the best occasion for the execution of criminals, when the large multitude being present, the sight was calculated to impress the public mind. But for Jesus there were so many friends likely to be present from Galilee and from the country, that the conspirators feared an attempt at rescue. So severe, they knew, was the rule of Pilate, that at any appearance of a fray the Roman guard in the fortress of Antonia would be let loose upon both parties alike, even though their blood, like that of certain Galileans, should be mingled with their sacrifices. But the offer of Judas, of an apprehension without a fray, both relieved and changed their minds. Jesus was crucified during the passover week; the type of the passover was more clearly carried out; and the fact of his crucifixion was made more public through the Jewish nation.

Tuesday Night.

Verses 4, 5. That they might take Jesus by subtlety, &c. — Ordinarily great criminals, and especially false prophets and raisers of sedition, were reserved for execution till the time of their great feasts, because the concourse of people at Jerusalem being so great on those occasions, it was thought that the example would be more influential. But in the case of our Lord they were anxious to dispense with this custom, and to put him to death by stratagem. But they said, Not on the feast, lest there should be an uproar, a popular tumult, among the people. At these festivals it appears from Josephus that tumults of a formidable kind often took place, a seditious and restless spirit having long been nursed by the peculiar political circumstances of the nation. And doubtless had our Lord designed to proclaim himself a king, and to assume the earthly attributes with which they invested the Messiah, and which probably they feared, and had he laid any plans for that purpose, vast numbers of the people, as especially those from Galilee, would have declared in his favour. His enemies therefore appear to have designed to leave the matter until the festival of the passover and unleavened bread, which together occupied a space of eight days, had terminated, and the mass of the people had dispersed. Our translators have rendered, mh en th eorth, not on the feast day; thereby confining it to the day of the passover merely; whereas it ought to be extended to the seven succeeding days of unleavened bread, and have been simply rendered the feast, the reason which they give for not apprehending Christ being equally forcible throughout the whole duration of the festival. The plan was changed by the offer of Judas to betray him, and the whole was overruled by Heaven to accomplish its own purposes; which were, not that Christ should be put to death privately by assassination, or even by regular trial, when there should be comparatively few to witness his death, and the strange signs which accompanied it; but that there should be multitudes of witnesses of this event, that it should take place when many thousands of Jews and proselytes from all parts were assembled at Jerusalem, and that the account both of his crucifixion and resurrection should be transmitted by these means to distant places, and finally, as one has well observed, that infidelity should never have it to allege that these capital events, which constitute the very basis of our religion, were “done in a corner.”

V. 6. Mark 14:3.

Verse 6. In Bethany] For a solution of the difficulties in this verse, about the time of the anointing, see the observations at the end of this chapter. Simon the LEPER] This was probably no more than a surname, as Simon the CANAANITE, Matthew 10:4, and Barsabas JUSTUS, Acts 1:23, and several others. Yet it might have been some person that Christ had healed of this disease. See Matthew 11:5.

Verses 6-13. When Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper — That is, who had been a leper, but, as seems highly probable, had been healed by Jesus. At least, it is not to be thought that he was now a leper, for in that case he would not have been suffered to live in a town, nor would any Jew have come to an entertainment in his house. There came a woman — Probably Mary, the sister of Lazarus, for it is highly probable, as Dr. Doddridge has shown, that the anointing of Jesus here mentioned, is the same with that recorded John 12:1. Having an alabaster box, &c. — Being deeply affected with the many instances that Christ had given her and her sister Martha of his love, and especially by his late mercy in recovering her dear brother Lazarus from the grave, she was therefore solicitous to give some uncommon token of her gratitude to so excellent a person. She brake the box, says Mark, and poured the precious ointment, or rich balsam, on his head. See note on John 12:3. When the disciples saw it, they had indignation — Several of them were angry, though none so much so as Judas, saying, To what purpose is this waste? — Such a quantity of this rich balsam poured out to so little purpose. For this ointment might have been sold for much — The disciples being sensible that their Master was not delighted with luxuries of any kind, were grieved, and murmured against the woman, says Mark, for throwing away so much money idly, as they imagined. But they expressed themselves so as to cast a tacit reflection on Jesus himself. Jesus said, Why trouble ye the woman? — Why do ye grieve and distress the good woman, of whose piety and friendship we have had so long an experience? For she hath wrought a good work upon me — Hath given a great proof of her faith, gratitude, and love; and therefore deserves to be commended rather than to be blamed. For with respect to what has been now suggested, in favour of the poor, ye have them always with you — By the wise and gracious providence of God, it does, and always will happen, that objects needing your compassion and charity shall always be with you, that you may always have opportunities of relieving their wants, and so of laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven. But me ye have not always — I am soon to leave you, and to be placed beyond the reach of your kindness. In that she hath poured this ointment on my body — On my feet as well as my head; see John 12:4. She did it for my burial — As it were, for the embalming of my body. Indeed this was not her design; but our Lord puts this construction upon it, to confirm thereby what he had before said to his disciples concerning his approaching death. Verily, wheresoever this gospel — That is, this part of the gospel history; shall be preached, this that this woman hath done shall be told, &c. — To make them further sensible of their folly in blaming her for this expression of her love to him, he assured them that however much she might be condemned by them, she should be highly celebrated for this action through the world, and live in the memory of all ages.

6. The sixth day, being the first day of unleavened bread, when the Saviour, after instituting the last supper, was slain as our passover.

7. The sabbath, or day of repose in the sepulchre.

8. Dominica, the Lord’s day, on which he rose from the dead. Ver. 3. Then assembled together the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people. The sanhedrim comprehended these three orders of men. In Acts 5:41 we find the council only were assembled, which consisted of twenty three members. This convention met two days before the passover, as is stated in Mark 14:1. Every city also had a bench of elders.

Ver. 5. Not on the feast day: th eorth the feast. The word day is added as an expletive, but it disturbs the sense, as the festival comprised seven days, during which they ate unleavened bread. Herod, equally wary, designed to put Peter to death after easter. Acts 12:4. But God, more watchful than they, so overruled their counsels, and all other events, that Christ our passover was sacrificed for us at this festival, that the hallowed type might not be superseded.

Ver. 6. Now when Jesus was in Bethany. See John 12., where the account is full.

ANOINTING OF JESUS, AND INDIGNATION OF JUDAS AND THE DISCIPLES, 6-16.

6. Simon the leper — Who had been cured by the Saviour. He lived at Bethany, and was neighbour, perhaps relative, of the family of Lazarus and Mary. John informs us that at this feast Lazarus was present. So our Lord, probably, sat between the man he had cured of the most terrible of diseases, and the man whom he had raised from the dead. And as Lazarus was present, (John 12:1-9,) so his sister Martha served, and Mary was the woman who anointed the Saviour. All this indicates that the friends of Jesus combined to give him a feast at Simon’s house. John and Matthew no doubt relate the same transaction. The manner in which both are blended into one by Mark places this beyond all question.

Verse 6. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, &c. — The time when this transaction took place is not particularly marked by St. Matthew, and appears to have been mentioned here in connection, as an introduction to the treachery of Judas, because he was the first and loudest to murmur at the waste of the costly unction by which our Lord was anointed. In this, St. Mark follows St. Matthew; but St. John fixes the time six days before the passover, and manifestly describes the same transaction. The principal apparent discrepancy is, that the other evangelists say that it took place in the house of Simon the leper, that is, Simon who had been a leper; whereas in the narrative of John, Martha is represented as “serving,” from which it has been concluded that the entertainment was made for him in the house of Lazarus. But St. John only says that “he came to Bethany,” and that “they made him a supper,” without mentioning the house in which it was provided. That it was not in the house of Lazarus, appears almost certain from the remark of the same evangelist, that “Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him;” words which designate him as a guest rather than as the host. And as this Simon was evidently a friend of our Lord, and neighbour to the family that “Jesus loved,” or perhaps a relation also, there is no improbability that Martha should serve in honour of such a guest, and that her sister Mary should anoint him. That St. Matthew and St. Mark should not mention Mary by name, arose probably from their having omitted all account of the raising of Lazarus, which appears to have been designed by the Holy Spirit to be related by one of the four only, that we might possess it in that more extended form and interesting particularity in which it appears in the affecting narrative of John, who was an eye witness. Some critics, however, think that St. John does not assert that this unction of our Lord occurred “six days before the passover,” but only asserts that at that time “he came to Bethany,” where he was afterward anointed two days before the passover, as it is most natural to infer from the narrative of St. Matthew. To this it may be answered, that the note of time in St. John, “six days before the passover,” appears to be introduced for no purpose except to mark the period of the entertainment given to Christ at Bethany. On this often controverted point, the observations of Koinoel appear most satisfactory: “Since Matthew himself has not noted the time explicitly, but has used a phrase not indicative of definite time, tou de Insou genomenou en Bhqania; since John has narrated the event more copiously and elaborately; since from the general style of composition in this passage of Matthew, it is plain that he is hastening to describe the treachery of Judas, and the last fate of his Master; since moreover Mark, especially when hastening to any other subject, is accustomed to write concisely, omit various circumstances, and neglect the order of time; therefore I apprehend that respecting the order of time, John is to be rather attended to, who seems to have supplied what Matthew had omitted, in order to indicate the motive which impelled Judas to the deed; namely, avarice.” The anointing of our Lord in the house of Simon the Pharisee, as recorded in Luke 7:37, is quite a distinct transaction, done at a distant place, and at a much earlier period, and by another person.

Verse 7. There came unto him a woman] There is much contention among commentators about the transaction mentioned here, and in John 12:3; some supposing them to be different, others to be the same. Bishop Newcome’s view of the subject I have placed at the end of the chapter.

Some think that the woman mentioned here was Mary, the sister of Lazarus; others Mary Magdalene; but against the former opinion it is argued that it is not likely, had this been Mary the sister of Lazarus, that Matthew and Mark would have suppressed her name. Besides, say they, we should not confound the repast which is mentioned here, with that mentioned by John, John 12:3. This one was made only two days before the passover, and that one six days before: the one was made at the house of Simon the leper, the other at the house of Lazarus, John 12:1, 2. At this, the woman poured the oil on the head of Christ; at the other, Mary anointed Christ’s feet with it. See Clarke on “Mark 14:3”, and see Clarke’s notes at the end of this chapter. “Matthew 26:75”

Verses 6-13. When Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper — That is, who had been a leper, but, as seems highly probable, had been healed by Jesus. At least, it is not to be thought that he was now a leper, for in that case he would not have been suffered to live in a town, nor would any Jew have come to an entertainment in his house. There came a woman — Probably Mary, the sister of Lazarus, for it is highly probable, as Dr. Doddridge has shown, that the anointing of Jesus here mentioned, is the same with that recorded John 12:1. Having an alabaster box, &c. — Being deeply affected with the many instances that Christ had given her and her sister Martha of his love, and especially by his late mercy in recovering her dear brother Lazarus from the grave, she was therefore solicitous to give some uncommon token of her gratitude to so excellent a person. She brake the box, says Mark, and poured the precious ointment, or rich balsam, on his head. See note on John 12:3. When the disciples saw it, they had indignation — Several of them were angry, though none so much so as Judas, saying, To what purpose is this waste? — Such a quantity of this rich balsam poured out to so little purpose. For this ointment might have been sold for much — The disciples being sensible that their Master was not delighted with luxuries of any kind, were grieved, and murmured against the woman, says Mark, for throwing away so much money idly, as they imagined. But they expressed themselves so as to cast a tacit reflection on Jesus himself. Jesus said, Why trouble ye the woman? — Why do ye grieve and distress the good woman, of whose piety and friendship we have had so long an experience? For she hath wrought a good work upon me — Hath given a great proof of her faith, gratitude, and love; and therefore deserves to be commended rather than to be blamed. For with respect to what has been now suggested, in favour of the poor, ye have them always with you — By the wise and gracious providence of God, it does, and always will happen, that objects needing your compassion and charity shall always be with you, that you may always have opportunities of relieving their wants, and so of laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven. But me ye have not always — I am soon to leave you, and to be placed beyond the reach of your kindness. In that she hath poured this ointment on my body — On my feet as well as my head; see John 12:4. She did it for my burial — As it were, for the embalming of my body. Indeed this was not her design; but our Lord puts this construction upon it, to confirm thereby what he had before said to his disciples concerning his approaching death. Verily, wheresoever this gospel — That is, this part of the gospel history; shall be preached, this that this woman hath done shall be told, &c. — To make them further sensible of their folly in blaming her for this expression of her love to him, he assured them that however much she might be condemned by them, she should be highly celebrated for this action through the world, and live in the memory of all ages.

7. Came… a woman — John informs us that she was Mary the sister of Lazarus. The other evangelists are less explicit, as they say but little about the family of Lazarus. It seems as if Mary was not at the feast, but entered unexpectedly.

Alabaster box — Alabaster is a sort of white marble of much beauty and polish. It was a costly article, and was supposed to possess a special virtue for preserving ointment. Of this, ointment-boxes were first made. Afterward they retained the same name, even when the material was different, as glass or metal. The box was rather a vial with a long neck, and hence Mark says she poured the ointment, or rather oil, by breaking, namely, the neck of the vial; John says she anointed, additionally, his feet. This she could easily do, for it must be remembered that our Saviour did not sit in a modern chair, but reclined on a couch at meat. Ointment — This was the nardine unguent, made from the spikenard; and was of costly value, being customarily used for a perfuming application to give softness and agreeable odour to the skin.

Verse 7. An alabaster box of very precious ointment. — The alabaster is thought to have been a species of onyx, of which vessels for holding the more precious kind of perfumes were at first made, and the name was retained when afterward they were made of gold, or any other substance. St. Mark says, she brake it; but this is to be understood of breaking the seal by which the mouth was stopped, in order to pour out the contents. It is the custom in eastern countries still to stop the bottles which contain essences, with cotton, and to seal them with wax; in which form that costly perfume, the attar of roses, is still imported into this country. To anoint the head and the feet of guests was a mark of respect at considerable entertainments. It was done frequently in honour of the rabbins; but in this case the action was remarkable, as done, not by the host, but by Mary the sister of Lazarus, one of the guests, and also from the very valuable kind of unction made use of, and the abundance which she poured not only on our Lord’s sacred head, but also, as appears from St. John, on his feet. The whole was the result of Mary’s fervent affection for her Lord and Master.

V. 8. His disciples seeing it, had indignation, saying-It seems several of them were angry, and spoke, though none so warmly as Judas Iscariot.

Verse 8. His disciples] One of them, viz. Judas. This mode of speaking was common among the Hebrews. So, Matthew 27:44, the thieves also, i.e. one of them. So, Matthew 28:17, some doubted, i.e. one, Thomas. See also Genesis 8:4; Judges 12:7; Nehemiah 6:7, &c. By a figure called among rhetoricians enallage, the plural is put for the singular; it is, however, possible that Judas, who made the objection, was followed in the sentiment by the rest of the disciples.

Verses 6-13. When Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper — That is, who had been a leper, but, as seems highly probable, had been healed by Jesus. At least, it is not to be thought that he was now a leper, for in that case he would not have been suffered to live in a town, nor would any Jew have come to an entertainment in his house. There came a woman — Probably Mary, the sister of Lazarus, for it is highly probable, as Dr. Doddridge has shown, that the anointing of Jesus here mentioned, is the same with that recorded John 12:1. Having an alabaster box, &c. — Being deeply affected with the many instances that Christ had given her and her sister Martha of his love, and especially by his late mercy in recovering her dear brother Lazarus from the grave, she was therefore solicitous to give some uncommon token of her gratitude to so excellent a person. She brake the box, says Mark, and poured the precious ointment, or rich balsam, on his head. See note on John 12:3. When the disciples saw it, they had indignation — Several of them were angry, though none so much so as Judas, saying, To what purpose is this waste? — Such a quantity of this rich balsam poured out to so little purpose. For this ointment might have been sold for much — The disciples being sensible that their Master was not delighted with luxuries of any kind, were grieved, and murmured against the woman, says Mark, for throwing away so much money idly, as they imagined. But they expressed themselves so as to cast a tacit reflection on Jesus himself. Jesus said, Why trouble ye the woman? — Why do ye grieve and distress the good woman, of whose piety and friendship we have had so long an experience? For she hath wrought a good work upon me — Hath given a great proof of her faith, gratitude, and love; and therefore deserves to be commended rather than to be blamed. For with respect to what has been now suggested, in favour of the poor, ye have them always with you — By the wise and gracious providence of God, it does, and always will happen, that objects needing your compassion and charity shall always be with you, that you may always have opportunities of relieving their wants, and so of laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven. But me ye have not always — I am soon to leave you, and to be placed beyond the reach of your kindness. In that she hath poured this ointment on my body — On my feet as well as my head; see John 12:4. She did it for my burial — As it were, for the embalming of my body. Indeed this was not her design; but our Lord puts this construction upon it, to confirm thereby what he had before said to his disciples concerning his approaching death. Verily, wheresoever this gospel — That is, this part of the gospel history; shall be preached, this that this woman hath done shall be told, &c. — To make them further sensible of their folly in blaming her for this expression of her love to him, he assured them that however much she might be condemned by them, she should be highly celebrated for this action through the world, and live in the memory of all ages.

8. When his disciples — This odour of the perfume, though it filled the room with fragrance, is not grateful to every taste. The disciples, as we learn from John, have indignation. Judas seems to have commenced it, and we know how, when a censure is commenced, it may be taken up by all.

Verses 8, 9. They had indignation, &c. — They all strongly exclaimed against what appeared to be an unnecessary waste of so precious an oil, and the profusion with which it was expended. All were sincere in objecting that its value might have been given to the poor as a more pious work, except Judas. He, indeed, appears to have been foremost and loudest in expressing this sentiment, and therefore he is represented by St. John as speaking for the rest; but we have in this the key of his character, and of that act of treacherous folly and wickedness which he was now meditating to commit. “This, he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.” Judas fell therefore by the blinding and infatuating sin of covetousness, which led him first to fraud, then to treason. The disciples, in Mark, estimate the value at “three hundred pence,” or denarii, upward of nine pounds of our money. This is not incredible, although the vessel might not be of large size; for a very small phial of attar of roses is sold at Constantinople for six pounds; and this “oil of nard,” if not the same, appears to have been highly concentrated and equally precious. See note on Mark 14:3.

Verse 9. And given to the poor.] How often does charity serve as a cloak for covetousness! God is sometimes robbed of his right under the pretence of devoting what is withheld to some charitable purpose, to which there was no intention ever to give it.

Verses 6-13. When Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper — That is, who had been a leper, but, as seems highly probable, had been healed by Jesus. At least, it is not to be thought that he was now a leper, for in that case he would not have been suffered to live in a town, nor would any Jew have come to an entertainment in his house. There came a woman — Probably Mary, the sister of Lazarus, for it is highly probable, as Dr. Doddridge has shown, that the anointing of Jesus here mentioned, is the same with that recorded John 12:1. Having an alabaster box, &c. — Being deeply affected with the many instances that Christ had given her and her sister Martha of his love, and especially by his late mercy in recovering her dear brother Lazarus from the grave, she was therefore solicitous to give some uncommon token of her gratitude to so excellent a person. She brake the box, says Mark, and poured the precious ointment, or rich balsam, on his head. See note on John 12:3. When the disciples saw it, they had indignation — Several of them were angry, though none so much so as Judas, saying, To what purpose is this waste? — Such a quantity of this rich balsam poured out to so little purpose. For this ointment might have been sold for much — The disciples being sensible that their Master was not delighted with luxuries of any kind, were grieved, and murmured against the woman, says Mark, for throwing away so much money idly, as they imagined. But they expressed themselves so as to cast a tacit reflection on Jesus himself. Jesus said, Why trouble ye the woman? — Why do ye grieve and distress the good woman, of whose piety and friendship we have had so long an experience? For she hath wrought a good work upon me — Hath given a great proof of her faith, gratitude, and love; and therefore deserves to be commended rather than to be blamed. For with respect to what has been now suggested, in favour of the poor, ye have them always with you — By the wise and gracious providence of God, it does, and always will happen, that objects needing your compassion and charity shall always be with you, that you may always have opportunities of relieving their wants, and so of laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven. But me ye have not always — I am soon to leave you, and to be placed beyond the reach of your kindness. In that she hath poured this ointment on my body — On my feet as well as my head; see John 12:4. She did it for my burial — As it were, for the embalming of my body. Indeed this was not her design; but our Lord puts this construction upon it, to confirm thereby what he had before said to his disciples concerning his approaching death. Verily, wheresoever this gospel — That is, this part of the gospel history; shall be preached, this that this woman hath done shall be told, &c. — To make them further sensible of their folly in blaming her for this expression of her love to him, he assured them that however much she might be condemned by them, she should be highly celebrated for this action through the world, and live in the memory of all ages.

9. Given to the poor — John informs us that the utterer of this benevolent talk was Judas; not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a covetous thief at heart, being carrier of the money-bag. Mary meant it for a token of love to him, the Redeemer of the world. There are thousands who think that the money given for the Gospel had better be bestowed in mere temporal supplies; forgetting that it is much better to bestow upon men those principles which will make them wise, good, and industrious, than to give them supplies which will leave them as wicked and thriftless as ever. Could the faith that Mary showed in the Redeemer inspire all the world, the poor would be easily taken care of.

Sold for much — Judas ciphered it up. It would come to just 300 denarii.

Verses 8, 9. They had indignation, &c. — They all strongly exclaimed against what appeared to be an unnecessary waste of so precious an oil, and the profusion with which it was expended. All were sincere in objecting that its value might have been given to the poor as a more pious work, except Judas. He, indeed, appears to have been foremost and loudest in expressing this sentiment, and therefore he is represented by St. John as speaking for the rest; but we have in this the key of his character, and of that act of treacherous folly and wickedness which he was now meditating to commit. “This, he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.” Judas fell therefore by the blinding and infatuating sin of covetousness, which led him first to fraud, then to treason. The disciples, in Mark, estimate the value at “three hundred pence,” or denarii, upward of nine pounds of our money. This is not incredible, although the vessel might not be of large size; for a very small phial of attar of roses is sold at Constantinople for six pounds; and this “oil of nard,” if not the same, appears to have been highly concentrated and equally precious. See note on Mark 14:3.

Verse 10. Why trouble ye the woman?] Or, Why do ye put the woman to pain? See this sense of kopouv parecein, established by Kypke in loco. A generous mind is ever pained when it is denied the opportunity of doing good, or when its proffered kindness is refused.

Verses 6-13. When Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper — That is, who had been a leper, but, as seems highly probable, had been healed by Jesus. At least, it is not to be thought that he was now a leper, for in that case he would not have been suffered to live in a town, nor would any Jew have come to an entertainment in his house. There came a woman — Probably Mary, the sister of Lazarus, for it is highly probable, as Dr. Doddridge has shown, that the anointing of Jesus here mentioned, is the same with that recorded John 12:1. Having an alabaster box, &c. — Being deeply affected with the many instances that Christ had given her and her sister Martha of his love, and especially by his late mercy in recovering her dear brother Lazarus from the grave, she was therefore solicitous to give some uncommon token of her gratitude to so excellent a person. She brake the box, says Mark, and poured the precious ointment, or rich balsam, on his head. See note on John 12:3. When the disciples saw it, they had indignation — Several of them were angry, though none so much so as Judas, saying, To what purpose is this waste? — Such a quantity of this rich balsam poured out to so little purpose. For this ointment might have been sold for much — The disciples being sensible that their Master was not delighted with luxuries of any kind, were grieved, and murmured against the woman, says Mark, for throwing away so much money idly, as they imagined. But they expressed themselves so as to cast a tacit reflection on Jesus himself. Jesus said, Why trouble ye the woman? — Why do ye grieve and distress the good woman, of whose piety and friendship we have had so long an experience? For she hath wrought a good work upon me — Hath given a great proof of her faith, gratitude, and love; and therefore deserves to be commended rather than to be blamed. For with respect to what has been now suggested, in favour of the poor, ye have them always with you — By the wise and gracious providence of God, it does, and always will happen, that objects needing your compassion and charity shall always be with you, that you may always have opportunities of relieving their wants, and so of laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven. But me ye have not always — I am soon to leave you, and to be placed beyond the reach of your kindness. In that she hath poured this ointment on my body — On my feet as well as my head; see John 12:4. She did it for my burial — As it were, for the embalming of my body. Indeed this was not her design; but our Lord puts this construction upon it, to confirm thereby what he had before said to his disciples concerning his approaching death. Verily, wheresoever this gospel — That is, this part of the gospel history; shall be preached, this that this woman hath done shall be told, &c. — To make them further sensible of their folly in blaming her for this expression of her love to him, he assured them that however much she might be condemned by them, she should be highly celebrated for this action through the world, and live in the memory of all ages.

10. Why trouble ye the woman? — Mary was doubtless startled by this murmur among the Lord’s own disciples. She stands in silence, attempting no defence. But the voice of the Saviour rebukes the rebukers, and not only defends but utters a eulogy upon the deed.

Verse 10. Why trouble ye the woman? she hath wrought a good work upon me. — It was a work of LOVE, and therefore determined by our Lord to be a good work. The benevolence of our Lord’s character here also shines forth: he would not suffer this excellent woman to be troubled by the objections of his disciples, as tending to render it doubtful to her conscience whether she had done right or wrong; and he hastens therefore to give her the grateful assurance of his acceptance of her deed. But the WISDOM of his defence of her conduct is as conspicuous as its kindness. He defends it as a singular act performed in peculiar circumstances, but not so as to relax the obligation of the great duty of caring for the poor: for ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always, “These words,” as Whitby acutely remarks, “wholly destroy the doctrine of transubstantiation,” and the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament; for, in that case, indeed, Christ would be always with them, and they might pay him marks of respect.

V. 11. Ye have the poor always with you-Such is the wise and gracious providence of God, that we may have always opportunities of relieving their wants, and so laying up for ourselves treasures in heaven.

Verse 11. Ye have the poor always with you] And, consequently, have the opportunity of doing them good at any time; but me ye have not always; my bodily presence is about to be removed from you for ever. The woman, under a presentiment of my death is preparing me for my burial.

Verses 6-13. When Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper — That is, who had been a leper, but, as seems highly probable, had been healed by Jesus. At least, it is not to be thought that he was now a leper, for in that case he would not have been suffered to live in a town, nor would any Jew have come to an entertainment in his house. There came a woman — Probably Mary, the sister of Lazarus, for it is highly probable, as Dr. Doddridge has shown, that the anointing of Jesus here mentioned, is the same with that recorded John 12:1. Having an alabaster box, &c. — Being deeply affected with the many instances that Christ had given her and her sister Martha of his love, and especially by his late mercy in recovering her dear brother Lazarus from the grave, she was therefore solicitous to give some uncommon token of her gratitude to so excellent a person. She brake the box, says Mark, and poured the precious ointment, or rich balsam, on his head. See note on John 12:3. When the disciples saw it, they had indignation — Several of them were angry, though none so much so as Judas, saying, To what purpose is this waste? — Such a quantity of this rich balsam poured out to so little purpose. For this ointment might have been sold for much — The disciples being sensible that their Master was not delighted with luxuries of any kind, were grieved, and murmured against the woman, says Mark, for throwing away so much money idly, as they imagined. But they expressed themselves so as to cast a tacit reflection on Jesus himself. Jesus said, Why trouble ye the woman? — Why do ye grieve and distress the good woman, of whose piety and friendship we have had so long an experience? For she hath wrought a good work upon me — Hath given a great proof of her faith, gratitude, and love; and therefore deserves to be commended rather than to be blamed. For with respect to what has been now suggested, in favour of the poor, ye have them always with you — By the wise and gracious providence of God, it does, and always will happen, that objects needing your compassion and charity shall always be with you, that you may always have opportunities of relieving their wants, and so of laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven. But me ye have not always — I am soon to leave you, and to be placed beyond the reach of your kindness. In that she hath poured this ointment on my body — On my feet as well as my head; see John 12:4. She did it for my burial — As it were, for the embalming of my body. Indeed this was not her design; but our Lord puts this construction upon it, to confirm thereby what he had before said to his disciples concerning his approaching death. Verily, wheresoever this gospel — That is, this part of the gospel history; shall be preached, this that this woman hath done shall be told, &c. — To make them further sensible of their folly in blaming her for this expression of her love to him, he assured them that however much she might be condemned by them, she should be highly celebrated for this action through the world, and live in the memory of all ages.

11. The poor always with you — The Saviour could be with them but a moment. Their charity will have in this world a plenty of objects for its exercise.

V. 12. She hath done it for my burial-As it were for the embalming of my body. Indeed this was not her design: but our Lord puts this construction upon it, to confirm thereby what he had before said to his disciples, concerning his approaching death.

Verse 12. She did it for my burial.] Or, She hath done it to embalm me-entafiasai me. The Septuagint use entafiasthv for the person whose office it was to embalm, Genesis 50:2, and entafiazw for the Hebrew cnh which signifies to prepare with spices, or aromatics, Genesis 50:3. Our Lord took this opportunity to tell them, once more, that he was shortly to die.

Verses 6-13. When Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper — That is, who had been a leper, but, as seems highly probable, had been healed by Jesus. At least, it is not to be thought that he was now a leper, for in that case he would not have been suffered to live in a town, nor would any Jew have come to an entertainment in his house. There came a woman — Probably Mary, the sister of Lazarus, for it is highly probable, as Dr. Doddridge has shown, that the anointing of Jesus here mentioned, is the same with that recorded John 12:1. Having an alabaster box, &c. — Being deeply affected with the many instances that Christ had given her and her sister Martha of his love, and especially by his late mercy in recovering her dear brother Lazarus from the grave, she was therefore solicitous to give some uncommon token of her gratitude to so excellent a person. She brake the box, says Mark, and poured the precious ointment, or rich balsam, on his head. See note on John 12:3. When the disciples saw it, they had indignation — Several of them were angry, though none so much so as Judas, saying, To what purpose is this waste? — Such a quantity of this rich balsam poured out to so little purpose. For this ointment might have been sold for much — The disciples being sensible that their Master was not delighted with luxuries of any kind, were grieved, and murmured against the woman, says Mark, for throwing away so much money idly, as they imagined. But they expressed themselves so as to cast a tacit reflection on Jesus himself. Jesus said, Why trouble ye the woman? — Why do ye grieve and distress the good woman, of whose piety and friendship we have had so long an experience? For she hath wrought a good work upon me — Hath given a great proof of her faith, gratitude, and love; and therefore deserves to be commended rather than to be blamed. For with respect to what has been now suggested, in favour of the poor, ye have them always with you — By the wise and gracious providence of God, it does, and always will happen, that objects needing your compassion and charity shall always be with you, that you may always have opportunities of relieving their wants, and so of laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven. But me ye have not always — I am soon to leave you, and to be placed beyond the reach of your kindness. In that she hath poured this ointment on my body — On my feet as well as my head; see John 12:4. She did it for my burial — As it were, for the embalming of my body. Indeed this was not her design; but our Lord puts this construction upon it, to confirm thereby what he had before said to his disciples concerning his approaching death. Verily, wheresoever this gospel — That is, this part of the gospel history; shall be preached, this that this woman hath done shall be told, &c. — To make them further sensible of their folly in blaming her for this expression of her love to him, he assured them that however much she might be condemned by them, she should be highly celebrated for this action through the world, and live in the memory of all ages.

Ver. 12. She did it for my burial. The Holy Spirit having prompted her to do what she but imperfectly understood, she became a prophetess of the sufferings and the glory of Christ, leaving the less instructed apostles in the shade.

12. Did it for my burial — It is supposed by some that Mary had either been informed by our Lord of his approaching death, or even that she had some prophetic presentiment of it. It may be remarked that, for the sake of propriety, our Lord was regularly accompanied by twelve male disciples; but the Gospels take care to assure us that those who believed and loved him were not all men; but that woman in her place was not less true to his divine claims than man. Of this fact Mary is the most striking instance; and the meek, silent, and sudden manner in which she comes from her retirement, perhaps from her place of prayer, where the sad future of our Lord may have been intimated to her, into this feast, and performs this act of sorrowful affection, is a special exemplification. It may well be thought possible that our Lord communicated to her a clearer knowledge of his approaching death than to his disciples. Or it may be that to her, as to a divine love, was imparted the spiritual presentiment of the truth. And yet, finally, it is very possible that she acted from the simple impulse of love; and that our Lord himself, giving it a higher meaning, elevated the act into a prediction of his approaching burial. Just so the words of Caiaphas (John 11:49-53) had an unconscious prophetic import.

Verse 12. She did it for my burial. — Not intentionally on the part of Mary; but as the anointing was so profuse and costly, it might well appear to be a funeral rite, in which great expense was allowed by custom in the case of distinguished persons. “And they buried him in his own sepulchres, which he had made for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours and divers kinds of spices prepared by the apothecaries’ art; and they made a very great burning” of odoriferous substances “for him,” 2 Chronicles 16:14. So, also, in the case of our Lord, “they returned, and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment,” Luke 23:56. Our Lord’s death being so near, he speaks of it as already come: “Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this,” John 12:7; thus representing the act of Mary as the embalming of a deceased friend, and justifying its profusion by their own customs. So affectingly present and certain was his approaching death to his mind, and with such calm dignity and resignation did he advert to it, although as he knew the time so he knew all its circumstances of pain, ignominy, and desertion! For my burial. — The word entafiazein includes all the rites and customs which usually preceded or attended the actual burial, as washing, anointing, embalming, &c. St. Mark has it, “She hath done what she could,” she hath in this act put forth the utmost strength of her affection; “she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.”

V. 13. This Gospel-That is, this part of the Gospel history.

Verse 13. Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached] Another remarkable proof of the prescience of Christ. Such a matter as this, humanly speaking, depended on mere fortuitous circumstances, yet so has God disposed matters, that the thing has continued, hitherto, as firm and regular as the ordinances of heaven.

For a memorial of her.] As embalming preserves the body from corruption, and she has done this good work to embalm and preserve this body, so will I order every thing concerning this transaction to be carefully recorded, to preserve her memory to the latest ages. The actions which the world blames, through the spirit of envy, covetousness, or malice, God takes delight to distinguish and record.

Verses 6-13. When Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper — That is, who had been a leper, but, as seems highly probable, had been healed by Jesus. At least, it is not to be thought that he was now a leper, for in that case he would not have been suffered to live in a town, nor would any Jew have come to an entertainment in his house. There came a woman — Probably Mary, the sister of Lazarus, for it is highly probable, as Dr. Doddridge has shown, that the anointing of Jesus here mentioned, is the same with that recorded John 12:1. Having an alabaster box, &c. — Being deeply affected with the many instances that Christ had given her and her sister Martha of his love, and especially by his late mercy in recovering her dear brother Lazarus from the grave, she was therefore solicitous to give some uncommon token of her gratitude to so excellent a person. She brake the box, says Mark, and poured the precious ointment, or rich balsam, on his head. See note on John 12:3. When the disciples saw it, they had indignation — Several of them were angry, though none so much so as Judas, saying, To what purpose is this waste? — Such a quantity of this rich balsam poured out to so little purpose. For this ointment might have been sold for much — The disciples being sensible that their Master was not delighted with luxuries of any kind, were grieved, and murmured against the woman, says Mark, for throwing away so much money idly, as they imagined. But they expressed themselves so as to cast a tacit reflection on Jesus himself. Jesus said, Why trouble ye the woman? — Why do ye grieve and distress the good woman, of whose piety and friendship we have had so long an experience? For she hath wrought a good work upon me — Hath given a great proof of her faith, gratitude, and love; and therefore deserves to be commended rather than to be blamed. For with respect to what has been now suggested, in favour of the poor, ye have them always with you — By the wise and gracious providence of God, it does, and always will happen, that objects needing your compassion and charity shall always be with you, that you may always have opportunities of relieving their wants, and so of laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven. But me ye have not always — I am soon to leave you, and to be placed beyond the reach of your kindness. In that she hath poured this ointment on my body — On my feet as well as my head; see John 12:4. She did it for my burial — As it were, for the embalming of my body. Indeed this was not her design; but our Lord puts this construction upon it, to confirm thereby what he had before said to his disciples concerning his approaching death. Verily, wheresoever this gospel — That is, this part of the gospel history; shall be preached, this that this woman hath done shall be told, &c. — To make them further sensible of their folly in blaming her for this expression of her love to him, he assured them that however much she might be condemned by them, she should be highly celebrated for this action through the world, and live in the memory of all ages.

13. This gospel shall be preached — That is, the Gospel of the dying Saviour, which he subsequently (Mark 16:15) commanded them to preach in all the world, and to every creature. The words here show that our Lord expected his Gospel to be diffused throughout the world. The fact that the mention of this deed of Mary was to be a memorial, shows that our Lord did not expect, as some say, that the world would soon terminate, but that the Gospel should be preached through future ages and to distant generations. So clearly was our Lord master of the great future that, while great deeds have been done and yet forgotten in all the world, this simple act of tender premonition is to be told through the world and through the lapse of time, and will be celebrated while the world lasts. In that Gospel history many an unhappy character and odious name would be transmitted to posterity; but this deed of Mary should be a precious memorial; and the very name of MARY should be sweet in the ears of mankind.

Verse 13. This Gospel. — By the Gospel our Lord doubtless means his doctrine or religion; and when he declares that the history of this particular event should be made known wherever that should be preached, a tacit intimation is given that a written record of his life, embracing this incident, should also accompany it; for the memory of this transaction could only thus be preserved. From this we may conclude that it was always in his intention that a body of sacred Scriptures should accompany the oral proclamation of his doctrine in every place; and that as the inspired writings were not designed to render preaching unnecessary, so the living ministry was never intended to exclude the inspired writings. A memorial of her. — The meaning is, an honourable memorial. It brings to mind the amiable and devout character of Mary, who sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his words with an attention which absorbed every other care; as one of a family specially honoured by our Saviour’s friendship, and who, in this instance, from the fulness of her grateful love, paid him special honour in acknowledgment of his dignity as the true Messiah, and for the spiritual benefits which she had received. Hers was in truth an “everlasting deed,” bound up in the immortality and unchanging endurance of the imperishable record in which it is commemorated, not for her sake only, but to show in how benign and condescending a manner our blessed Lord accepts every thing which is done from an affectionate regard to him as our Teacher and Redeemer, and to honour him in the presence of the world. The lovely picture of simple and elevated piety in Mary stands for ever in the record, for the imitation of all. Docility, attention, spirituality, and affection, are its characteristics.

V. 14. Mark 14:10; Luke 22:3.

Verse 14. Then-Judas] After this supper at Bethany, Judas returned to Jerusalem, and made his contract with the chief priests.

Verses 14-16. Then one of the twelve — Judas Iscariot, having been more forward than the rest (John 12:4) in condemning the woman, thought himself, as it appears, peculiarly affronted by the rebuke which Jesus now gave to all his apostles. Rising up, therefore, he went straightway into the city to the high-priest’s palace, where doubtless he had received some previous information that the council would be assembled, and finding them there accordingly, he said unto them, What will ye give me — Words that show he was influenced to the infamous action partly, at least, by the love of filthy lucre; and I will deliver him unto you? — I will undertake to put him into your hands, at a time and place in which you may effectually secure him, without the danger of giving any alarm to the people. And they covenanted — Or, bargained, with him for thirty pieces of silver — That is, (reckoning each piece to be of the value of 2s. 6d.) for 3l. 15s. sterling, the price of a slave, Exodus 21:32. A goodly price that he was prized at of them! Zechariah 11:13. The sum was so trifling that it would be unaccountable that he should have been influenced in any degree by it, to betray to death his friend and Master, had it not been that, as Luke observes, Luke 22:3, Satan at this time entered into him, which doubtless he was permitted to do to punish him for giving way to a worldly, covetous spirit, and probably for other sins, and especially his not improving the great privilege he had enjoyed for about three years, in statedly attending upon Christ’s ministry, hearing all his divine discourses, and being a constant spectator of his holy life and astonishing miracles, and having the high honour of being called to be one of his apostles. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him — Namely, as Luke observes, in the absence of the multitude, and that officers from the high- priest and his council might come upon him and apprehend him privately.

Ver. 14. Judas Iscariot. This man associated with our Lord, not because his heart was contrite for his great wickedness, but through terror of conscience; and the glorious works of the Saviour amused him, for the time, while an abyss of depravity slumbered in his breast. Not having a relish for divine employment, he preferred being treasurer to the little flock; and being professedly honest, his frequent embezzlements of the sacred store were not suspected by his fellow disciples. Oh vile crime, to rob the altar, and defraud the poor! Covetousness was his character, and it ultimately gained the entire ascendancy over him. This vilest of men knew that the jewish council awaited an opportunity to imprison the Lord and Saviour; and it is apparent that the traitor did not expect his condemnation to die. He instantly calculated on his gain, on the secresy of his treason, and on the enjoyment of his fortune. Avarice so completely obscured his reason, that he forgot the prophetic character of his Master, and the account he must give to God. But hypocrisy is the finishing trait in his character.

This man came to eat bread at his Master’s table, as though he had still been among his fastest friends. And what did the Lord do? He conveyed a hint to him, that he was acquainted with his treason, but so prudently, that every disciple suspected himself rather than the traitor. He permitted Satan to infatuate him to destruction, by the very passion he had always indulged. He detected this Achan, and purified his little family ere he left them in the world. — Beware then, oh man, of dallying with thy besetting sin. Is it drunkenness? Is it impurity, or uncleanness? Is it covetousness? Does the miser exclaim against prodigality? Does he plead the wants of a family, the winter of old age, and the privilege of having a mite for the poor? Judas availed himself of similar excuses. He was wounded when the woman poured the box of ointment on our Saviour’s head, and made the poor his plea.

But mark how his punishment corresponded with his crime. When he saw that Jesus was condemned, his slumbering conscience awoke in all the terrors of an anticipated hell. He knew his die was cast. Mercy he did not ask, for he felt no desire. The sight of his silver he could not bear, it seemed all coined into daggers for his soul. He cast it down at the feet of the council, rather to excite their anguish, than to relieve his own mind. Existence to him was intolerable, nor had he the power to take it away. But finding his misery incessant, he made the desperate leap, to try whether the torments of the invisible world were milder than those of time.

14. One of the twelve — A very apostle, one of the twelve stars in the Christian firmament, thus falls, to be a betrayer and seller of the Son of man. Judas was doubtless stung by the present conversation. The chief blame of our Lord’s rebuke lay on him.

Wednesday of Passion Week.

Verse 14. Then one of the twelve. — The adverb of time, tote, is of indefinite signification. Here it is not certainly to be understood as indicating that, immediately after the anointing of Jesus by Mary, the traitor departed upon his unholy errand: for we have seen that this account is introduced chiefly to afford a key to his character, and that it took place in fact some days before. The tote rather connects what follows with verse 3, where the chief priests, &c., are said to have assembled in the palace of Caiaphas, to consult how they might by stratagem put Christ to death. To this assembly, it would seem, Judas went, and made the offer of betraying his Master into their hands. That which rendered this overture acceptable to them was, that by his means they would be able to discover his retirement, and so apprehend him while the people remained ignorant of it. Hence St. Mark observes, “they were glad, and promised to give him money;” and St. Luke, “that he sought opportunity to betray him to them in the absence of the multitude.”

V. 15. They bargained with him for thirty pieces of silver-(About three pounds fifteen shillings sterling; or sixteen dollars sixty-seven cents,) the price of a slave, Exodus 21:32.

Verse 15. Thirty pieces of silver.] triakonta arguria, thirty silverlings; but stathrav, staters, is the reading of the Codex Bezæ, three copies of the Itala, Eusebius, and Origen sometimes; and stathrav arguriou, silver staters, is the reading of the famous Basil MS. No. 1, in Griesbach, and one copy of the Itala.

A stater was the same as the shekel, and worth about 3s. English money, according to Dean Prideaux: a goodly price for the Saviour of the world! Thirty staters, about 4l. 10s. the common price for the meanest slave! See Exodus 21:32. The rabbins say, thirty ˆy[ls selain of pure silver was the standard price for a slave, whether good or bad, male or female. See tract Erachin, fol. 14, and Shekalim, cap. 1. Each selaa weighed 384 barley-corns; the same number was contained in a shekel; and therefore the shekel and the selaa were the same. See Clarke’s notes on “Genesis 20:16”, and see Clarke “Exodus 38:24”.

Verses 14-16. Then one of the twelve — Judas Iscariot, having been more forward than the rest (John 12:4) in condemning the woman, thought himself, as it appears, peculiarly affronted by the rebuke which Jesus now gave to all his apostles. Rising up, therefore, he went straightway into the city to the high-priest’s palace, where doubtless he had received some previous information that the council would be assembled, and finding them there accordingly, he said unto them, What will ye give me — Words that show he was influenced to the infamous action partly, at least, by the love of filthy lucre; and I will deliver him unto you? — I will undertake to put him into your hands, at a time and place in which you may effectually secure him, without the danger of giving any alarm to the people. And they covenanted — Or, bargained, with him for thirty pieces of silver — That is, (reckoning each piece to be of the value of 2s. 6d.) for 3l. 15s. sterling, the price of a slave, Exodus 21:32. A goodly price that he was prized at of them! Zechariah 11:13. The sum was so trifling that it would be unaccountable that he should have been influenced in any degree by it, to betray to death his friend and Master, had it not been that, as Luke observes, Luke 22:3, Satan at this time entered into him, which doubtless he was permitted to do to punish him for giving way to a worldly, covetous spirit, and probably for other sins, and especially his not improving the great privilege he had enjoyed for about three years, in statedly attending upon Christ’s ministry, hearing all his divine discourses, and being a constant spectator of his holy life and astonishing miracles, and having the high honour of being called to be one of his apostles. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him — Namely, as Luke observes, in the absence of the multitude, and that officers from the high- priest and his council might come upon him and apprehend him privately.

15. What will ye give — This is a true bargainer’s question. He is ready to betray his Master if he can get the pay for it. He has a man, a divine man, to sell, and he hucksters for his price. Luke says that “Satan had now entered into him.” He is driven by the fire of a hasty resentment, and led by the attractions of gain to seek a bribe for treason. He makes the advance, and tempts, the men who are wicked enough without any special seducing. Thus do men enact the part of Satan towards each other.

They covenanted — Luke says “they were glad.” They could now apprehend Jesus in a private way, and without the “uproar” mentioned in verse fifth.

Thirty pieces of silver — The ordinary price of a slave, being about fifteen dollars. Thus was verified the allusion of Zechariah 11:12: “So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.” The sum appears trifling for the treason, if we estimate it by the immense consequences. But, after all, the whole service Judas did was to inform the foes of Jesus where he might be found and taken without tumult, and guide them to the place.

Verse 15. What will ye give me, &c. — Every thing here is in keeping with the character of Judas. Avarice was his leading passion; and he is anxious to make a good and secure bargain before he ventures upon his villany. What will ye give me? And however strange and inexplicable his conduct may at first sight appear, the fact of his being under the dominion of this absorbing passion will sufficiently account for it. His state was probably at first that of a sincere and teachable disciple; or it is difficult to conceive that our Lord would have called him into the number of his apostles. But his carrying the bag which contained the common stock of money for themselves and the poor, and which appears to have been replenished from time to time by the offerings of a few more opulent disciples, who ministered to our Lord of their substance, became, it is likely, the first cause of his fall. As he is called “a thief,” he probably began by applying part of this common stock to his own private use; and his natural avarice being thus awakened and fed, his heart became obdurate, his conscience, seared, and his judgment blinded. The very circumstance of our Lord’s declining to avail himself of so many favourable opportunities of declaring himself a king, and turning the tide of popular feeling in his favour, might also operate upon his earthly and disappointed mind, and lead him greatly to doubt or utterly to disbelieve that he was the Messiah he once believed him to be. With all this there was the busy agency of Satan. “The unclean spirit had gone out” of this man; but finding “the house from which he had gone out swept and garnished” by this worldliness of temper, avarice of gain, and indulgence of a petty dishonesty, he again entered, and his “last state became worse than the first.” Of the truth of this parable the wretched Judas was an awful instance, and warns all against returning again to the dominion of any one guilty passion. “Then entered Satan into Judas, surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them,” Luke 22:3, 4. Several conjectures, as to the motives by which Judas was influenced, have been indulged in by commentators; as, that he thought that Jesus would deliver himself by miracle, and so he should cheat the priests out of their money, and his Master sustain no injury; or that he might compel his Master, by putting him into the hands of his enemies, to show forth his power and declare himself a king. But the fair inference, from the account of the evangelists, is, that he entered upon an act of deliberate treachery toward Christ himself, under the influence of his own covetousness and the agency of Satan.

Thirty pieces of silver. — These were shekels, of the value of about four drachmas, or about two shillings and sixpence. The whole sum would therefore be about three pounds fifteen shillings. Some MSS. instead of arguria read stathrav; but the value of the shekel and the stater was the same. Thirty pieces of silver, or shekels, was the usual price of a slave. Hence it was enacted, Exodus 21:32, “If an ox shall push a man servant or maid servant, he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver.” But as so small a sum appears to have been too inconsiderable to induce Judas to this act and such as the chief priests would scarcely think of offering to accomplish an object they had so much at heart, some have thought the pieces of silver were the Talmudic mina, each of the value of three pounds, and more especially as it might seem that this sum was sufficient to buy the potter’s field. But the field, having been dug up for potteries, and exhausted, was probably of little value. The sum, however, actually paid, might be but an earnest of a larger reward, should he fulfil his engagement. This is the view of Rosenmuller and Michaelis; and it might be restricted to the thirty pieces of silver by an overruling Providence in order to fulfil a prophecy, which is quoted in the course of the history by the evangelist, and which will, in its proper place, be considered. See Matthew 27:9. The guilty bargain being concluded, from that time he sought eukairian, a favourable opportunity to betray him. Nor was he long in finding what he sought; for occasions of sin soon present themselves to those disposed to sin.

Verse 16. He sought opportunity] eukairian, a convenient or fit opportunity. Men seldom leave a crime imperfect: when once sin is conceived, it meets, in general, with few obstacles, till it brings forth death. How deceitful, how deeply damning, is the love of money! Well might a heathen exclaim, while contemplating the grave of a person who was murdered for the sake of his wealth:-

---------- Quid non mortalia pectora cogis

AURI SACRA FAMES?

VIRG. Æn. iii. 56

“O! cursed lust of gold! what wilt thou not compel the human heart to perpetrate?.” Judas is deservedly considered as one of the most infamous of men, his conduct base beyond description, and his motives vile. But how many, since his time, have walked in the same way! How many, for the sake of worldly wealth, have renounced the religion of their Lord and Master, and sold Jesus, and their interest in heaven, for a short-lived portion of secular good! From John 12:6, we learn that Judas, who was treasurer to our Lord and his disciples, (for he carried the bag,) was a thief, and frequently purloined a portion of what was given for the support of this holy family. Being disappointed of the prey he hoped to have from the sale of the precious ointment, Matthew 26:9, he sold his Master to make up the sum. A thorough Jew!

Verses 14-16. Then one of the twelve — Judas Iscariot, having been more forward than the rest (John 12:4) in condemning the woman, thought himself, as it appears, peculiarly affronted by the rebuke which Jesus now gave to all his apostles. Rising up, therefore, he went straightway into the city to the high-priest’s palace, where doubtless he had received some previous information that the council would be assembled, and finding them there accordingly, he said unto them, What will ye give me — Words that show he was influenced to the infamous action partly, at least, by the love of filthy lucre; and I will deliver him unto you? — I will undertake to put him into your hands, at a time and place in which you may effectually secure him, without the danger of giving any alarm to the people. And they covenanted — Or, bargained, with him for thirty pieces of silver — That is, (reckoning each piece to be of the value of 2s. 6d.) for 3l. 15s. sterling, the price of a slave, Exodus 21:32. A goodly price that he was prized at of them! Zechariah 11:13. The sum was so trifling that it would be unaccountable that he should have been influenced in any degree by it, to betray to death his friend and Master, had it not been that, as Luke observes, Luke 22:3, Satan at this time entered into him, which doubtless he was permitted to do to punish him for giving way to a worldly, covetous spirit, and probably for other sins, and especially his not improving the great privilege he had enjoyed for about three years, in statedly attending upon Christ’s ministry, hearing all his divine discourses, and being a constant spectator of his holy life and astonishing miracles, and having the high honour of being called to be one of his apostles. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him — Namely, as Luke observes, in the absence of the multitude, and that officers from the high- priest and his council might come upon him and apprehend him privately.

16. Sought opportunity to betray him — Luke informs us that the opportunity he sought was the absence of the multitude. The people were so strongly on the side of Jesus that the authorities dare not openly apprehend him. Their method was to take him secretly, charge him with some crime, and thus gain the multitude against him.

Thursday of Passion Week.

V. 17. On the first day of unleavened bread-Being Thursday, the fourteenth day of the first month, Exodus 12:6, 15. Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7

Verse 17. Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread] As the feast of unleavened bread did not begin till the day after the passover, the fifteenth day of the month, Leviticus 23:5, 6; Numbers 28:16, 17, this could not have been, properly, the first day of that feast; but as the Jews began to eat unleavened bread on the fourteenth, Exodus 12:18, this day was often termed the first of unleavened bread. The evangelists use it in this sense, and call even the paschal day by this name. See Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7.

Where wilt thou that we prepare] How astonishing is this, that HE who created all things, whether visible or invisible, and by whom all things were upheld, should so empty himself as not to be proprietor of a single house in his whole creation, to eat the last passover with his disciples! This is certainly a mystery, and so, less or more is every thing that God does. But how inveterate and destructive must the nature of sin be, when such emptying and humiliation were necessary to its destruction! It is worthy of note what the Talmudists say, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem did not let out their houses to those who came to the annual feasts; but afforded all accommodations of this kind gratis. A man might therefore go and request the use of any room, on such an occasion, which was as yet unoccupied. The earthen jug, and the skin of the sacrifice, were left with the host. See Lightfoot, vol. ii. p. 21.

Verse 17. On the first day of unleavened bread — Being Thursday, the fourteenth day of the first month, Exodus 12:6, 15. The disciples came, saying, Where wilt thou that we prepare the passover? — They meant at what house. And he said, Go into the city to such a man — This implies that Jesus named the person to whom they were sent, though the evangelists have not thought it of importance to mention his name. He told them further, that on their entrance into the city they should find one of the man’s servants in the street, bearing a pitcher of water. This person he ordered them to follow, without saying any thing to him, because as he was carrying the water home he would lead them straight to his master’s house, with which, it seems, the disciples were not acquainted. This direction, and some others, mentioned Mark 14:14, 15; Luke 22:11, 12, (where see the notes,) were given by Jesus to his disciples, and these predictions were uttered to show them how completely he foreknew every thing that should befall him, and to convince them that his sufferings were all predetermined of God; and that, on his part, they were all submitted to voluntarily. The disciples did as Jesus had appointed — and found every thing to happen exactly as Jesus had foretold, which doubtless would tend no little to confirm their faith in him, and prepare them for the trial they would so soon have to pass through.

§ 121. — TWO DISCIPLES SENT TO PREPARE THE PASSOVER, 17-19.

17. Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread — This was Thursday, the day before the crucifixion day, the day upon whose evening our Saviour ate the paschal lamb. We have remarked before that, accurately speaking, the passover and the feast of unleavened bread were distinct; the latter being during the seven days after the passover, and commencing the next day after the passover supper. But inasmuch as the leavened bread was, by way of preparation, banished from their houses on this day, before the passover supper, it was properly called the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, as it is called here. The feast of unleavened bread was thus enjoined by Moses, Exodus 12:18: “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall eat unleavened bread until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.”

Verse 17. The first day of the feast of unleavened bread. — This was in the morning of the day, in the evening of which the passover was killed before the setting of the sun. The obligation to abstain from unleavened bread did not properly commence till the paschal supper; yet, for fear of offending the law, the Jews put away all leavened bread from their houses on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, before the lamb was killed. This day appears, therefore, to have been popularly called the first day of unleavened bread. As the Jews began their day in the evening, the fifteenth day, when the paschal supper was eaten, commenced on the evening of the fourteenth, according to our mode of computing days. Lightfoot, on Jewish authorities, thus describes the manner of killing the paschal lambs: “The lambs are killed only in the temple, in the usual court of other sacrifices, on the fourteenth of the month Nisan, after noon, and after the daily sacrifice. The Israelites bring the lambs on their shoulders; the trumpets sound; the priests stand in order; the Israelites kill each a lamb; a priest receives the blood in a silver or golden phial, and gives the full phial to the next, who returns him an empty one. Thus the blood is handed to the altar, and sprinkled or poured out against the foot of it. The lamb is flayed, the fat burned on the altar, and the body carried back and eaten where they sup.” It is, however, doubtful whether the priests had this immense labour imposed upon them. Philo, in three places of his works, expressly says that “by the appointment of the law every Jew was permitted to kill his paschal lamb, and to be so far his own priest, though in no other instance. In this Philo and Josephus appear to be at issue, the latter assigning that office to the priests; and nothing can be clearly gathered from the law on the subject, Exodus 12:6, 8, and Deuteronomy 16:6, but that it was to be killed in the evening of the fourteenth day, and eaten that night, “in that place only where God should place his name;” that is, where the tabernacle was first placed, and then where the temple was erected.

A difference of opinion exists among commentators on the question whether our Lord actually ate this Jewish passover, or instituted the eucharist at a common supper; or anticipated the usual time of the passover by a day; or ate it at the same time as the rest of the Jews. Nothing theologically important depends upon the solution of these points, some of which are certainly attended with a little difficulty. It must, however, be fairly concluded, from the three first gospels, that he not only ate the paschal, and not a common supper, but that he did so at the same time in which it was eaten by, at least, the generality of the Jews. It is certain, from St. Matthew’s account, that the disciples made ready the passover, previous to the evening on which he instituted his own supper. St. Mark characterizes “the first day of unleavened bread,” on which the disciples were commanded to prepare the passover, as the day “when THEY,” that is, the Jews, “killed the passover;” and St. Luke says, “then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed,” en h edei quesqai to pasca, Luke 22:7. All these three evangelists therefore agree,

1. That on this day, Thursday, the Jews killed the passover.

2. That the disciples of Christ, under his direction, prepared it for him; and,

3. That he supped upon it in the evening, saying, “With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.” The only difficulty, therefore, consists in reconciling this statement with John 18:28, where the Jews are said, early on Friday morning, to refuse to go into the judgment hall, “lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover;” and to John 19:14, where the noon of Friday is called “the preparation of the passover.” To explain this, it has been said that it appears from the Talmud and rabbinical writings, that, in cases of doubt respecting the time of the appearance of the new moon, from which they commenced their monthly reckoning, the passover was permitted to be holden on both of the days between which the doubt lay; for the Jews did not regulate their months by astronomical calculations, but by the actual appearance of the new moon, which sometimes created disputes; and Dr. Cudworth quotes Epiphanius to show that there was a contention respecting the time of the passover this very year. It is therefore inferred that though a part, probably the greater part, of the Jews celebrated the passover on the same day as our Lord, yet others, as many of the scribes and Pharisees, did it on the day following. Against this solution there lie, however, several objections; as, that the senate sat in form to receive the report of witnesses who had seen the new moon, and that by their decision upon their testimony the feasts were regulated. Nor is there any indication in the gospels of any difference of opinion on the subject on the year in question; which negative evidence is probably stronger than the assertion of Epiphanius at so great a distance of time. Nor is the conjecture probable that, in our Lord’s days, on account of the immense numbers assembled at this feast, necessity compelled them to occupy two days. For the law is express as to the day on which the whole assembly were to perform this solemn rite. These obvious objections may not be fatal to the above solution of the difficulty; but they render it less satisfactory. But the passages just referred to in St. John’s gospel are capable of another explanation, which seems fully to meet the case. On the day following the passover, and throughout all the days of unleavened bread, sacrifices of sheep and oxen were daily offered in abundance, and feasted upon. “Thou shalt sacrifice the passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose,” Deuteronomy 16:2. This passage not only shows that sacrifices from the flock and herd were offered at that season, but the whole ceremonial, including these offerings, is called THE PASSOVER, no doubt because of its immediate connection with what was properly such. In Numbers 28:18, &c., we find that for the day following the proper paschal feast particular offerings were prescribed, and this day and the seventh are particularly distinguished as days of “holy convocation;” and in the account of the celebration of the passover in the time of Josiah, 2 Chronicles 35, not only are the “lambs and kids” for the paschal sacrifice, but the “oxen” and other cattle for the offerings on the days of the feast, called “passover offerings.” When, therefore, St. John tells us that the Jews entered not into the judgment hall, “lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover,” he uses the term, as Dr. Campbell well observes, in the same latitude as Moses and the writer of the Chronicles; and “no more is meant by eating the passover than partaking in the sacrifices offered during the days of unleavened bread.” The other passage in this evangelist, when, speaking of the day of our Lord’s crucifixion, Friday, he remarks, “and it was the preparation of the passover,” hn de paraskeuh tou pasca, Dr. Campbell renders, “Now it was the preparation of the paschal Sabbath;” and observes,” the word paraskeuh in the New Testament denotes always, in my opinion, the day before the Sabbath, and not the day which preceded any other festival, unless that festival fell on the Sabbath.” he gives his reasons at length; to which may be added that Nonnus, the Greek paraphrast of this gospel, seems to have understood the word paraskeuh in the same manner, and to have used a Greek copy which had not tou pasca in it. He paraphrases the passage, the sixth day of the week, which they call prasabbaton, the preparation of the Sabbath. The “preparation of the passover” it could not be; for although we should allow, contrary to Campbell’s opinion, that the day preceding any feast was called its preparation, then if Friday, the day of our Lord’s crucifixion, was the day of the passover properly so called, it could not be the preparation of the passover. Either, therefore, we must render the words, “the preparation of the paschal Sabbath,” with Campbell, or adopt a different reading with Nonnus. Thus the account of John is in perfect harmony with that of the other evangelists; and the conclusion of the whole is, that our Lord not only ate the paschal feast with his disciples, and that on the Thursday evening, the evening before his crucifixion; but also at the same time as the rest of the Jews, according to the obvious sense of the narrative in the three first gospels. Several commentators appear to have been misled on this point by an anxiety to make the death of Christ to correspond with the very time when the paschal lambs were slain, in order to show a more exact correspondence between the type and the antitype. But this is being “wise above what is written,” and shows an anxiety to establish a circumstance by no means important. It is enough for us to know that, during the feast of the Jewish passover, Christ our passover was sacrificed for us; and that by engrafting upon this commemorative feast that of his own commemorative supper, he has indubitably marked the typical relation between them.

V. 18. The Master saith, My time is at hand-That is, the time of my suffering.

Verse 18. Go-to such a man] ton deina It is probable that this means some person with whom Christ was well acquainted, and who was known to the disciples. Grotius observes that the Greeks use this form when they mean some particular person who is so well known that there is no need to specify him by name. The circumstances are more particularly marked in Luke 22:8, &c.

My time is at hand] That is, the time of my crucifixion. Kypke has largely shown that kairov is often used among the Greeks for affliction and calamity. It might be rendered here, the time of my crucifixion is at hand.

18. Go into the city — The city of Jerusalem, for a paschal lamb could be eaten at no other place. The Jews of the present day do not eat the paschal lamb at their annual passover. They only celebrate the feast of unleavened bread, which, as we have before said, followed the passover. To such a man — This was a very indefinite direction; and perhaps Matthew only gives the substance of what Mark gives more explicitly. As they entered the city they would find a water carrier, whom they should follow and he would guide them to the householder, who would furnish them a room. Such a man — A man I will not name. The man will occur by human accident; but free will and human accident all operate under the clear-seeing eye of God’s foreknowledge. God clearly sees what man will freely do. As God sees how man will freely do, so he does most wisely adjust his plans. So God carries out his vast projects by taking and interweaving man’s free acts into his complex plans.

This direction very much resembles the sending the disciples to find in a miraculous manner the beast on which he should ride into Jerusalem, as well as the miracle of finding the coin in the fish’s mouth. For even if we suppose, with some commentators, that our Lord had intimated beforehand to some wealthy friend, as Joseph or Nicodemus, that he would take the last passover upon earth at his house, still, finding the pitcher-bearer was a supernatural contingency. The reason of such proceedings on the part of our Lord, which some commentators are so puzzled to find, is clearly to manifest to all around that he foresees all the events and sufferings before him. That is, he marches forward in a foreseen path of duty, and his sufferings are undergone in a perfectly voluntary manner. John 10:18. The Master saith — The word master is correlative to the word disciple; and thus it is clearly implied that the householder is a follower of Jesus. Indeed, when we recollect that the rulers were afraid of the multitudes, as being adherents of Jesus, we may reasonably infer that the number of those who would call him “Master” was not few. My time is at hand — My time of suffering, previous to which I have promised to eat the paschal lamb at your house. And this language clearly implies that the man was our Lord’s disciple, that he clearly understood what was meant by the phrase “my time,” and that he was fully ready to appreciate the honour of furnishing the room for our Lord’s use. During passover week the houses of Jerusalem were hospitably open to the comers from the different parts of Palestine to celebrate the passover.

Verse 18. To such a man. — Whether our Lord mentioned his name or not, does not appear; the means of finding him was, however, appointed. From the other evangelists we learn that the signal was to be their meeting a man with a pitcher of water, probably a servant; and, following him, they were to bespeak “a guest chamber” from the owner of the house into which he should enter; a proof to the disciples of their Lord’s perfect knowledge of future contingencies. The disciples had previously inquired, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? for they might make use of any house where there was room, the inhabitants of Jerusalem affording their rooms gratuitously to all who applied at this festival; and the Jews say in praise of their ancient city, “A man could never say to his friend, I have not found a fire to roast the passover lamb in Jerusalem; nor, I have not found a bed to sleep on, in Jerusalem; nor, The place is too strait for me to lodge in, in Jerusalem.” The master of this house was probably favourable to our Lord, or the house was selected for privacy, for sometimes two companies ate their passover not only in the same house, but in the same room. Our Lord celebrated the passover at the head of his disciples, as his family; for though it was properly a family office to be performed by the natural head, yet when the family was small two or more were united, and in other cases individuals agreed to make up a passover company who stood in no natural relation to each other. In this case one presided, as though he had been master of the house. My time is at hand. — Those who think that this expression indicates that our Lord ate the passover at a different time from the rest of the Jews, a time of his own appointing, forget that this is precisely the mystical phrase which he often used to intimate his death and passion. Neither his disciples nor the master of the house can be supposed to have at that time comprehended its import.

Verse 19. And the disciples did] The disciples that were sent on this errand were Peter and John. See Luke 22:8.

They made ready the passover] That is, they provided the lamb, &c., which were appointed by the law for this solemnity. Mr. Wakefield justly observes, “that the Jews considered the passover as a sacrificial rite; Josephus calls it qusian, A SACRIFICE; and Trypho, in Justin Martyr, speaks of probaton tou pasca quein, SACRIFICING the paschal lamb. But what comes nearer to the point is this, that Maimonides, one of the most eminent of the Jewish rabbins, has a particular treatise on the paschal sacrifice; and throughout that piece, speaks of the lamb as a victim, and of the solemnity itself as a sacrifice. And R. Bechai, in his commentary on Leviticus 2:11, says that the paschal sacrifice was of a piacular nature, in order to expiate the guilt contracted by the idolatrous practices of the Israelites In Egypt.” It was highly necessary that this should be considered as an expiatory sacrifice, as it typified that Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. For much more on this important subject than can, with propriety, be introduced into these notes, see a Discourse on the Eucharist, lately published by the author of this work.

19. Did as Jesus had appointed them — It was a blind sort of an errand upon which they were to go, and it was undertaken in full faith that it should turn out right. So those men were trained to go on a still greater errand, even the proclaiming the everlasting Gospel to the guilty world. Made ready the passover — They were not only to secure the room, but procure the lamb, which had been first inspected by the priests, have it killed and the blood sprinkled at the foot of the altar, and take it to the house. They were to obtain the bread and wine and the bitter herbs. The two disciples were Peter and John; and no doubt it was with wondering sadness that they performed the faithful office.

Verse 19. They made ready the passover. — They purchased one of the lambs which were on sale, and which had previously undergone the inspection of the priests, had it killed, and the blood sprinkled at the foot of the altar, brought it to the house, provided the bread, wine, bitter herbs, the sauce in which the herbs were dipped, and all other necessary things for the due celebration of the rite.

V. 20. Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14.

Verse 20. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.] It is a common opinion that our Lord ate the passover some hours before the Jews ate it; for the Jews, according to custom, ate theirs at the end of the fourteenth day, but Christ ate his the preceding even, which was the beginning of the same sixth day, or Friday; the Jews begin their day at sunsetting, we at midnight. Thus Christ ate the passover on the same day with the Jews, but not on the same hour. Christ kept this passover the beginning of the fourteenth day, the precise day and hour in which the Jews had eaten their first passover in Egypt. See Exodus 12:6-12. And in the same part of the same day in which the Jews had sacrificed their first paschal lamb, viz. between the two evenings, about the ninth hour, or 3 o’clock, Jesus Christ our passover was sacrificed for us: for it was at this hour that he yielded up his last breath; and then it was that, the sacrifice being completed, Jesus said, IT IS FINISHED. See Exodus 12:6, &c., and Deuteronomy 16:6, &c. See Clarke on “John 18:28”, and the Treatise on the Eucharist, referred to see Clarke “Matthew 26:19”; and see Clarke’s notes on “Matthew 26:26” and following verses.

Verses 20-25. And when the even was come — At the proper hour; he sat down with the twelve — To taste first, according to the custom of those days, the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs, before the lamb was served up. After which they proceeded as is related in the note on verse 2. And as they did eat he said — One of you shall betray me — He had before told them, namely, Matthew 17:22, that the Son of man should be betrayed; he now comes to acquaint them, that one of them would be the traitor, and to point out the guilty person. And they were exceeding sorrowful — They were sorrowful that he should be betrayed by any one, but more so that one of themselves should be the instrument of so horrible a crime: and began every one to say, Lord, is it I, that am this guilty creature? They do not appear to have asked this question because they mistrusted themselves, not knowing to how great a wickedness their hearts might lead them; but because each of them wanted to be freed from the suspicion of such an iniquity. He answered, He that dippeth, &c. — “Grotius and others think this implies that Judas had placed himself so near his Master as to eat out of the same dish with him. But their way of lying on couches at meat must have made it inconvenient for two or more persons to eat in that manner. It is more probable that the disciples, being in the deepest distress, had left off eating, only Judas, to conceal his guilt, continued the meal, and was dipping his meat in a kind of a sauce named haroseth, (which they used on these occasions,) when Jesus happened to be putting his into it; which sauce, according to custom, was served up in a separate dish.” — Macknight. The Son of man goeth through sufferings to glory, as it is written of him — In the Scriptures; and determined in the divine counsels. See note on Acts 2:23. Yet this was no excuse for him that betrayed him: but wo to that man, &c. — In pronouncing this wo upon the man by whom he should be betrayed, our Lord manifestly shows that the foreknowledge and prediction that he should suffer, and that by the treachery of Judas, laid no antecedent necessity upon Judas of doing this action, for if it had, it not only would have lessened the wo due to him, but would have taken away all his guilt. For no guilt can attach to any action which a man is laid under an absolute necessity of doing, and which to him is unavoidable. All that the prediction of Judas’s treachery implies is, that God with certainty foreknew how his will, left entirely to its own freedom, would determine on this occasion: and, it must be observed, it would have determined in the same way, if such determination had neither been foreknown nor foretold. See note on 1 Peter 1:2. It had been good for that man if he had not been born — May not the same be said of every man that finally perishes? But who can reconcile this, if it were true of Judas alone, with the doctrine of universal salvation? For, if the torments of hell were not eternal, but, after suffering in them, though it might be millions of millions of years, guilty sinners should be rescued from them and brought to the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness, it still would be good for them that they had been born, inasmuch as they would still have a never-ending state of felicity before them. Then Judas, who betrayed him — Who had in fact already betrayed him, verse 15, and was now waiting for an opportunity to deliver him privately into the hands of the chief priests, answered, Master — Gr. Rabbi, or teacher, Is it I? — The other disciples, in asking the same question, said each of them, kurie, Lord, is it I? a title implying greater reverence than Judas was disposed to show his Master. As Judas was conscious of what he had already done, and was resolved still further to do, in betraying and delivering up his Divine Master, and could not but know that his whole conduct, and the very secrets of his heart, lay open to his inspection, he manifests by this question unparalleled impudence, as well as excessive hardness of heart. One would almost suppose, that he intended to insult Christ’s prescience as well as long-suffering. He, Jesus, said unto him, Thou hast said — That is, It is as thou hast said: thou art the guilty person. Before this, when Christ discovered that he should be betrayed, he only told it in John’s ear, that Judas would be the traitor: and John told it to Peter, (see John 13:23-

§ 122, 124 — SUPPER AND INTIMATION OF HIS BETRAYAL, 20-25.

20. Now when the even was come — The passover evening. Between three and six o’clock the paschal lamb was slain. Not less than ten, nor more than twenty persons sat down to the same supper. If our Lord followed in the main the usual custom of the Jews, as described by Maimonides, the following things were done. Our Lord, being master of the family, as they reclined on their meal-couches, took a cup of wine in his right hand, and uttered the prayer of consecration, saying, “Blessed be thy name, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast created the fruit of the vine.” He then drank the first cup and was followed by all the others. Originally the whole service was performed standing; but when the Jews were settled in Canaan they adopted the reclining posture, to symbolize the repose which God had given them.

A service was then brought in, consisting of bitter herbs, unleavened bread, and a sort of fruit-cake made of raisins, figs, dates, etc., pressed together, to represent the clay with which Israel made brick in Egypt, which was called the charoseth; and besides this was the paschal lamb. The master, and then the rest, first ate a bitter herb, and gave thanks for the fruit of the earth. Then a disciple asks, as being one of the family, according to Exodus 12:26, “What mean ye by this?” The Lord answers by explaining the historical import of the paschal commemoration. Psalms 113 and 114 were then sung. And then the second cup of wine was drunk. Then occurs that part which our Lord transferred to the new dispensation. Usually the Hebrew officiating householder took cakes and brake them with benediction, and gave to each one a piece, saying, “This is” (that is, this represents) “the bread of affliction which our fathers did eat in the land of Egypt.” This our Lord changed to “This is my body,” that is, represents my body. Then was the paschal flesh eaten, a full meal being taken. After this the third cup, which our Lord applied to its higher use in the new dispensation. The old mode was for the master to take the cup, pronounce a blessing, and drink; his example being followed by the others. This is “the cup of blessing” which the apostle mentions, and identifies with the sacramental cup, in 1 Corinthians 10:16. Then by custom followed the fourth cup, (which our Lord omitted,) followed by the chant of the Great Hallel. See note on ver. 30.

Verse 20. He sat down. — He reclined, anekeito; for the recumbent posture at meals, and even at the paschal supper, had long been introduced, although the Israelites were at first commanded to eat it standing, with staffs in their hands, as persons setting out on a journey. The rabbins justified, and indeed enjoined, this departure from the original institution, on the ground that this recumbent posture was symbolical of that rest in the land of Canaan, to which the Israelites at first were but setting out, but which they had attained.

With the twelve. — Judas, having transacted his infamous bargain with the chief priests, had now returned and taken his place with the rest, little reflecting that he and all his secret negotiations were well under the eye of his omniscient Master.

Verse 21. One of you shall betray me.] Or, will deliver me up. Judas had already betrayed him, Matthew 26:15, and he was now about to deliver him into the hands of the chief priests, according to the agreement he had made with them.

Verses 20-25. And when the even was come — At the proper hour; he sat down with the twelve — To taste first, according to the custom of those days, the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs, before the lamb was served up. After which they proceeded as is related in the note on verse 2. And as they did eat he said — One of you shall betray me — He had before told them, namely, Matthew 17:22, that the Son of man should be betrayed; he now comes to acquaint them, that one of them would be the traitor, and to point out the guilty person. And they were exceeding sorrowful — They were sorrowful that he should be betrayed by any one, but more so that one of themselves should be the instrument of so horrible a crime: and began every one to say, Lord, is it I, that am this guilty creature? They do not appear to have asked this question because they mistrusted themselves, not knowing to how great a wickedness their hearts might lead them; but because each of them wanted to be freed from the suspicion of such an iniquity. He answered, He that dippeth, &c. — “Grotius and others think this implies that Judas had placed himself so near his Master as to eat out of the same dish with him. But their way of lying on couches at meat must have made it inconvenient for two or more persons to eat in that manner. It is more probable that the disciples, being in the deepest distress, had left off eating, only Judas, to conceal his guilt, continued the meal, and was dipping his meat in a kind of a sauce named haroseth, (which they used on these occasions,) when Jesus happened to be putting his into it; which sauce, according to custom, was served up in a separate dish.” — Macknight. The Son of man goeth through sufferings to glory, as it is written of him — In the Scriptures; and determined in the divine counsels. See note on Acts 2:23. Yet this was no excuse for him that betrayed him: but wo to that man, &c. — In pronouncing this wo upon the man by whom he should be betrayed, our Lord manifestly shows that the foreknowledge and prediction that he should suffer, and that by the treachery of Judas, laid no antecedent necessity upon Judas of doing this action, for if it had, it not only would have lessened the wo due to him, but would have taken away all his guilt. For no guilt can attach to any action which a man is laid under an absolute necessity of doing, and which to him is unavoidable. All that the prediction of Judas’s treachery implies is, that God with certainty foreknew how his will, left entirely to its own freedom, would determine on this occasion: and, it must be observed, it would have determined in the same way, if such determination had neither been foreknown nor foretold. See note on 1 Peter 1:2. It had been good for that man if he had not been born — May not the same be said of every man that finally perishes? But who can reconcile this, if it were true of Judas alone, with the doctrine of universal salvation? For, if the torments of hell were not eternal, but, after suffering in them, though it might be millions of millions of years, guilty sinners should be rescued from them and brought to the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness, it still would be good for them that they had been born, inasmuch as they would still have a never-ending state of felicity before them. Then Judas, who betrayed him — Who had in fact already betrayed him, verse 15, and was now waiting for an opportunity to deliver him privately into the hands of the chief priests, answered, Master — Gr. Rabbi, or teacher, Is it I? — The other disciples, in asking the same question, said each of them, kurie, Lord, is it I? a title implying greater reverence than Judas was disposed to show his Master. As Judas was conscious of what he had already done, and was resolved still further to do, in betraying and delivering up his Divine Master, and could not but know that his whole conduct, and the very secrets of his heart, lay open to his inspection, he manifests by this question unparalleled impudence, as well as excessive hardness of heart. One would almost suppose, that he intended to insult Christ’s prescience as well as long-suffering. He, Jesus, said unto him, Thou hast said — That is, It is as thou hast said: thou art the guilty person. Before this, when Christ discovered that he should be betrayed, he only told it in John’s ear, that Judas would be the traitor: and John told it to Peter, (see John 13:23-

21. As they did eat — Introductory to and during this supper, some things occur not mentioned by Matthew, but furnished by the other evangelists. Our Lord at the commencement expressed the solemn desire with which he had anticipated that feast. Luke 22:14, 15. Before the supper had fully begun, (Luke 22:14-18,) a strife for pre-eminence took place among the disciples, which drew forth from our Lord a lesson on humility, which he then illustrated by washing his disciples’ feet. John 13:1-20. This he probably did as they reclined upon their supper-couches. This strife, at this most unsuitable time, probably arose for the pre-eminence at the table, of which the Orientals were very tenacious. Then follow the references to his betrayer here given by Matthew. Shall betray me — In regard to the conversation by which our Lord specified Judas as the betrayer, I think the true order of things, will be best ascertained by reading in sections Matthew 26:21-23, then John 13:23-26, then Matthew 26:24, 25, and last John 13:27-30. We thereby trace the gradual climax by which our Lord first makes a general charge, then narrows it to a group, then so reveals it to one as that it would be soon known to all, and then identifies the traitor to himself. In the present verse, as the first of the above steps of exposure, the charge is general, and any one of the disciples may claim it to himself.

Verse 21. One of you shall betray me. — That he said this in a very solemn and impressive manner, appears not only from the effect produced upon all except Judas, but from the words of St. John 13:21, “He was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.”

Verse 22. They were exceeding sorrowful] That is, the eleven who were innocent; and the hypocritical traitor, Judas, endeavoured to put on the appearance of sorrow. Strange! Did he not know that Christ knew the secrets of his soul! Or had his love of money so far blinded him, as to render him incapable of discerning even this, with which he had been before so well acquainted?

Verses 20-25. And when the even was come — At the proper hour; he sat down with the twelve — To taste first, according to the custom of those days, the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs, before the lamb was served up. After which they proceeded as is related in the note on verse 2. And as they did eat he said — One of you shall betray me — He had before told them, namely, Matthew 17:22, that the Son of man should be betrayed; he now comes to acquaint them, that one of them would be the traitor, and to point out the guilty person. And they were exceeding sorrowful — They were sorrowful that he should be betrayed by any one, but more so that one of themselves should be the instrument of so horrible a crime: and began every one to say, Lord, is it I, that am this guilty creature? They do not appear to have asked this question because they mistrusted themselves, not knowing to how great a wickedness their hearts might lead them; but because each of them wanted to be freed from the suspicion of such an iniquity. He answered, He that dippeth, &c. — “Grotius and others think this implies that Judas had placed himself so near his Master as to eat out of the same dish with him. But their way of lying on couches at meat must have made it inconvenient for two or more persons to eat in that manner. It is more probable that the disciples, being in the deepest distress, had left off eating, only Judas, to conceal his guilt, continued the meal, and was dipping his meat in a kind of a sauce named haroseth, (which they used on these occasions,) when Jesus happened to be putting his into it; which sauce, according to custom, was served up in a separate dish.” — Macknight. The Son of man goeth through sufferings to glory, as it is written of him — In the Scriptures; and determined in the divine counsels. See note on Acts 2:23. Yet this was no excuse for him that betrayed him: but wo to that man, &c. — In pronouncing this wo upon the man by whom he should be betrayed, our Lord manifestly shows that the foreknowledge and prediction that he should suffer, and that by the treachery of Judas, laid no antecedent necessity upon Judas of doing this action, for if it had, it not only would have lessened the wo due to him, but would have taken away all his guilt. For no guilt can attach to any action which a man is laid under an absolute necessity of doing, and which to him is unavoidable. All that the prediction of Judas’s treachery implies is, that God with certainty foreknew how his will, left entirely to its own freedom, would determine on this occasion: and, it must be observed, it would have determined in the same way, if such determination had neither been foreknown nor foretold. See note on 1 Peter 1:2. It had been good for that man if he had not been born — May not the same be said of every man that finally perishes? But who can reconcile this, if it were true of Judas alone, with the doctrine of universal salvation? For, if the torments of hell were not eternal, but, after suffering in them, though it might be millions of millions of years, guilty sinners should be rescued from them and brought to the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness, it still would be good for them that they had been born, inasmuch as they would still have a never-ending state of felicity before them. Then Judas, who betrayed him — Who had in fact already betrayed him, verse 15, and was now waiting for an opportunity to deliver him privately into the hands of the chief priests, answered, Master — Gr. Rabbi, or teacher, Is it I? — The other disciples, in asking the same question, said each of them, kurie, Lord, is it I? a title implying greater reverence than Judas was disposed to show his Master. As Judas was conscious of what he had already done, and was resolved still further to do, in betraying and delivering up his Divine Master, and could not but know that his whole conduct, and the very secrets of his heart, lay open to his inspection, he manifests by this question unparalleled impudence, as well as excessive hardness of heart. One would almost suppose, that he intended to insult Christ’s prescience as well as long-suffering. He, Jesus, said unto him, Thou hast said — That is, It is as thou hast said: thou art the guilty person. Before this, when Christ discovered that he should be betrayed, he only told it in John’s ear, that Judas would be the traitor: and John told it to Peter, (see John 13:23-

22. Lord, is it I? — It is an interesting point that each one thought at the moment, not of his neighbour, but of himself. Perhaps, had they not been disturbed by the announcement, and a sorrow at the fact that the predicted death of their Lord was approaching in the terrible form of treachery, they might have guessed the man. To their credit they did not. Judas had already made the secret bargain, and knew by consciousness of guilt that he was the man; while the other apostles are struck with consternation to hear that a traitor is among them.

Verse 22. They were exceeding sorrowful. — Sorrowful that he should be betrayed; more so that the traitor, whoever he might be, should be one of themselves. Each, save Judas, appears to have been thrown back upon himself, searching himself whether he could be capable of so great a wickedness; and every one of them, Judas not excepted, but he hypocritically, began to say, Lord, is it I?

V. 23. He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish-Which it seems Judas was doing at that very time. This dish was a vessel full of vinegar, wherein they dipped their bitter herbs.

Verse 23. He that dippeth his hand] As the Jews ate the passover a whole family together, it was not convenient for them all to dip their bread in the same dish; they therefore had several little dishes or plates, in which was the juice of the bitter herbs, mentioned Exodus 12:8, on different parts of the table; and those who were nigh one of these, dipped their bread in it. As Judas is represented as dipping in the same dish with Christ, it shows that he was either near or opposite to him. If this man’s heart had not been hardened, and his conscience seared beyond all precedent, by the deceitfulness of his sin, would he have showed his face in this sacred assembly, or have thus put the seal to his own perdition, by eating of this sacrificial lamb? Is it possible that he could feel no compunction? Alas! having delivered himself up into the hands of the devil, he was capable of delivering up his Master into the hands of the chief priests; and thus, when men are completely hardened by the deceitfulness of sin, they can outwardly perform the most solemn acts of devotion, without feeling any sort of inward concern about the matter.

Verses 20-25. And when the even was come — At the proper hour; he sat down with the twelve — To taste first, according to the custom of those days, the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs, before the lamb was served up. After which they proceeded as is related in the note on verse 2. And as they did eat he said — One of you shall betray me — He had before told them, namely, Matthew 17:22, that the Son of man should be betrayed; he now comes to acquaint them, that one of them would be the traitor, and to point out the guilty person. And they were exceeding sorrowful — They were sorrowful that he should be betrayed by any one, but more so that one of themselves should be the instrument of so horrible a crime: and began every one to say, Lord, is it I, that am this guilty creature? They do not appear to have asked this question because they mistrusted themselves, not knowing to how great a wickedness their hearts might lead them; but because each of them wanted to be freed from the suspicion of such an iniquity. He answered, He that dippeth, &c. — “Grotius and others think this implies that Judas had placed himself so near his Master as to eat out of the same dish with him. But their way of lying on couches at meat must have made it inconvenient for two or more persons to eat in that manner. It is more probable that the disciples, being in the deepest distress, had left off eating, only Judas, to conceal his guilt, continued the meal, and was dipping his meat in a kind of a sauce named haroseth, (which they used on these occasions,) when Jesus happened to be putting his into it; which sauce, according to custom, was served up in a separate dish.” — Macknight. The Son of man goeth through sufferings to glory, as it is written of him — In the Scriptures; and determined in the divine counsels. See note on Acts 2:23. Yet this was no excuse for him that betrayed him: but wo to that man, &c. — In pronouncing this wo upon the man by whom he should be betrayed, our Lord manifestly shows that the foreknowledge and prediction that he should suffer, and that by the treachery of Judas, laid no antecedent necessity upon Judas of doing this action, for if it had, it not only would have lessened the wo due to him, but would have taken away all his guilt. For no guilt can attach to any action which a man is laid under an absolute necessity of doing, and which to him is unavoidable. All that the prediction of Judas’s treachery implies is, that God with certainty foreknew how his will, left entirely to its own freedom, would determine on this occasion: and, it must be observed, it would have determined in the same way, if such determination had neither been foreknown nor foretold. See note on 1 Peter 1:2. It had been good for that man if he had not been born — May not the same be said of every man that finally perishes? But who can reconcile this, if it were true of Judas alone, with the doctrine of universal salvation? For, if the torments of hell were not eternal, but, after suffering in them, though it might be millions of millions of years, guilty sinners should be rescued from them and brought to the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness, it still would be good for them that they had been born, inasmuch as they would still have a never-ending state of felicity before them. Then Judas, who betrayed him — Who had in fact already betrayed him, verse 15, and was now waiting for an opportunity to deliver him privately into the hands of the chief priests, answered, Master — Gr. Rabbi, or teacher, Is it I? — The other disciples, in asking the same question, said each of them, kurie, Lord, is it I? a title implying greater reverence than Judas was disposed to show his Master. As Judas was conscious of what he had already done, and was resolved still further to do, in betraying and delivering up his Divine Master, and could not but know that his whole conduct, and the very secrets of his heart, lay open to his inspection, he manifests by this question unparalleled impudence, as well as excessive hardness of heart. One would almost suppose, that he intended to insult Christ’s prescience as well as long-suffering. He, Jesus, said unto him, Thou hast said — That is, It is as thou hast said: thou art the guilty person. Before this, when Christ discovered that he should be betrayed, he only told it in John’s ear, that Judas would be the traitor: and John told it to Peter, (see John 13:23-

23. Dippeth his hand with me in the dish — By this it is intimated that it was one who reclined near him, and even supplied himself from the same dish. This forms the second advance of exposure. At the same time in this expression our Lord seems to have aggravated the crime of the traitor by suggesting the language of the Psalmist: “He that did eat my bread hath lifted up his heel against me.” Psalms 41:9Psalm 41:9. But our Lord did not leave the traitor without a third and still more special detection. John tells us (xiii, 23-26) that at Peter’s request he himself, as reclining nearest his Lord’s bosom, inquired of Jesus in an under tone, “Lord, who is it?” Our Lord replied, doubtless in the same sub-tone, “He it is to whom I shall give a sop.” He then gave the sop to Judas, by which the two disciples knew, the man for certainty. Judas by some tokens sees that he is individualized, and at last himself puts the question, Is it I? (Matthew 26:25,) and receives an affirmative answer, as John adds, by which the whole eleven learn the man. Judas then, full rightly, thinks it time to vacate his place.

Verse 23. He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish. — The custom of taking food by the hand out of the same dish is still practised in eastern countries where knives and forks are not in use. This was the case at common meals; but the paschal feast was not prepared to be eaten in this manner. It is true that there were several small dishes served up containing a peculiar kind of sauce, tswrt, into which they dipped unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs used with the passover; and it was in one of these that our Lord dipped the sop he gave to Judas, by which act he pointed out the traitor to the other disciples; but this was done subsequently, and the text is to be understood generally to intimate that some one who familiarly ate with him should be his betrayer, which agrees with the words of St. Mark, “And he answered and said, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.” Thus Judas was not yet particularly pointed out; but as we learn from St. John, Peter after this prompted the disciple “whom Jesus loved,” to ask, of whom he spoke; and when this disciple, who was St. John himself, and was “lying on Jesus’s breast,” that is, reclining on the same couch and next to him, said, “Lord, who is it?” Christ answered, and probably in an under voice, “He it is to whom I shall give a sop,” a portion of the unleavened bread, “when I shall have dipped it” in the sauce provided as usual for the paschal supper. It was after this, that Satan, whose influence had already been exercised upon Judas, — who now had added to all his former wickedness, that of playing the hypocrite on this occasion, by affecting to be sorrowful, as well as the rest of the disciples, at the news of Christ being about to be betrayed, and had inquired like them, “Lord, is it I?” — more fully possessed that unhappy man, who had willingly surrendered himself to his power; and then, impelled by Satan through his own passions, Judas went out to perpetrate his villany, having probably first learned that Christ, after the supper, intended to retire to the mount of Olives; a favourable solitude for his apprehension.

V. 24. The Son of man goeth through sufferings to glory, as it is written of him-Yet this is no excuse for him that betrayeth him: miserable will that man be:

it had been good for that man if he had not been born-May not the same be said of every man that finally perishes? But who can reconcile this, if it were true of Judas alone, with the doctrine of universal salvation?

Verse 24. The Son of man goeth] That is, is about to die. Going, going away, departing, &c., are frequently used in the best Greek and Latin writers, for death, or dying. The same words are often used in the Scriptures in the same sense.

It had been good for that man] Can this be said of any sinner, in the common sense in which it is understood, if there be any redemption from hell’s torments? If a sinner should suffer millions of millions of years in them, and get out at last to the enjoyment of heaven, then it was well for him that he had been born, for still he has an eternity of blessedness before him. Can the doctrine of the non-eternity of hell’s torments stand in the presence of this saying? Or can the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked consist with this declaration? It would have been well for that man if he had never been born! Then he must be in some state of conscious existence, as non-existence is said to be better than that state in which he is now found. It was common for the Jews to say of any flagrant transgressor, It would have been better for him had he never been born. See several examples in Schoettgen. See the case of Judas argued at the end of Acts 1.

Verses 20-25. And when the even was come — At the proper hour; he sat down with the twelve — To taste first, according to the custom of those days, the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs, before the lamb was served up. After which they proceeded as is related in the note on verse 2. And as they did eat he said — One of you shall betray me — He had before told them, namely, Matthew 17:22, that the Son of man should be betrayed; he now comes to acquaint them, that one of them would be the traitor, and to point out the guilty person. And they were exceeding sorrowful — They were sorrowful that he should be betrayed by any one, but more so that one of themselves should be the instrument of so horrible a crime: and began every one to say, Lord, is it I, that am this guilty creature? They do not appear to have asked this question because they mistrusted themselves, not knowing to how great a wickedness their hearts might lead them; but because each of them wanted to be freed from the suspicion of such an iniquity. He answered, He that dippeth, &c. — “Grotius and others think this implies that Judas had placed himself so near his Master as to eat out of the same dish with him. But their way of lying on couches at meat must have made it inconvenient for two or more persons to eat in that manner. It is more probable that the disciples, being in the deepest distress, had left off eating, only Judas, to conceal his guilt, continued the meal, and was dipping his meat in a kind of a sauce named haroseth, (which they used on these occasions,) when Jesus happened to be putting his into it; which sauce, according to custom, was served up in a separate dish.” — Macknight. The Son of man goeth through sufferings to glory, as it is written of him — In the Scriptures; and determined in the divine counsels. See note on Acts 2:23. Yet this was no excuse for him that betrayed him: but wo to that man, &c. — In pronouncing this wo upon the man by whom he should be betrayed, our Lord manifestly shows that the foreknowledge and prediction that he should suffer, and that by the treachery of Judas, laid no antecedent necessity upon Judas of doing this action, for if it had, it not only would have lessened the wo due to him, but would have taken away all his guilt. For no guilt can attach to any action which a man is laid under an absolute necessity of doing, and which to him is unavoidable. All that the prediction of Judas’s treachery implies is, that God with certainty foreknew how his will, left entirely to its own freedom, would determine on this occasion: and, it must be observed, it would have determined in the same way, if such determination had neither been foreknown nor foretold. See note on 1 Peter 1:2. It had been good for that man if he had not been born — May not the same be said of every man that finally perishes? But who can reconcile this, if it were true of Judas alone, with the doctrine of universal salvation? For, if the torments of hell were not eternal, but, after suffering in them, though it might be millions of millions of years, guilty sinners should be rescued from them and brought to the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness, it still would be good for them that they had been born, inasmuch as they would still have a never-ending state of felicity before them. Then Judas, who betrayed him — Who had in fact already betrayed him, verse 15, and was now waiting for an opportunity to deliver him privately into the hands of the chief priests, answered, Master — Gr. Rabbi, or teacher, Is it I? — The other disciples, in asking the same question, said each of them, kurie, Lord, is it I? a title implying greater reverence than Judas was disposed to show his Master. As Judas was conscious of what he had already done, and was resolved still further to do, in betraying and delivering up his Divine Master, and could not but know that his whole conduct, and the very secrets of his heart, lay open to his inspection, he manifests by this question unparalleled impudence, as well as excessive hardness of heart. One would almost suppose, that he intended to insult Christ’s prescience as well as long-suffering. He, Jesus, said unto him, Thou hast said — That is, It is as thou hast said: thou art the guilty person. Before this, when Christ discovered that he should be betrayed, he only told it in John’s ear, that Judas would be the traitor: and John told it to Peter, (see John 13:23-

24. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him — He marches with unfaltering step in the way to the scene of death, as marked out by the divine prophecies. Yet that does not exculpate the authors of his death. Woe unto that man — No apologies for Judas can stand before this terrible woe. It marks him out as one of the dark beings in human history, one who must ever be named when an example of utmost guilt is to be adduced. The fact that Judas’s free act of treachery was foreseen of God made it none the less free, and therefore none the less guilty. As St. Chrysostom says: “Judas was not a traitor because God foresaw it; but God foresaw it because Judas would be so.” Foreknowledge does not force or compel an act, or make it less free than if it were wholly unforeknown. Had not been born — And so it is impossible that he can over be restored to Divine favour. For if after millions of years he ascends to an eternity of happiness, he is a clear gainer in the balance of existence. It will not do as before intimated, to say that this phrase, “Good that he had never been born,” is a mere proverb. No doubt thoughtless persons may use the same phrase lightly to indicate some inferior misery. But our Lord here is speaking too seriously to be repeating a proverbial hyperbole. He expresses and knows the full measure of Judas’s woe; and he would neither aggravate it beyond its literal extent, nor lightly express it in a cant saying. After this verse we must bring in the passage in John, who tells us that he privately asked the Lord which the traitor was, and that our Lord gave him a sign by which he knew the man.

Verse 24. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him, &c. — He goeth, upagei, that is, to death, he departs, a euphemism for dying; and that this is the sense here, appears from the reference made to the prophetic writings which speak of that event. It was predicted that he should die; and designed that he should die, but this did not excuse or palliate the acts of the instruments of his death. They followed freely their own will, and gratified their own malignity, and were therefore guilty of the most aggravated crime of religious persecution and murder which ever was or could be committed. Hence our Lord adds with respect to Judas, But wo unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed; for the foreknowledge of God cannot any more influence human actions as foreknowledge, than afterknowledge. To know, is one thing; to influence and compel, another. St. Chrysostom therefore well observes that “Judas was not a traitor because God foresaw it; but God foresaw it, because Judas would be so.” It had been good for that man if he had not been born: — It had been better for him, (the positive being used for the comparative,) never to have had an existence than to be doomed to eternal shame and punishment. This passage is conclusive against Judas’s repentance and forgiveness in this life, and equally cogent to prove the doctrine of the eternity of future punishment. For if all lapsed intelligences are to be restored to happiness, then Judas must be among the number; and if so, since, however long the punishment may be, it is but temporary, and the ultimate felicity eternal; it could not be said that it had been better for him not to have existed.

V. 25. Thou hast said-That is, it is as thou hast said.

Verse 25. Judas-said, Master, is it I?] What excessive impudence! He knew, in his conscience, that he had already betrayed his Master, and was waiting now for the servants of the chief priests, that he might deliver him into their hands; and yet he says, (hoping that he had transacted his business so privately that it had not yet transpired,) Master, is it I? It is worthy of remark, that each of the other disciples said kurie, LORD, is it I? But Judas dares not, or will not, use this august title, but simply says rabbi, TEACHER, is it I?

Thou hast said.] su eipav, or אמריתונ אתונ atun amaritun, “Ye have said,” was a common form of expression for YES. IT IS so. “When the Zipporenses inquired whether Rabbi Judas was dead? the son of Kaphra answered, Ye have said,” i.e. He is dead. See Schoettgen. Hor. Hebr. p. 225.

Verses 20-25. And when the even was come — At the proper hour; he sat down with the twelve — To taste first, according to the custom of those days, the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs, before the lamb was served up. After which they proceeded as is related in the note on verse 2. And as they did eat he said — One of you shall betray me — He had before told them, namely, Matthew 17:22, that the Son of man should be betrayed; he now comes to acquaint them, that one of them would be the traitor, and to point out the guilty person. And they were exceeding sorrowful — They were sorrowful that he should be betrayed by any one, but more so that one of themselves should be the instrument of so horrible a crime: and began every one to say, Lord, is it I, that am this guilty creature? They do not appear to have asked this question because they mistrusted themselves, not knowing to how great a wickedness their hearts might lead them; but because each of them wanted to be freed from the suspicion of such an iniquity. He answered, He that dippeth, &c. — “Grotius and others think this implies that Judas had placed himself so near his Master as to eat out of the same dish with him. But their way of lying on couches at meat must have made it inconvenient for two or more persons to eat in that manner. It is more probable that the disciples, being in the deepest distress, had left off eating, only Judas, to conceal his guilt, continued the meal, and was dipping his meat in a kind of a sauce named haroseth, (which they used on these occasions,) when Jesus happened to be putting his into it; which sauce, according to custom, was served up in a separate dish.” — Macknight. The Son of man goeth through sufferings to glory, as it is written of him — In the Scriptures; and determined in the divine counsels. See note on Acts 2:23. Yet this was no excuse for him that betrayed him: but wo to that man, &c. — In pronouncing this wo upon the man by whom he should be betrayed, our Lord manifestly shows that the foreknowledge and prediction that he should suffer, and that by the treachery of Judas, laid no antecedent necessity upon Judas of doing this action, for if it had, it not only would have lessened the wo due to him, but would have taken away all his guilt. For no guilt can attach to any action which a man is laid under an absolute necessity of doing, and which to him is unavoidable. All that the prediction of Judas’s treachery implies is, that God with certainty foreknew how his will, left entirely to its own freedom, would determine on this occasion: and, it must be observed, it would have determined in the same way, if such determination had neither been foreknown nor foretold. See note on 1 Peter 1:2. It had been good for that man if he had not been born — May not the same be said of every man that finally perishes? But who can reconcile this, if it were true of Judas alone, with the doctrine of universal salvation? For, if the torments of hell were not eternal, but, after suffering in them, though it might be millions of millions of years, guilty sinners should be rescued from them and brought to the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness, it still would be good for them that they had been born, inasmuch as they would still have a never-ending state of felicity before them. Then Judas, who betrayed him — Who had in fact already betrayed him, verse 15, and was now waiting for an opportunity to deliver him privately into the hands of the chief priests, answered, Master — Gr. Rabbi, or teacher, Is it I? — The other disciples, in asking the same question, said each of them, kurie, Lord, is it I? a title implying greater reverence than Judas was disposed to show his Master. As Judas was conscious of what he had already done, and was resolved still further to do, in betraying and delivering up his Divine Master, and could not but know that his whole conduct, and the very secrets of his heart, lay open to his inspection, he manifests by this question unparalleled impudence, as well as excessive hardness of heart. One would almost suppose, that he intended to insult Christ’s prescience as well as long-suffering. He, Jesus, said unto him, Thou hast said — That is, It is as thou hast said: thou art the guilty person. Before this, when Christ discovered that he should be betrayed, he only told it in John’s ear, that Judas would be the traitor: and John told it to Peter, (see John 13:23-

25. Master, is it I? — After Jesus gave Judas the sop, which was the sign of guilt, then Judas, as out of due season, and quite mechanically, repeats the question. Thou hast said — This is an affirmative answer, and identifies the traitor to himself. The gradual exposure is brought to the final point. He is the man. And John tells us that the traitor forthwith arose and went out into the congenial darkness of surrounding night.

Ingenious men have in modern times exerted their skill in framing apologies for Judas, and discovering innocent motives in his case. He might, forsooth, have expected that our Lord would deliver himself by miracle. He might have purposed to compel our Lord to declare himself openly as king of the Jews, and set up his government. Very plainly this is not the view of the Saviour or the evangelists. Reserved as the sacred writers are in declaring the character of the various men whose acts they describe, they speak very plainly of Judas. Whatever his previous character was, in process of time he was “a devil,” “a thief, and carried the bag.” A hypocrite in feigning care for the poor, he hastened, under the immediate impulse of resentment for a trifling offence, to join the Saviour’s enemies. But impetuous passion so blended with cold calculation that he gratified revenge and avarice together. He seems not to have calculated upon our Lord’s miraculous interference, or his asserting his royalty. He simply meant to obtain a price by surrendering his life to his enemies. Hence our Lord’s terrible woe upon him, and the terms of detestation with which the apostles uniformly load him. His repentance was wrung by divine compulsion from him, in order to place on record the testimony of Christ’s vilest enemy to the innocence of his character. It was not a repentance like that of Peter, restoring him to holiness and apostleship; but the repentance of the devils, by which, in the agony of remorse, they throw out their involuntary testimony for God and goodness. And the fact of this final attestation of the innocence of Jesus justifies the remark, that the truth of Christianity is not more sustained by the life of Paul than by the death of Judas.

Verse 25. Thou hast said. — Judas addresses Christ, not by the usual term, kurie, Lord, but by the title of rabbi. Some think that he was thereby disposed to show our Saviour less respect than the other disciples: but, on the contrary, he feigned to show him greater; for kuriov, though capable of the highest sense as applied to God, was in general use as a term of ordinary civility to any superior, or even equal; and when used without intended and obvious inference, often answers to our SIR. But rabbi was exclusively used as a title of high reverence; and the application of it here to our Lord by Judas, was in perfect correspondence with the rest of his conduct at the supper, when he affected to disguise his designs by an apparent sorrow that he should think himself in any danger, by endeavouring to clear himself like the rest, and in this instance by giving our Lord a flattering title which he did not usually receive. — Christ’s reply, Thou hast said, is a Jewish form of assent or affirmation, equivalent to It is thou. This was probably said in a low voice, so that the rest did not distinctly hear it, like the answer of our Lord to John, when he pointed out the traitor; for as, when Judas went out as soon as he had received the sop, the other disciples thought, because he was thee purse-bearer, that he was gone to procure things necessary for the feast; this would have been a most improbable supposition, had the words been uttered in their hearing. For the same reason we may conclude that what our Lord said to John when, upon the suggestion of Peter, he asked who should betray him, was not only heard by the beloved disciple alone, but kept in his bosom, except that he might intimate it to Peter. — That after this Judas should remain and be present at the celebration of the eucharist, is highly improbable. From St. John we learn that, as soon as he had received the sop, which was during the eating of the passover, he went out; and though it has been supposed that he returned, because St. Luke introduces our Lord’s words, “Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table,” after his account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper; yet, as that evangelist manifestly brings in several miscellaneous discourses which appear to have been uttered at different intervals during the paschal supper, it is probable that he recorded this observation of our Lord without intending to mark the precise time of the evening when it was delivered.

The mode of celebrating the passover, as given by Maimonides, may form a proper introduction to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as mentioned in the following verses.

1. They mingled a cup of wine with water, and gave thanks.

2. They washed their hands.

3. The table was furnished with two cakes of unleavened bread, with bitter herbs, and with the paschal lamb roasted whole; all which were appointed by the law; also with other meats, as the remains of chagigah, or peace- offerings of the preceding day; and with a thick sauce made of dates, figs, raisins, vinegar, &c., mingled together, named charoseth, to represent the clay of which their ancestors made bricks in Egypt.

4. They ate first a small piece of the sallad of bitter herbs, and explained to the children the nature of the feast.

5. They took a second cup of wine, repeating Psalms cxiii and 114. These two Psalms were the first part of the hymn or hallel, which was composed of five Psalms, from Psalm cxiii to cxviii, inclusive.

6. Their hands were again washed, and the master proceeded to break and bless a cake of the unleavened bread, reserving a part of it under a napkin for the last morsel; for the rule was, to conclude with eating a small piece of the paschal lamb, or, after the fall of the temple, of unleavened bread.

7. The rest of the cake they ate with the charoseth or sauce and the bitter herbs.

8. Then the flesh of the peace-offerings, and the flesh of the paschal lamb were eaten; after which they again washed.

9. The third cup of wine, or cup of blessing, was filled, over which they gave thanks, and drank it.

10. Over the fourth cup of wine they completed the hallel or hymn of the five psalms, offered a prayer, and concluded.

V. 26. Jesus took the bread-the bread or cake, which the master of the family used to divide among them, after they had eaten the passover. The custom our Lord now transferred to a nobler use. This bread is, that is, signifies or represents my body, according to the style of the sacred writers. Thus Genesis 40:12, The three branches are three days. Thus Galatians 4:24, St. Paul speaking of Sarah and Hagar, says, These are the two covenants. Thus in the grand type of our Lord, Exodus 12:11, God says of the paschal lamb, This is the Lord's passover. Now Christ substituting the holy communion for the passover, follows the style of the Old Testament, and uses the same expressions the Jews were wont to use in celebrating the passover.

Verse 26. As they were eating] Either an ordinary supper, or the paschal lamb, as some think. See the observations at the end of this chapter. Jesus took bread] Of what kind? Unleavened bread, certainly, because there was no other kind to be had in all Judea at this time; for this was the first day of unleavened bread, (Matthew 26:17,) i.e. the 14th of the month Nisan, when the Jews, according to the command of God, (Exodus 12:15-20; 23:15; 34:25,) were to purge away all leaven from their houses; for he who sacrificed the passover, having leaven in his dwelling, was considered to be such a transgressor of the Divine law as could no longer be tolerated among the people of God; and therefore was to be cut off from the congregation of Israel. Leo of Modena, who has written a very sensible treatise on the customs of the Jews, observes, “That so strictly do some of the Jews observe the precept concerning the removal of all leaven from their houses, during the celebration of the paschal solemnity, that they either provide vessels entirely new for baking, or else have a set for the purpose, which are dedicated solely to the service of the passover, and never brought out on any other occasion.”

To this divinely instituted custom of removing all leaven previously to the paschal solemnity, St. Paul evidently alludes, 1 Corinthians 5:6-8. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the UNLEAVENED bread of sincerity and truth. Now, if any respect should be paid to the primitive institution, in the celebration of this Divine ordinance, then, unleavened, unyeasted bread should be used. In every sign, or type, the thing signifying or pointing out that which is beyond itself should either have certain properties, or be accompanied with certain circumstances, as expressive as possible of the thing signified. Bread, simply considered in itself, may be an emblem apt enough of the body of our Lord Jesus, which was given for us; but the design of God was evidently that it should not only point out this, but also the disposition required in those who should celebrate both the antetype and the type; and this the apostle explains to be sincerity and truth, the reverse of malice and wickedness. The very taste of the bread was instructive: it pointed out to every communicant, that he who came to the table of God with malice or ill-will against any soul of man, or with wickedness, a profligate or sinful life, might expect to eat and drink judgment to himself, as not discerning that the Lord’s body was sacrificed for this very purpose, that all sin might be destroyed; and that sincerity, eilikrineia, such purity as the clearest light can discern no stain in, might be diffused through the whole soul; and that truth, the law of righteousness and true holiness, might regulate and guide all the actions of life. Had the bread used on these occasions been of the common kind, it would have been perfectly unfit, or improper, to have communicated these uncommon significations; and, as it was seldom used, its rare occurrence would make the emblematical representation more deeply impressive; and the sign, and the thing signified, have their due correspondence and influence.

These circumstances considered, will it not appear that the use of common bread in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is highly improper? He who can say, “This is a matter of no importance,” may say with equal propriety, the bread itself is of no importance; and another may say, the wine is of no importance; and a third may say, “neither the bread nor wine is any thing, but as they lead to spiritual references; and, the spiritual reference being once understood, the signs are useless.” Thus we may, through affected spirituality, refine away the whole ordinance of God; and, with the letter and form of religion, abolish religion itself. Many have already acted in this way, not only to their loss, but to their ruin, by showing how profoundly wise they are above what is written. Let those, therefore, who consider that man shall live by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God, and who are conscientiously solicitous that each Divine institution be not only preserved, but observed in all its original integrity, attend to this circumstance. The Lutheran Church makes use of unleavened bread to the present day.

And blessed it] Both St. Matthew and St. Mark use the word euloghsav, blessed, instead of eucaristhsav, gave thanks, which is the word used by St. Luke and St. Paul. But instead of euloghsav, blessed, eucaristhsav, gave thanks, is the reading of ten MSS. in uncial characters, of the Dublin Codex rescriptus, published by Dr. Barrett, and of more than one hundred others, of the greatest respectability. This is the reading also of the Syriac and Arabic, and is confirmed by several of the primitive fathers. The terms, in this case, are nearly of the same import, as both blessing and giving thanks were used on these occasions. But what was it that our Lord blessed? Not the bread, though many think the contrary, being deceived by the word IT, which is improperly supplied in our version. In all the four places referred to above, whether the word blessed or gave thanks is used, it refers not to the bread, but to God, the dispenser of every good. Our Lord here conforms himself to that constant Jewish custom, viz. of acknowledging God as the author of every good and perfect gift, by giving thanks on taking the bread and taking the cup at their ordinary meals. For every Jew was forbidden to eat, drink, or use any of God’s creatures without rendering him thanks; and he who acted contrary to this command was considered as a person who was guilty of sacrilege. From this custom we have derived the decent and laudable one of saying grace (gratas thanks) before and after meat. The Jewish form of blessing, probably that which our Lord used on this occasion, none of my readers will be displeased to find here, though it has been mentioned once before. On taking the bread they say:- xrah מנ לחם axwmh העולם Ëlm wnyhla hta Ëwrb

Baruch atta Elohinoo, Melech, haolam, ha motse Lechem min haarets. Blessed be thou, our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth bread out of the earth!

Likewise, on taking the cup, they say:- הגפנ yrp arwb העולם Ëlm wnyhla Ëwrb

Baruch Elohinoo, Melech, haolam, Bore perey haggephen.

Blessed be our God, the King of the universe, the Creator of the fruit it of the vine!

The Mohammedans copy their example, constantly saying before and after meat:-

[-Arabic-]

Bismillahi arahmani arraheemi.

In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate. No blessing, therefore, of the elements is here intended; they were already blessed, in being sent as a gift of mercy from the bountiful Lord; but God the sender is blessed, because of the liberal provision he has made for his worthless creatures. Blessing and touching the bread are merely Popish ceremonies, unauthorized either by Scripture or the practice of the pure Church of God; necessary of course to those who pretend to transmute, by a kind of spiritual incantation, the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ; a measure the grossest in folly, and most stupid in nonsense, to which God in judgment ever abandoned the fallen spirit of man.

And brake it] We often read in the Scriptures of breaking bread, but never of cutting it. The Jewish people had nothing similar to our high-raised loaf: their bread was made broad and thin, and was consequently very brittle, and, to divide it, there was no need of a knife. The breaking of the bread I consider essential to the proper performance of this solemn and significant ceremony: because this act was designed by our Lord to shadow forth the wounding, piercing, and breaking of his body upon the cross; and, as all this was essentially necessary to the making a full atonement for the sin of the world, so it is of vast importance that this apparently little circumstance, the breaking of the bread, should be carefully attended to, that the godly communicant may have every necessary assistance to enable him to discern the Lord’s body, while engaged in this most important and Divine of all God’s ordinances. But who does not see that one small cube of fermented, i.e. leavened bread, previously divided from the mass with a knife, and separated by the fingers of the minister, can never answer the end of the institution, either as to the matter of the bread, or the mode of dividing it?

Man is naturally a dull and heedless creature, especially in spiritual things, and has need of the utmost assistance of his senses, in union with those expressive rites and ceremonies which the Holy Scripture, not tradition, has sanctioned, in order to enable him to arrive at spiritual things, through the medium of earthly similitudes.

And gave it to the disciples] Not only the breaking, but also the DISTRIBUTION, of the bread are necessary parts of this rite. In the Romish Church, the bread is not broken nor delivered to the people, that THEY may take and eat; but the consecrated wafer is put upon their tongue by the priest; and it is generally understood by the communicants, that they should not masticate, but swallow it whole.

“That the breaking of this bread to be distributed,” says Dr. Whitby, “is a necessary part of this rite is evident, first, by the continual mention of it by St. Paul and all the evangelists, when they speak of the institution of this sacrament, which shows it to be a necessary part of it. 2dly, Christ says, Take, eat, this is my body, BROKEN for you, 1 Corinthians 11:24. But when the elements are not broken, it can be no more said, This is my body broken for you, than where the elements are not given. 3dly, Our Lord said, Do this in remembrance of me: i.e. ‘Eat this bread, broken in remembrance of my body broken on the cross:’ now, where no body broken is distributed, there, nothing can be eaten in memorial of his broken body. Lastly, The apostle, by saying, The bread which we BREAK, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

sufficiently informs us that the eating of his broken body is necessary to that end, 1 Corinthians 10:10. Hence it was that this rite, of distributing bread broken, continued for a thousand years, and was, as Humbertus testifies, observed in the Roman church in the eleventh century.” WHITBY in loco.

At present, the opposite is as boldly practised as if the real Scriptural rite had never been observed in the Church of Christ.

This is my body.] Here it must be observed that Christ had nothing in his hands, at this time, but part of that unleavened bread which he and his disciples had been eating at supper, and therefore he could mean no more than this, viz. that the bread which he was now breaking represented his body, which, in the course of a few hours, was to be crucified for them. Common sense, unsophisticated with superstition and erroneous creeds,-and reason, unawed by the secular sword of sovereign authority, could not possibly take any other meaning than this plain, consistent, and rational one, out of these words. “But,” says a false and absurd creed, “Jesus meant, when he said, HOC EST CORPUS MEUM, This is my body, and HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, This is the chalice of my blood, that the bread and wine were substantially changed into his body, including flesh, blood, bones, yea, the whole Christ, in his immaculate humanity and adorable divinity!” And, for denying this, what rivers of righteous blood have been shed by state persecutions and by religious wars! Well it may be asked, “Can any man of sense believe, that, when Christ took up that bread and broke it, it was his own body which he held in his own hands, and which himself broke to pieces, and which he and his disciples ate?” He who can believe such a congeries of absurdities, cannot be said to be a volunteer in faith; for it is evident, the man can neither have faith nor reason, as to this subject.

Let it be observed, if any thing farther is necessary on this point, that the paschal lamb, is called the passover, because it represented the destroying angel’s passing over the children of Israel, while he slew the firstborn of the Egyptians; and our Lord and his disciples call this lamb the passover, several times in this chapter; by which it is demonstrably evident, that they could mean no more than that the lamb sacrificed on this occasion was a memorial of, and REPRESENTED, the means used for the preservation of the Israelites from the blast of the destroying angel.

Besides, our Lord did not say, hoc est corpus meum, (this is my body,) as he did not speak in the Latin tongue; though as much stress has been laid upon this quotation from the Vulgate as if the original of the three evangelists had been written in the Latin language. Had he spoken in Latin, following the idiom of the Vulgate, he would have said, Panis hic corpus meum signficat, or, Symbolum est corporis mei:-hoc poculum sanguinem meum representat, or, symbolum est sanguinis mei:-this bread signifies my body; this cup represents my blood. But let it be observed that, in the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages, as used in the Bible, there is no term which expresses to mean, signify, denote, though both the Greek and Latin abound with them: hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say, it is, for, it signifies. So Genesis 41:26, 27. The seven kine ARE (i.e. represent) seven years. This IS (represents) the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. Daniel 7:24. The ten horns ARE (i.e. signify) ten kings. They drank of the spiritual Rock which followed them, and the Rock WAS (represented) Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:4. And following this Hebrew idiom, though the work is written in Greek, we find in Revelation 1:20, The seven stars ARE (represent) the angels of the seven Churches: and the seven candlesticks ARE (represent) the seven Churches. The same form of speech is used in a variety of places in the New Testament, where this sense must necessarily be given to the word. Matthew 13:38, 39. The field IS (represents) the world: the good seed ARE (represent or signify) the children of the kingdom: the tares ARE (signify) the children of the wicked one. The enemy IS (signifies) the devil: the harvest IS (represents) the end of the world: the reapers ARE (i.e. signify) the angels. Luke 8:9. What might this parable BE? tiv eih h parabolh auth:- What does this parable SIGNIFY? John 7:36. tiv estin autov o logov: What is the SIGNIFICATION of this saying? John 10:6. They understood not what things they WERE, tina hn, what was the SIGNIFICATION of the things he had spoken to them. Acts 10:17. ti an eih orama, what this vision MIGHT BE; properly rendered by our translators, what this vision should MEAN. Galatians 4:24. For these ARE the two covenants, autai gar eisin ai duo diaqhkai, these SIGNIFY the two covenants. Luke 15:26. He asked, ti eih tauta, what these things MEANT. See also Luke 18:36. After such unequivocal testimony from the Sacred writings, can any person doubt that, This bread is my body, has any other meaning than, This bread REPRESENTS my body?

The Latins use the verb, sum, in all its forms, with a similar latitude of meaning. So, ESSE oneri ferendo, he is ABLE to bear the burthen: bene ESSE, to LIVE sumptuously: male ESSE, to LIVE miserably: recte ESSE, to ENJOY good health: EST mihi fistula, I POSSESS a flute: EST hodie in rebus, he now ENJOYS a plentiful fortune: EST mihi namque domi pater, I HAVE a father at home, &c.: ESSE solvendo, to be ABLE to pay: FUIMUS Troes, FUIT Ilium; the Trojans are EXTINCT, Troy is NO MORE.

In Greek also, and Hebrew, it often signifies to live, to die, to be killed. ouk EIMI, I am DEAD, or a dead man. Matthew 2:18: Rachel weeping for her children, oti ouk eisi, because they WERE MURDERED. Genesis 42:36: Joseph is not, wnnya ãswy Yoseph einennu, iwshf ouk ESTIN, Sept., Joseph is DEVOURED by a WILD BEAST. Romans 4:17: Calling the things that ARE not, as if they were ALIVE. So Plutarch in Laconicis: “This shield thy father always preserved; preserve thou it, or may thou not BE,” H mh ESO, may thou PERISH. OUK ONTES nomoi, ABROGATED laws. EIMI en emoi, I POSSESS a sound understanding. eiv patera umin ESOMAI, I will PERFORM the PART of a father to you. EIMI thv polewv thv de, I AM an INHABITANT of that city. 1 Timothy 1:7: Desiring to BE teachers of the law, qelontev EINAI nomodidaskaloi, desiring to be REPUTED teachers of the law, i.e. ABLE divines. ta ONTA, the things that ARE, i.e. NOBLE and HONOURABLE men: ta mh ONTA, the things that are not, viz. the VULGAR, or those of IGNOBLE BIRTH. Tertullian seems to have had a correct notion of those words of our Lord, Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, HOC EST CORPUS MEUM dicendo, id est, FIGURA corporis mei. Advers. Marc. l. v. c. 40. “Having taken the bread, and distributed that body to his disciples, he made it his body by saying, This is my body, i.e. a FIGURE of my body.” That our Lord neither spoke in Greek nor Latin, on this occasion, needs no proof. It was, most probably, in what was formerly called the Chaldaic, now the Syriac, that our Lord conversed with his disciples. Through the providence of God, we have complete versions of the Gospels in this language, and in them it is likely we have the precise words spoken by our Lord on this occasion. In Matthew 26:26, 27, the words in the Syriac version are, [Syriac] hanau pagree, This is my body, [Syriac] hanau demee, This is my blood, of which forms of speech the Greek is a verbal translation; nor would any man, even in the present day, speaking in the same language, use, among the people to whom it was vernacular, other terms than the above to express, This represents my body, and this represents my blood.

As to the ancient Syrian Church on the Malabar coast, it is a fact that it never held the doctrine of transubstantiation, nor does it appear that it was ever heard of in that Church till the year 1599, when Don Alexis Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, and the Jesuit Fransic Rez, invaded that Church, and by tricks, impostures, and the assistance of the heathen governors of Cochin, and other places, whom they gained over by bribes and presents, overthrew the whole of this ancient Church, and gave the oppressed people the rites, creeds, &c., of the papal Catholic Church in its place. Vid. La Croz. Hist. du Ch. des Indes.

This was done at the Synod of Diamper, which began its sessions at Agomale, June 20, 1599. The tricks of this unprincipled prelate, the tool of Pope Clement VIII., and Philip II., King of Portugal, are amply detailed by Mr. La Croze, in the work already quoted.

But this form of speech is common, even in our own language, though we have terms enow to fill up the ellipsis. Suppose a man entering into a museum, enriched with the remains of ancient Greek sculpture: his eyes are attracted by a number of curious busts; and, on inquiring what they are, he learns, this is Socrates, that Plato, a third Homer; others Hesiod, Horace, Virgil, Demosthenes, Cicero, Herodotus, Livy, Caesar, Nero, Vespasian, &c. Is he deceived by this information? Not at all: he knows well that the busts he sees are not the identical persons of those ancient philosophers, poets, orators, historians, and emperors, but only REPRESENTATIONS of their persons in sculpture, between which and the originals there is as essential a difference as between a human body, instinct with all the principles of rational vitality, and a block of marble. When, therefore, Christ took up a piece of bread, brake it, and said, This IS my body, who, but the most stupid of mortals, could imagine that he was, at the same time, handling and breaking his own body! Would not any person, of plain common sense, see as great a difference between the man Christ Jesus, and the piece of bread, as between the block of marble and the philosopher it represented, in the case referred to above? The truth is, there is scarcely a more common form of speech in any language than, This IS, for, This REPRESENTS or SIGNIFIES. And as our Lord refers, in the whole of this transaction, to the ordinance of the passover, we may consider him as saying: “This bread is now my body, in that sense in which the paschal lamb has been my body hitherto; and this cup is my blood of the New Testament, in the same sense as the blood of bulls and goats has been my blood under the Old: Exodus 24; Heb 9. That is, the paschal lamb and the sprinkling of blood represented my sacrifice to the present time this bread and this wine shall represent my body and blood through all future ages; therefore, Do this in remembrance of me.”

St. Luke and St. Paul add a circumstance here which is not noticed either by St. Matthew or St. Mark. After, this is my body, the former adds, which is given for you; the latter, which is broken for you; the sense of which is: “As God has in his bountiful providence given you bread for the sustenance of your lives, so in his infinite grace he has given you my body to save your souls unto life eternal. But as this bread must be broken and masticated, in order to its becoming proper nourishment, so my body must be broken, i.e. crucified, for you, before it can be the bread of life to your souls. As, therefore, your life depends on the bread which God’s bounty has provided for your bodies, so your eternal life depends on the sacrifice of my body on the cross for your souls.” Besides, there is here an allusion to the offering of sacrifice-an innocent creature was brought to the altar of God, and its blood (the life of the beast) was poured out for, or in behalf of, the person who brought it. Thus Christ says, alluding to the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, This is my body, to uper umwn didomenon, which IS GIVEN in your stead, or in your behalf; a free GIFT, from God’s endless mercy, for the salvation of your souls. This is my body, to uper umwn klwmenon, ( 1 Corinthians 11:24,) which is broken-sacrificed in your stead; as without the breaking (piercing) of the body, and spilling of the blood, there was no remission.

In this solemn transaction we must weigh every word, as there is none without its appropriate and deeply emphatic meaning. So it is written, Ephesians 5:2. Christ hath loved us, and given himself, eper hmwn, on our account, or in our stead, an offering and a SACRIFICE (qusia) to God for a sweet-smelling savour; that, as in the sacrifice offered by Noah, Genesis 8:21, (to which the apostle evidently alludes,) from which it is said, The Lord smelled a sweet savour, jjynh jyr riach hanichoach, a savour of rest, so that he became appeased towards the earth, and determined that there should no more be a flood to destroy it; in like manner, in the offering and sacrifice of Christ for us, God is appeased towards the human race, and has in consequence decreed that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

26;) but the rest knew nothing of it. Now Jesus plainly points him out before them all; which, impudent as he was, evidently confounded and struck him speechless. But whether he immediately left the company, as some infer from John 13:30; or whether that passage refers to what happened at a former supper, as others think, is a question which it is not easy to decide. One thing seems clear: if he withdrew at this time, he must have soon returned, as it appears, from Luke 22:21, that he was present when the Lord’s supper was instituted.

Verse 26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread — The bread, or cake, which the master of the family used to divide among them, after they had eaten the passover. This custom our Lord now transferred to a nobler use. This bread is, that is, signifies or represents, my body, according to the style of the sacred writers. Thus Genesis 40:12, The three branches are three days. Thus Galatians 4:24, St. Paul, speaking of Sarah and Hagar, says, These are the two covenants. Thus in the grand type of our Lord, Exodus 12:11, God says of the paschal lamb, This is the Lord’s passover. Now Christ, substituting the holy communion for the passover, follows the style of the Old Testament, and uses the same expressions the Jews were wont to use in celebrating the passover. “When I consider,” says Dr. Doddridge, “that, on the same foundation on which the Papists argue for transubstantiation from these words, they might prove from Ezekiel 5:1-5, that the prophet’s hair was the city of Jerusalem; from John 10:9, and 15:1, that Christ was literally a door and a vine; from Matthew 26:27, 28, and 1 Corinthians 11:25, that the cup was his blood, and that Christ commanded his disciples to drink and swallow the cup; I cannot but be astonished at the inference they would deduce from hence. Had Irenæus or Epiphanius reported such a thing of any sect of ancient heretics, now extinct, one would have been so candid to human nature as to suppose the historian misinformed. As it is, one is almost tempted to suspect it to be the effect of arrogance rather than error; and to consider it as a mere insolent attempt to show the world, in the strongest instance they could invent, what monstrous things the clergy should dare to say, which the wretched laity should not dare to contradict; nay, which they should be forced to pretend they believed. In this view the thought is admirable, and worthy the most malicious wit that ever lorded it over the heritage of God. But it may deserve some serious reflection, whether it be not an instance of infatuation to which God has given them up, that it may be a plain mark to all, that will use common sense, of the grossest error in a church which claims infallibility; and may not be intended by Providence as a kind of antidote against the rest of its poison.”

Ver. 26. This is my body. The jews ate unleavened bread at this feast, and usually said, this is the bread of affliction which our fathers did eat in Egypt. Alluding to the paschal supper St. Paul says, “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” Hence, when our Lord said, this is my body, it marked a change from the old to the new covenant, as was fully expressed when he took the cup. “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you for the remission of sins.” Now as bread is broken to eat, so his body was wounded to give life to the world; and as wine is poured into the cup to revive the spirits, so his blood was shed on the cross to cheer the guilty gloom of man.

Again, when he said, this is my body, he superseded the paschal lamb which had designated his body; and when he said, this is my blood, he superseded the blood of bulls and of goats, and all the shadows of the ceremonial law. Yet because Jesus said, this is my body, the doctrine of trans-substantiation has been invented to give an undue power to the priesthood. How could any minister ever imagine that his prayers could change real bread into the real body of Christ! He said indeed this is my body; but he said with equal force, I am the vine — I am the door — I am the way. It is sufficient, if while eating the mortal bread, we discern the immortal body of Christ.

Then, oh my soul, what dost thou not see in the most expensive supper of the Lord. All the footsteps of redeeming love are unfolded to thy view. The sublime and mysterious, the all-availing atonement is presented as the balm of thy guilty conscience. Thou art taken from the dunghill, thy rags are changed for robes, and thou art allowed to feast in heaven with Christ. The Master, taking the cup, speaks of drinking the next draught of wine in his Father’s kingdom. He talks of his ascension, of preparing mansions more glorious than those which already exist — of the Comforter, and of his second coming. With these words he cheered his weeping friends, and left them not till he had ratified his covenant with blood. Then, oh my soul, repose on that covenant as on the rock of ages, till thou shalt see him in the clouds of heaven.

§§ 126, 128. — INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, 26-29

We come now to words which have sounded forth through the Church through all ages since our Lord’s departure, and which are to sound forth until he comes again. The nature of the Lord’s Supper is best understood when we recollect that it is, under the Christian dispensation, the continuance in a modified form of the passover of the Old Testament. As baptism is the modified ordinance of circumcision, as the Lord’s day is a modified continuance of the Sabbath, so is the Lord’s Supper a modified continuance of the paschal supper of the Old Testament Church. We may first remark that the passover was a true sacrifice; for the victim was a true substitute for the sinner, dying in his stead, and showing by his death that the sinner ought to die. Israel was as true a sinner as Egypt, and as truly deserving the stroke of the destroying angel; but God, as he passed over, accepted the blood presented by Israel’s faith, (which blood was a confession, on Israel’s part, that he deserved the death the victim suffered in his stead) as a substitute. And as this shed blood was typical of the shed blood of the Saviour, so the lamb itself was typical of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Hence it was, by anticipation, a representation of that same reality, which is set forth by the communion of the Lord’s Supper. Both are typical of the same thing, and therefore correspondent to each other. The Lord’s Supper is in a proper sense the bloodless sacrifice of the new dispensation.

And the very fact that our Lord instituted his supper on the same evening as the paschal supper, shows that it is a continuance in a modified form. It simply drops off the bloody elements; so that it is in fact true that our sacramental ordinance has been continued from the departure of Israel to the present time, and will be continued until the full redemption and departure of the spiritual Israel under the greater Moses to the full fruition of the heavenly Canaan.

We have then the following typical parallels:

The Redeemed.

Israel.

The communicant.

The believer.

The Victim.

The paschal lamb.

The broken bread.

The crucified Jesus.

The Deliverance.

From Egypt.

From spiritual bondage.

From hell.

The Result.

Canaan.

The spiritual

emancipation.

Heaven.

The prophecies of the Old Testament more commonly predicted a glorious and triumphant Messiah; the sacrifices predicted the Messiah as dying and atoning.

26. As they were eating — When in the course of the paschal supper they arrived at the breaking of bread, as we have above described. The bread was in the form of cakes. The breaking, under the old dispensation, represented the breaking which Israel suffered in Egypt; but in the new, the breaking is transferred to the victim, who assumes our sins and sufferings in his own body. The breaking was the customary mode of separating bread into parts; yet it was none the less a significant part of the rite. Paul clearly intimates that the breaking symbolized the violence by which our Lord’s body was put to death. 1 Corinthians 11:24. Breaking and not cutting, seems the proper mode of severing the sacramental portions. Blessed it — To bless is to implore the divine blessing upon it, that is, to pray solemnly that God would graciously make it effective of its beneficent purpose. The blessing on the bread was the Redeemer’s prayer that the bread might be of a blessed effect to the partaker.

This is my body — A customary mode in Scripture, as in common language, of expressing that a symbol is or stands for its original. It is perfectly natural to say that a sign IS the thing it signifies. This is usually done in explaining some symbolical representations. So Joseph in explaining a dream says: “The three branches are three days.” Genesis 11:12. So at this very supper our Lord says: “This cup is the new testament.” 1 Corinthians 11:25. If the phrase “This [bread] is my body,” really means that the bread is our Lord’s literal material body then the phrase “This cup is the new testament” means that the material vessel (not the wine in it) was an actual “new testament.” Common sense ought to show that our Lord is now explaining the import of certain symbols, and in so doing he uses the ordinary phrase of saying that the symbol is the thing symbolized.

Our readers perceive that we are here refuting the strange doctrine of the Church of Rome, which affirms that the bread is transubstantiated, that is, changed in substance, into the very body of our Lord. And as it implies that the bread is Christ’s present body, it is also called the doctrine of real presence. This doctrine bears marks of dishonesty, for,

1. It doctrinally places the material person of God in the hands of a priest. It makes the salvation of the layman’s soul dependent upon the priest’s consent to give him the flesh of God. It thus places the man at the mercy of the priest. Hence the doctrine of

transubstantiation is the basis of the most abject subjection of the laity to the priesthood in the Church of Rome.

2. It is a most absurd doctrine. It makes Christ to have held his own body between his own thumb and fingers. While his body was reclining, they were holding it in their hand, chewing it with their teeth, digesting it in their stomachs. Thus were they cannibals, eating human flesh! All this is founded upon a forced interpretation of language which, according to ordinary idiom, means something else.

3. The doctrine violates the very nature of the institution. From the time of the first paschal lamb downward, the purpose of the slain victim was to represent the body of the true victim instead of presenting the body itself. The slain lamb represented that true body until He came. The broken bread must represent it until he come again. What makes this plain, is the fact that at the old Jewish passover the master of the table was accustomed to say as he took the bread, “This is [that is, this represents] the bread of affliction, which our fathers did eat in the land of Egypt.” But in the place of this formula our Lord substitutes, “This is [that is, represents] my body.” From being the representative of Israel in suffering, it becomes now the representative of the suffering substitute of the sinner. To make it not a representative, but the thing itself, is, therefore, to violate the congruity of the typical system.

Verse 26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, &c. — Some commentators render esqiontwn autwn, when they had eaten; but Rosenmuller, more consistently with the sense, toward the end of the supper. The paschal lamb had been eaten, but the bread which was reserved to be eaten last remained, and either the third cup, or cup of blessing, or the fourth concluding cup, or both were probably yet to be drunk; for that the paschal supper was now finished in all its ceremonies is evident from the concluding prayer being offered and the concluding hymn sung by our Saviour, after he had instituted his own ordinance. It appears, then, that after every thing pertaining to the passover as it was prescribed in the law had been observed, namely, the flesh of the lamb eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, our Lord dispensed with the customary additions to the ceremony, on which the law was silent, and took that part of the remaining bread which was usually reserved to be the last mouthful, and the cup which was with the Jews the third cup, or cup of blessing, and with these elements he instituted his supper. Instead, also, of the usual prayer, he offered that which is recorded in John xvii, and then sung the hymn, or concluding part of the hallel, which consisted of Psalms 115 to 118, inclusive; than which nothing could be more appropriate to the new ordinance, since they contain the strongest evangelical allusions. Previously, then, to the usual concluding ceremonies, Jesus took bread, ton arton, the bread, or CAKE, for in this form the bread of the Jews was made; and if there is any force in the article before arton, which is omitted in the parallel passages of St. Mark and Luke, but ought probably to have been retained, it points out the cake as that which had been reserved from the former part of the feast according to custom, but which was now to be employed to a higher purpose, as the emblem of the body of our Lord. This bread was unleavened; which has given rise to a dispute whether the Lord’s Supper ought not still to be celebrated with unleavened bread. At an early age of the Church we find this regarded as an unimportant circumstance, and the Greek Church, and many of the reformed Churches use leavened bread without hesitation, while the Roman and Lutheran Churches make a point of using unleavened bread or wafers. As unleavened bread was the only kind at hand during the passover, and no allusion at all is made in the institution to it with respect to its quality as being without leaven, it is not probable that our Lord intended any importance to be attached to this circumstance. BREAD, considered as FOOD, appears to constitute the mystic emblem. Taking the bread, he blessed. Our translators have inserted IT; but this act of blessing was an act of thanksgiving to God, according to the practice of the Jews, who took no food or wine without first offering thanks to God. This was the office of him that presided at the feast. “He blesses,” say the rabbins, “and then he breaks.” — The rule also was, “If they sit at the meal, every one blesses for himself; but if they lie along,” which marked a more formal meal, “one blesses for them all.” To bless is to give thanks; hence St. Paul, when describing the institution of the supper of our Lord, instead of the term blessings, says, “when he had given thanks, he brake and said, Take, eat,” &c. Whether our Lord used the same words in blessing God before this distribution of the bread, or others suited to the occasion of a distinct institution, immediately following the eating of the passover, does not appear. The probability is, that he did; for, as the bread had been broken, and distributed during the proper paschal supper, and eaten with the flesh of the lamb according to the law, he had, as the Master of the feast, already used the usual Jewish form of blessing, both over the bread and the wine; and now probably varied it in accordance with the rite which he was about to substitute for ever for the Jewish passover.

And brake it. — The object of the verb is here properly supplied, but there was nothing in the act of breaking peculiar to the eucharist. This was the manner in which bread was distributed in their common meals when one presided; the cakes being thin and brittle, and knives not being in use, nor indeed convenient for the purpose. As to the breaking of bread at the passover, the Talmud gives it as the rule, “The master of the house breaks neither a small piece, lest he should seem to be sparing; nor a large piece bigger than an egg, lest any should appear to be famished.” Our Lord broke the bread, both when he fed the five thousand, and the four thousand; so that no mystery in the Lord’s Supper appears to have been hidden, as some suppose, under this action. The bread was broken simply for convenient distribution to every one; so that there appears not the least reason to assume that breaking of bread is at all essential to the right administration of the ordinance. However the portions may be separated from the cake or loaf, is obviously a matter of indifference. It is true that St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 11:23, &c., makes the words of Christ to be,” Take, eat; this is my body which is BROKEN for you,” which might seem to indicate that the broken bread was made an emblem of his wounded and torn body; but St. Paul’s words can be no more than equivalent to those of the first institution, which, according to St. Luke, were “my body which is GIVEN for you;” so that the circumstance of being broken is used not in any emblematical sense, but with reference to the giving of the body of Christ for every one, as bread is broken to be given to every one at the same table. If the breaking of the bread had been a symbolical circumstance, all notice of it would scarcely have been omitted by the three evangelists, who record the institution with so much particularity.

Take, eat; this is my body. Here the great and true mystery of this holy sacrament commences. The bread is distributed to every one; every one is to take; every one is to eat; and that which is thus taken and eaten, is the body of Christ; but the whole is emblematical. That the bread was not the real body of Christ, but only its emblem is proved equally to sense as to reason; for if it had been the body of Christ, or transubstantiated into his very body, then was the body of Christ eaten by the eleven apostles, while yet their Lord remained before them; and if the body of Christ was thus eaten by the disciples, what was it that Judas betrayed and delivered into the hands of the officers of the chief priests a few hours afterward? If the body of Christ had been disposed of by being eaten, that body could not have been taken into custody; and so Judas betrayed and Pilate crucified, not the body of our Lord, that is not our Lord himself, but a phantom; on the contrary, if the real body of Christ was betrayed and crucified, then it could not be eaten, except in emblem, at the first supper. Still farther, if the body of our Lord was not really and truly transubstantiated into the bread, and eaten at the first supper, as administered by Christ himself, as we see it could not be, then this transubstantiation could take place at no future time; for this is proved from the words of Christ, “This do in remembrance of me.” Do what? Eat bread and drink wine; but if this was all they did at the first supper, and all they were to do at every succeeding celebration, then they could not, as the advocates of the real presence contend, eat bread, but flesh; not drink wine, but blood; and that under the appearance of both. So completely confuted is the monstrous fiction of transubstantiation, by the circumstances of the first supper; and with this convincing evidence of its utter and shocking absurdity, it is almost trifling to attempt to show critically that the words, This is my body, are equivalent to, This bread SIGNIFIES, or REPRESENTS, my body, which is given for you. For since these words cannot, by any possibility, mean that the bread was really the body of Christ, for the plain reasons before given, the body of Christ could not be corporally given in the first supper to be eaten by the disciples: and if this is essential, as the papists pretend, to the true sacrament of the Lord’s supper, then was not the first supper a true sacrament; and if the priest has now the power, by what is called “consecration,” to transmute the bread and wine into the true body of our Lord, he pretends to do what our Lord himself did not, nor ever promised that his disciples should do; and so that which the believers in the real presence call the sacrament of the eucharist, is on their own principles something quite distinct from that instituted by our Lord; something, the origin of which cannot be traced to any institution of his, and on which the New Testament is not only silent, but to which it is opposed. Whatever meaning therefore may be attached to the phrase, This is my body, the meaning forced upon it by the transubstantialists cannot for a moment be entertained, being directly contradicted by the circumstances of the transaction itself. Nor less does this argument conclude against the doctrine of consubstantiation, or the real presence of the flesh and blood of our Lord WITH the elements of bread and wine in intimate union, though not changed into the same substance; which notion is represented under the comparison of the intimate, permeating presence of fire and red-hot iron, which is nevertheless not changed into the substance of the metal. For no such diffusion of the body of Christ could take place at the first supper, or a part only of our Lord’s person was betrayed and crucified; and that defined and circumscribed body of our Saviour, which the disciples saw and conversed with was not his whole person; and it must follow among other absurdities, that the body of Christ was partly visible and partly invisible, partly defined, and partly indefinitely extended, with various consequences as revolting to reason and to the senses as those involved in the doctrine of transubstantiation itself. The words used by our Lord have, however, no real difficulty. Bishop Law has remarked that there is no term in the Hebrew language which expresses to signify or denote; and that the Greek here naturally takes the impress of the Hebrew or Syriac idiom, IT IS being used for IT SIGNIFIES. Hence the similar use of the substantive verb in various passages, “The three branches are three days,” Genesis 40:12. “The seven kine are seven years,” Genesis 40:26. “The ten horns are ten kings,” Daniel 7:24. “The field is the world,” Matthew 13:38. “The seven candlesticks are the seven Churches,” Revelation 1:20. But there is no need to resort to this form of speaking, as though it were peculiar to the Hebrew or Syriac of our Lord’s age. It is a natural mode of expression common to most languages, and occurs constantly in our own; for, in pointing to a portrait, for instance, instead of saying, “This REPRESENTS the person for whom it is taken,” we far more frequently use the shorter and more spirited form, “This IS the person himself.” Still farther, it is to be remarked that our Lord’s mode of speaking on this occasion was constantly used in the passover; for of this the Jewish writers afford sufficient evidence. The paschal lamb is, in many passages, produced by Buxtorf, called by them, “THE BODY of the passover;” and the master of the family said on breaking the bread, “This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in Egypt,” by which he could only mean that the former REPRESENTED or was an EMBLEM of the latter.

But it is time to turn from this gross anti-Christian perversion of Christ’s holy ordinance to its noble and mystical import. Instead of this sacred rite being a carnal feeding upon the body of Christ, which in itself could have no connection with the sanctification of the heart and affections, it is a spiritual participation of the effect and benefits of his death, by which life and strength are given to the soul. Our Lord did not take the flesh of the paschal lamb, and make that an element of his own institution. That was all previously eaten according to the law, which He who came “to fulfil all righteousness,” was scrupulous to observe. Moreover, this might have appeared indicative that animal sacrifices were to be continued under the new dispensation; whereas his “offering of himself once for all,” abrogated them for ever. He therefore took the element of BREAD, which, by calling it his body, that is, the emblem or sign of his body, given for us, preserved as explicitly the essential idea of the sacrificial nature of his death, as if he had made the flesh of the paschal lamb the instituted sign. The connection of the emblem of bread with his “flesh,” that is, his sacrificial death, is strongly marked in John 6:51, &c.: “And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world;” words which plainly signify that men live by the death which he was voluntarily to endure as an atonement for their sins, and as the meritorious means by which all the blessings included in “life” were to be procured for them. As, therefore, the bread itself was an emblem of his body offered for our sins, so the taking and eating of the bread must be figurative in its import also, and denotes that reception of Christ’s sacrifice, by which its benefits are personally communicated; which, as we are taught, throughout the whole New Testament, is done by a true FAITH. Thus, therefore, to believe or trust in the sacrifice of Christ, is to “eat his flesh and drink his blood;” and from this results LIFE, which includes restoration to the Divine favour; the nourishment of the soul in spiritual vigour, — “He that eateth me, even he shall live by me,” John 6:57; and life or felicity in the world to come, — “He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever,” John 6:58. All these expressions show that it is the life of the soul of which our Lord speaks; which could not be affected by a carnal eating of the real body of our Lord; but which is communicated through that vital and renewing influence of God upon the heart which is procured for us by the meritorious death of our Saviour, effected by the agency of the Holy Spirit, and received by the instrumentality of trusting in Christ as the true and only sacrifice for sin: “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me shall live by me.” Of this vital influence the Father is the source; and it flows into man, through Christ, by the instrumentality of eating or believing on him. Of these spiritual acts, the eating of bread and the drinking of wine in the Lord’s Supper, are the established emblems; and he who truly receives those elements, discerning their intent, and exerting faith in the great object represented, which is Christ’s sacrifice for sin, not only thus publicly and statedly professes his acceptance of that sacrifice as the only ground of his hope of salvation, and his sole dependence upon it, but actually derives to himself its stupendous benefits.

V. 27. And he took the cup-Called by the Jews the cup of thanksgiving; which the master of the family used likewise to give to each after supper.

Verse 27. And he took the cup] meta to deipnhsai, after having supped, Luke 22:20, and 1 Corinthians 11:25. Whether the supper was on the paschal lamb, or whether it was a common or ordinary meal, I shall not wait here to inquire: see at the end of this chapter. In the parallel place, in Luke 22, we find our Lord taking the cup, Luke 22:17, and again Luke 22:19; by the former of which was probably meant the cup of blessing, hkrbh swk kos haberakah, which the master of a family took, and, after blessing God, gave to each of his guests by way of welcome: but this second taking the cup is to be understood as belonging to the very important rite which he was now instituting, and on which he lays a very remarkable stress. With respect to the bread, he had before simply said, Take, eat, this is my body; but concerning the cup he says, Drink ye all of this: for as this pointed out the very essence of the institution, viz. the blood of atonement, it was necessary that each should have a particular application of it; therefore he says, Drink ye ALL of THIS. By this we are taught that the cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; so that they who deny the cup to the people sin against God’s institution; and they who receive not the cup are not partakers of the body and blood of Christ. If either could without mortal prejudice be omitted, it might be the bread; but the cup, as pointing out the blood poured out, i.e. the life, by which alone the great sacrificial act is performed, and remission of sins procured, is absolutely indispensable. On this ground it is demonstrable, that there is not a priest under heaven, who denies the cup to the people, that can be said to celebrate the Lord’s Supper at all; nor is there one of their votaries that ever received the holy sacrament. All pretension to this is an absolute farce, so long as the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied. How strange is it, that the very men who plead so much for the bare literal meaning of this is my body, in the preceding verse, should deny all meaning to drink YE ALL of this cup, in this verse! And though Christ has in the most positive manner enjoined it, they will not permit one of the laity to taste it! O, what a thing is man-a constant contradiction to reason and to himself.

I have just said that our blessed Lord lays remarkable stress on the administration of the cup, and on that which himself assures us is represented by it. As it is peculiarly emphatic, I beg leave to set down the original text, which the critical reader will do well minutely to examine: touto gar esti to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv, to peri pollwn ekcunomenon eiv afesin amartiwn. The following literal translation and paraphrase do not exceed its meaning:-

For THIS is THAT blood of mine which was pointed out by all the sacrifices under the Jewish law, and particularly by the shedding and sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb. THAT blood of the sacrifice slain for the ratification of the new covenant. THE blood ready to be poured out for the multitudes, the whole Gentile world as well as the Jews, for the taking away of sins; sin, whether original or actual, in all its power and guilt, in all its internal energy and pollution.

And gave thanks] See the form used on this occasion, on Matthew 26:26; and see the MISHNA, TRACT twkrb Beracoth.

Verses 27, 28. And he took the cup — Called by the Jews the cup of thanksgiving; which the master of the family used likewise to give to each after supper. And gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this — That is, of the wine which it contains. For this is my blood — That is, the sign of my blood; of the new testament — Whereby the new testament, or covenant, is procured or confirmed; which is shed for many — Even as many as spring from Adam; for the remission of sins — Namely, That as many as truly repent, bringing forth fruit worthy of repentance, and believe in me with their hearts unto righteousness, may receive from the mercy of my Father, in a way consistent with his holiness and justice, the free and full remission of all their past sins. See note on Romans 3:24-26. “I apprehend,” says the last-mentioned divine, “this ordinance of the eucharist to have so plain a reference to the atonement or satisfaction of Christ, and to do so solemn an honour to that fundamental doctrine of the gospel, that I cannot but believe, that while this sacred institution continues in the church, (as it will undoubtedly do to the end of the world,) it will be utterly impossible to root that doctrine out of the minds of plain, humble Christians, by all the little artifices of such forced and unnatural criticisms as those are by which it has been attacked. Unprejudiced and honest simplicity will always see the analogy this ordinance has to eating the flesh of the Son of God, and drinking his blood; and will be taught by it, to feed on him as the Lamb that was slain by the gracious appointment of God, to take away the sin of the world. The enemies of this heart-reviving truth might as well hope to pierce through a coat of mail with a straw, as to reach such a truth, defended by such an ordinance as this, by any of their trifling sophistries.” For further information respecting the Lord’s supper, see notes on Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-34.

27. Took the cup and gave thanks — From the Greek word eucaristew, eucharisteo, to give thanks, the Lord’s Supper is called the eucharist. For since it is taken in thankful remembrance of our Lord’s great work of redemption, so it is truly a thank offering, that is a eucharist. Drink ye all of it — That is, drink all ye of it. And Mark adds that they all drank of it. As our Lord here represents the future minister, so the disciples represent the future laity; and as our Lord here directs them to partake the cup, so the Church of Rome, which withholds the cup from the laity, is palpably disobedient to the Saviour’s command. Surely, as it is the blood which redeems, the Church of God should not be denied the participation of his blood.

Verse 27. And he took the cup. — The Jews, in celebrating the passover, took four cups of wine mixed with water, which the master divided among those who composed the passover company. St. Luke mentions one cup taken and given by our Lord to the disciples before this, which he used in instituting his own supper. The cup, whether it were the third or fourth usually partaken of by the Jews in celebrating the passover, contained the other element by which his sacrificial death was emblematically represented in this ordinance; and this, like the remaining portion of the unleavened bread, was applied by Christ to a higher purpose: for this cup was not, by the law of Moses, made essential to the observance of the passover; and it is therefore noted by St. Luke, that he took “the cup after supper.” Drink ye all of it. — Since the cup was administered to ALL as well as the bread, the withholding of the cup from the laity by the priests of the papal Church, is a manifest corruption of this sacred rite, and destructive of the very nature of the ordinance itself. And if the cup ought to be withheld from the laity on the weak pretence that Christ made the apostles priests at this ordinance, and that it was to be confined to them, for the same reason the bread ought to be eaten by the priests only, and so this sacrament be confined to priests only, and the laity be excluded from all participation of either kind. The Romanists do not, however, err in mixing the sacramental wine with water, which was the custom at the passover. This was practised by the early Christians. The Jews used only red wine at their passover; which is to be preferred also for the Christian ordinances.

V. 28. This is the sign of my blood, whereby the new testament or covenant is confirmed.

Which is shed for many-As many as spring from Adam.

Verse 28. For this is my blood of the New Testament] This is the reading both here and in St. Mark; but St. Luke and St. Paul say, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This passage has been strangely mistaken: by New Testament, many understand nothing more than the book commonly known by this name, containing the four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, apostolical Epistles, and book of the Revelation; and they think that the cup of the New Testament means no more than merely that cup which the book called the New Testament enjoins in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. As this is the case, it is highly necessary that this term should be explained. The original, h kainh diaqhkh, which we translate, The New Testament, and which is the general title of all the contents of the book already described, simply means, the new COVENANT. Covenant, from con, together, and venio, I come, signifies an agreement, contract, or compact, between two parties, by which both are mutually bound to do certain things, on certain conditions and penalties. It answers to the Hebrew tyrb berith, which often signifies, not only the covenant or agreement, but also the sacrifice which was slain on the occasion, by the blood of which the covenant was ratified; and the contracting parties professed to subject themselves to such a death as that of the victim, in case of violating their engagements. An oath of this kind, on slaying the covenant sacrifice, was usual in ancient times: so in Homer, when a covenant was made between the Greeks and the Trojans, and the throats of lambs were cut, and their blood poured out, the following form of adjuration was used by the contracting parties:-

zeu kudiste, megiste, kai aqanatoi qeoi alloi,

oppoteroi proteroi uper orkia phmhneian,

ode sf~ egkefalov camadiv reoi, wv ode oinov,

autwn, kai tekewn, alocoi d~ alloisi migeien.

All glorious Jove, and ye, the powers of heaven!

Whoso shall violate this contract first,

So be their blood, their children’s and their own,

Poured out, as this libation, on the ground

And let their wives bring forth to other men!

ILIAD l. iii. v. 298-301.

Our blessed Saviour is evidently called the diaqhkh, tyrb berith, or covenant sacrifice, Isaiah 42:6; 49:8; Zechariah 9:11. And to those Scriptures he appears to allude, as in them the Lord promises to give him for a covenant (sacrifice) to the Gentiles, and to send forth, by the blood of this covenant (victim) the prisoners out of the pit. The passages in the sacred writings which allude to this grand sacrificial and atoning act are almost innumerable. See the Preface to Matthew.

In this place, our Lord terms his blood the blood of the NEW covenant; by which he means that grand plan of agreement, or reconciliation, which God was now establishing between himself and mankind, by the passion and death of his Son, through whom alone men could draw nigh to God; and this NEW covenant is mentioned in contradistinction from the OLD covenant, h palaia diaqhkh, 2 Corinthians 3:14, by which appellative all the books of the Old Testament were distinguished, because they pointed out the way of reconciliation to God by the blood of the various victims slain under the law; but now, as the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, was about to be offered up, a NEW and LIVING way was thereby constituted, so that no one henceforth could come unto the Father but by HIM. Hence all the books of the New Testament, which bear unanimous testimony to the doctrine of salvation by faith through the blood of Jesus, are termed, h kainh diaqhkh, The NEW covenant. See the Preface.

Dr. Lightfoot’s Observations on this are worthy of serious notice. “This is my blood of the New Testament. Not only the seal of the covenant, but the sanction of the new covenant. The end of the Mosaic economy, and the confirming of a new one. The confirmation of the old covenant was by the blood of bulls and goats, Exodus 24, Heb 9, because blood was still to be shed: the confirmation of the new was by a cup of wine, because under the new covenant there is no farther shedding of blood. As it is here said of the cup, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; so it might be said of the cup of blood, Exodus 24, That cup was the Old Testament in the blood of Christ: there, all the articles of that covenant being read over, Moses sprinkled all the people with blood, and said, This is the blood of the covenant which God hath made with you; and thus the old covenant or testimony was confirmed. ln like manner, Christ, having published all the articles of the new covenant, he takes the cup of wine, and gives them to drink, and saith. This is the New Testament in my blood; and thus the new covenant was established.”-Works, vol. ii. p. 260.

Which is shed (ekcunomenon, poured out) for many] ekcew and ekcuw, to pour out, are often used in a sacrificial sense in the Septuagint, and signify to pour out or sprinkle the blood of the sacrifices before the altar of the Lord, by way of atonement. See 2 Kings 16:15; Leviticus 8:15; 9:9; Exodus 29:12; Leviticus 4:7, 14, 17, 30, 34; and in various other places. Our Lord, by this very remarkable mode of expression, teaches us that, as his body was to be broken or crucified, uper hmwn, in our stead, so here the blood was to be poured out to make an atonement, as the words, remission of sins, sufficiently prove for without shedding of blood there was no remission, Hebrews 9:22, nor any remission by shedding of blood, but in a sacrificial way. See the passages above, and on Matthew 26:26.

The whole of this passage will receive additional light when collated with Isaiah 53:11, 12. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify MANY, for he shall bear their iniquities-because he hath POURED OUT his soul unto death, and he bare the sin of MANY. The pouring out of the soul unto death, in the prophet, answers to, this is the blood of the new covenant which is poured out for you, in the evangelists; and the רבים, rabbim, multitudes, in Isaiah, corresponds to the MANY, pollwn, of Matthew and Mark. The passage will soon appear plain, when we consider that two distinct classes of persons are mentioned by the prophet. 1. The Jews. Isaiah 53:4. Surely he hath borne OUR griefs, and carried OUR sorrows. Isaiah 53:5. But he was wounded for OUR transgressions, he was bruised for OUR iniquities, the chastisement of OUR peace was upon him. Isaiah 53:6. All WE like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of US all. 2. The GENTILES. Isaiah 53:11. By his knowledge, בדעתו bedaato, i.e. by his being made known, published as Christ crucified among the Gentiles, he shall justify רבים rabbim, the multitudes, (the GENTILES,) for he shall (also) bear THEIR offences, as well as OURS, the Jews, Isaiah 53:4, &c. It is well known that the Jewish dispensation, termed by the apostle as above, h palaia diaqhkh, the OLD covenant, was partial and exclusive. None were particularly interested in it save the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob: whereas the Christian dispensation, h kainh diaqhkh, the NEW covenant, referred to by our Lord in this place, was universal; for as Jesus Christ by the grace of God tasted death for EVERY man, Hebrews 2:9, and is that Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the WORLD, John 1:29, who would have ALL MEN to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, 1 Timothy 2:4, even that knowledge of Christ crucified, by which they are to be justified, Isaiah 53:11, therefore he has commanded his disciples to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to EVERY CREATURE, Mark 16:15. The reprobate race, those who were no people, and not beloved, were to be called in; for the Gospel was to be preached to all the world, though it was to begin at Jerusalem, Luke 24:47. For this purpose was the blood of the new covenant sacrifice poured out for the multitudes, that there might be but one fold, as there is but one Shepherd; and that God might be ALL and in ALL.

For the remission of sins.] eiv afesiv amartiwn, for (or, in reference to) the taking away of sins. For, although the blood is shed, and the atonement made, no man’s sins are taken away until, as a true penitent, he returns to God, and, feeling his utter incapacity to save himself, believes in Christ Jesus, who is the justifier of the ungodly.

The phrase, afesiv twn amartiwn, remission of sins, (frequently used by the Septuagint,) being thus explained by our Lord, is often used by the evangelists and the apostles; and does not mean merely the pardon of sins, as it is generally understood, but the removal or taking away of sins; not only the guilt, but also the very nature of sin, and the pollution of the soul through it; and comprehends all that is generally understood by the terms justification and sanctification. For the use and meaning of the phrase afesiv amartown, see Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 10:18.

Both St. Luke and St. Paul add, that, after giving the bread, our Lord said, Do this in remembrance of me. And after giving the cup, St. Paul alone adds, This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. The account, as given by St. Paul, should be carefully followed, being fuller, and received, according to his own declaration, by especial revelation from God. See 1 Corinthians 11:23, For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, &c. See the harmonized view above.

Verses 27, 28. And he took the cup — Called by the Jews the cup of thanksgiving; which the master of the family used likewise to give to each after supper. And gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this — That is, of the wine which it contains. For this is my blood — That is, the sign of my blood; of the new testament — Whereby the new testament, or covenant, is procured or confirmed; which is shed for many — Even as many as spring from Adam; for the remission of sins — Namely, That as many as truly repent, bringing forth fruit worthy of repentance, and believe in me with their hearts unto righteousness, may receive from the mercy of my Father, in a way consistent with his holiness and justice, the free and full remission of all their past sins. See note on Romans 3:24-26. “I apprehend,” says the last-mentioned divine, “this ordinance of the eucharist to have so plain a reference to the atonement or satisfaction of Christ, and to do so solemn an honour to that fundamental doctrine of the gospel, that I cannot but believe, that while this sacred institution continues in the church, (as it will undoubtedly do to the end of the world,) it will be utterly impossible to root that doctrine out of the minds of plain, humble Christians, by all the little artifices of such forced and unnatural criticisms as those are by which it has been attacked. Unprejudiced and honest simplicity will always see the analogy this ordinance has to eating the flesh of the Son of God, and drinking his blood; and will be taught by it, to feed on him as the Lamb that was slain by the gracious appointment of God, to take away the sin of the world. The enemies of this heart-reviving truth might as well hope to pierce through a coat of mail with a straw, as to reach such a truth, defended by such an ordinance as this, by any of their trifling sophistries.” For further information respecting the Lord’s supper, see notes on Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-34.

28. This is my blood — As the grain is the body, so the juice is the blood of the life of universal nature. And as the vine is the most beautiful pipe through which the juice of nature’s life flows forth to exhilarate man, so its ruddy colour reminds us that it is as it were the very blood which creation gives forth from her own body to cheer and nourish man. Thereby how striking an image does it become of the true blood which is shed forth from the body of nature’s incarnate God! It reminds us at once of his death and our life. Hence, when he poured the wine forth, how strong an image does he ever present to us of that streaming blood which assures us of the death of Him who died for all. Sense thus aids faith.

Of the new testament — As the blood of the paschal lamb was of the Old Testament. The word testament properly signifies covenant, or agreement by God with men; in the which he prescribes a system of duties and conditions, and promises his blessings. Under Moses, he had the old covenant or testament; under Christ, the new. And so the two volumes of the Bible are called the Old Testament and the New. Note here that the blood of the Old Testament, that is, of the passover, was just as truly and really the blood of the Saviour as the blood of the New, that is, the wine of the communion. The one was symbolical, so was the other.

Shed for many — As the bread should be broken, so wine should be poured, both acts representing the action of death. For many — For so many as are born of Adam. “No stress is to be laid on this word pollwn, many, as not being pantwn, all, here; it is placed in opposition to the one life which is given — the one for many — and not with any distinction from pantwn.” — Alford.

For the remission of sins — As without the retaining of the blood in the living system death ensues, so the blood is said in the ceremonial law to be the life. And so the flowing of the blood is the true ceremonial exhibition to the sight of vicarious or sacrificial death. Hence the apostle tells us that in the whole sacrificial system “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” So the flowing blood of the Redeemer, both from his extremities and from his side, is the visible manifestation of his death, as the reality of death is necessary both to the performance of the entire work of redemption and to represent the death of the soul from which he would save men.

Verse 28. For this is my blood of the New Testament. — As the bread was the emblem of the body of Christ given to death for us, so the wine was the emblem of the blood, of Christ shed for us. He was not to die a natural death, which might have been without shedding of blood, but a violent death; which marks its sacrificial character, for, like the ancient sacrifices, he was to be PUT TO DEATH, and his blood, like theirs, poured out before the Lord as an oblation. His blood is therefore called the blood of the New Testament, thv kainhv diaqhkhv, of the NEW COVENANT, for so ought the word to be rendered; (see preface;) in which allusion is made, not to those heathen rites which some commentators have adduced to illustrate the passage; but to that solemn transaction in which Moses, having taken “the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people,” took also “the blood, and sprinkled it upon the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you,” Exodus 24:7, 8. This “book” contained the covenant made between God and the Church and nation of the Israelites. It was the record of the promises made on the part of God, and the engagements of obedience to his revealed will on the part of the people of Israel; thus it was a covenant or solemn engagement between both; and as covenants were anciently ratified by sacrifices, so here the blood of the victims was sprinkled upon the book, to denote at once that its covenanted blessings were procured by that blood of the true sacrifice of which the ancient sacrifices were the type, and as confirming the continued performance of the whole to the people upon their continued observance of the conditions. We see then the import of our Lord’s words in this allusion. He calls the dispensation of his religion the NEW covenant, in opposition to this old covenant, which was in its nature introductory and temporary; and in reference also to the prediction in Jeremiah 31:31: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” This dispensation has the nature of a covenant, because it contains the “great and precious” promises on the part of God, the forgiveness of sins, the renewal of the heart in holiness, and the all-comprehensive engagement, “And I will be their God, and they shall be my people,” an engagement which includes not only all blessings which “pertain to life and godliness,” but, as we learn from our Lord’s discourse with the Sadducees, the resurrection of the body and the felicity of an endless future life. See note on Matthew 22:32. All this is promised by God; and on the part of man are required “repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,” by the merit of whose death alone we can claim these blessings, and in sole respect to which, as a satisfaction to Divine justice, God places himself in the bond of this covenant to bestow them. This covenant, the blood of Christ, that is, the pouring forth of his blood as a sacrificial victim, at once procured and ratified; so that it stands firm to all truly penitent and contrite spirits who believe in him: and of this great truth, the Lord’s Supper was the instituted sign and seal; and he who in faith drinks of the cup, having reference to its signification, that blood of Christ which confirms to true believers the whole covenant of grace, is assured thereby of its faithfulness and permanence, and derives to himself the fulness of its blessings. To this there is no exception; for the new covenant, unlike the old, is universal; and hence our Lord adds to the words, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed ekcunomenon, poured out, peri pollwn, for MANY,” that is, for all mankind, according to the undoubted use of the word by St. Paul in Romans 5:15, &c., — for, eiv, in order to the remission of sins, and of necessity all the penal consequences of human transgression in a future life.

Such then is the nature and import of this great institution. It is COMMEMORATIVE: “This do,” is added by St. Luke, and by St. Paul, “in remembrance of me;” and as a commemorative institution, observed from the time of its appointment by all Christians, it is an irrefragable demonstration of the grand historical fact of our Lord’s death and passion. It is EMBLEMATICAL, setting forth the sacrificial nature of the death of Christ; the benefits which accrue from it: and the means by which those benefits are received. It is FEDERAL. In its first institution the perfected covenant of grace with true believers was proposed, accepted, and ratified; and in every succeeding celebration, as there is a renewed assurance of God’s love to us in Christ, so there is a renewed acceptance of the covenant on the part of all spiritual recipients, with its blessings on the one hand, and its obligations to love and obedience on the other. And, finally, it is a public CONFESSION of our faith in Christ, in all those views and relations in which he is represented to us in his own doctrine; and of our COMMUNION with him, and with his universal CHURCH. As to the names by which it is distinguished, they have all their significance. Though not properly a supper, because separate and distinct from the paschal supper, which was a sacred meal or feast, and because it was instituted after the “supper was ended,” it is called THE LORD’S SUPPER, because it was manifestly appointed by our Lord to supersede the supper of the passover, and enjoined as a commemoration of a greater redemption than that of the Israelites from Egypt, upon Christians to the end of time: “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come,” 1 Corinthians 11:26. — It is called the EUCHARIST, from eucaristein, “to give thanks,” because of the joyful thanksgivings to God with which its celebration by the followers of Christ has always been accompanied. By the Greek fathers it is often called a MYSTERY, from its emblematical character, and the truths which lay hidden under its visible elements. In the western Church, it is more usually described as THE SACRAMENT of the Lord’s Supper, from sacramentum, which signified a sacred ceremony; and particularly the Roman military oath, which was considered as a very solemn, religious act, this term being adopted to indicate that pledging of ourselves to fidelity to Christ which enters into the due celebration of this ordinance. Occasionally it is called THE COMMUNION, from that fellowship of the saints with each other which this participation of mystic food, at the same common table of the Lord, so beautifully exhibits.

V. 29. I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, till I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom-That is, I shall taste no more wine, till I drink wine of quite another kind in the glorious kingdom of my Father. And of this you shall also partake with me.

Verse 29. I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine] These words seem to intimate no more than this: We shall not have another opportunity of eating this bread and drinking this wine together; as in a few hours my crucifixion shall take place.

Until that day when I drink it new with you] That is, I shall no more drink of the produce of the vine with you; but shall drink new wine-wine of a widely different nature from this-a wine which the kingdom of God alone can afford. The term new in Scripture is often taken in this sense. So the NEW heaven, the NEW earth, the NEW covenant, the NEW man-mean a heaven, earth, covenant, man, of a very different nature from the former. It was our Lord’s invariable custom to illustrate heavenly things by those of earth, and to make that which had last been the subject of conversation the means of doing it. Thus he uses wine here, of which they had lately drunk, and on which he had held the preceding discourse, to point out the supreme blessedness of the kingdom of God. But however pleasing and useful wine may be to the body and how helpful soever, as an ordinance of God. It may be to the soul in the holy sacrament; yet the wine of the kingdom, the spiritual enjoyments at the right hand of God, will be infinitely more precious and useful. From what our Lord says here, we learn that the sacrament of his supper is a type and a pledge, to genuine Christians, of the felicity they shall enjoy with Christ in the kingdom of glory.

Verse 29. But I well not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, &c. — He had made the same declaration concerning the passover-cup, Luke 22:18; and therefore, it is probable, his meaning upon the whole was, that he would neither partake of the passover nor of the sacrament, till he had the satisfaction to see the things signified by these institutions fulfilled in the gospel dispensation, which therefore was nigh at hand. Or we may interpret the words in a more general sense, thus: that he would not partake of any joy till he rejoiced with them in the communications of the Holy Spirit, which were to be bestowed plentifully on them as soon as the gospel dispensation began. Others, however, understand the words thus: I will taste no more wine till I drink wine of quite another kind in the glorious kingdom of my Father; and of this you also shall partake with me.

Ver. 29. Until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. These words show the certainty of eternal life, and the divine enjoyments of that happy world. Blessed are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

29. I will not drink — Of course he is not to drink his own blood. He is not to derive life and salvation from his own atonement.

Drink it new — He will never drink it in its sacrificial, but in its eucharistic sense. Hence he does not say that he will drink the blood, but “this fruit of the vine.” It is the life part, not the death part of the symbol of which he speaks. He will not drink the earthly wine even in its joyous character. But he will in the glorious kingdom drink that reality of which this life-symbol is the figure, namely, life, the vita beata, the blessed life. Our Lord could not drink the wine in its sacrificial character, because he had no sins to atone for. He would not now drink it in its joyous character because now was his time of sorrow; and he would indicate to his disciples that his joy was reserved for the day of his glorification.

It is a very coarse and degrading exposition of this text to make our Saviour say, as some do, that he will not drink the wine now, but he will drink real, physical wine in the resurrection body “with his saints during the thousand years” millennial reign. Such a reign of the saints in the resurrection body, with Christ, for a thousand years, on earth, is a fond fancy, unsupported by a just interpretation of Scripture. Our Lord means that he will not drink the symbolical wine; but will wait until he can drink the real wine which this typifies in the heavenly kingdom.

Verse 29. I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, &c. — The opinions of both ancient and modern commentators, on this passage, are very various. Some take the words to mean that he would not henceforth eat or drink with the disciples until after his resurrection; others, that he intended to announce the substitution of the eucharist, in which he would participate with them in a spiritual manner, for the Jewish passover; others, that he intended to intimate his speedy departure, which would prevent him from partaking in any future solemnity, until he and his disciples should celebrate the heavenly feast together; figures from earthly entertainments being used to express the joys of heaven. In determining the sense, it is, however, necessary to ascertain the time when these words were spoken. St. Luke gives these as words of Christ, spoken during the paschal supper, after he had taken one of the cups of wine, probably the first or second cup which was used during that ceremony, and PREVIOUSLY therefore to his instituting the eucharist; and there are two reasons which make it probable that St. Luke has, in this instance, more closely followed the order of time than St. Matthew. — The first is, that the wine of which our Lord had been partaking, must have been that of the paschal supper, and not of the eucharist, because of the latter he could not be a participant. This was to be done in REMEMBRANCE of him, and therefore done by others, not by himself; or, if considered as a FEDERAL rite, he was not a PARTY to the covenant, but the Mediator coming in between the parties, and could not perform every act which was proper either to the stipulating or to the assenting party. These considerations appear conclusive against our Lord either eating of the bread or drinking of the wine of the eucharist. The second reason in favour of St. Luke’s order is, that that evangelist has stated this part of the conversation of our Lord with greater particularity than St. Matthew; and as his attention was more fully directed to it, it is the more probable that he has assigned it its proper place in the narrative. His words are: “And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. — And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.” These words appear to be the same as those recorded by St. Matthew, though with the addition, until that day when I shall drink it new with you, and with the variation of, “in my Father’s kingdom,” for “until the kingdom of God shall come;” the sense of which is the same, and not otherwise varied than as translations into Greek by two different persons from the language in which our Saviour spoke, which was the common language of the country. — But if a similar observation was not made twice during the transactions of the evening, then the words in question are clearly, by St. Luke, referred to the celebration of the passover itself, and not to the eucharist. In this case, the meaning of our Lord’s words is sufficiently obvious. The passover commemorates the redemption from Egypt; but that was a type of the Christian redemption, the completion of which is in the heavenly state. Our Lord therefore declared that he would no more eat of the passover, “until it was fulfilled,” accomplished, “in the kingdom of God;” that is, the type should no more be celebrated; but he and his disciples would meet in a state of future felicity, and they with him would celebrate the full and perfected redemption of the Church glorified. — In like manner we are to understand his remark as to the wine: he would not drink of the fruit of the vine, until “the kingdom of God should come;” or as it is expressed by St. Matthew, until he drank it new with them in the kingdom of his Father. This is a mode of expression not uncommon among the Jews, who spoke figuratively of “the wine of the world to come,” as also of “sitting down at a feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” making use of the festivals of earth to represent the felicities of heaven. It is thus that our Lord makes use of earthly things to prefigure heavenly, and raises the thoughts of his disciples to the joy of meeting him in the world to come. — In this view the words of St. Matthew have also an easy interpretation: Until I drink it with you in my Father’s kingdom; where NEW wine is to be taken in the same sense as “new heavens,” “new earth,” “new man,” &c, to denote wine of a different nature, spiritual refreshment, and spiritual joy, in which both the Saviour, who will then “see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied,” and the disciples were to participate for ever. This is one method of interpreting the text; but there is another, which, without supposing what is wholly incredible, that our Lord partook of the elements of bread and wine as instituted in his supper, will allow that both St. Luke and St. Matthew are equally exact as to the order of time in which the occurrences at the last supper are stated. The words of St. Matthew agree in sense with those of St. Luke; but, as stated above, there is an addition to them, which makes it probable that St. Luke omits what St. Matthew has recorded, and St. Matthew what is related by St. Luke. In this case we must suppose that the remark of our Lord, as stated by St. Matthew, that he would not “drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom,” was made not only during the paschal supper, as recorded by St. Luke, but also after he had delivered the eucharistic cup. Still, if this be allowed, all the difficulty which the common notion involves, that our Lord partook of the eucharist with his disciples, may be easily avoided. For although we should allow that he ate of the bread and drank of the wine with which he instituted the peculiar and distinct ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, neither the bread nor the wine became the elements of that institution, until they had passed from him to the disciples with his own declaration of THE INTENT and significancy with which he delivered them to the disciples, and with which they were to receive them. As part of the paschal solemnities he ate the bread, and drank “the cup of blessing;” but before he distributed the bread, and “divided” the cup among his disciples, he gave them a NEW AND PECULIAR SIGNIFICANCY, under which not he himself, but his disciples only received them. Without, therefore, involving the notion that he either ate the bread or drank the wine sacramentally, he might repeat his former observation, that he would no more drink of this fruit of the vine, until he drank it new with them in a higher and figurative manner in the kingdom of his Father; that is, that after THAT EVENING he would no more be associated with them, either in commemorating the Jewish passover, or in administering his own; but that the fruit and effect of his great redemption should be enjoyed mutually by them, when the purposes of his mediatorial office should be accomplished, and the glorious fruits of his undertaking should be enjoyed in the kingdom of “the Father,” where “God shall be all in all.” Of the two interpretations I have suggested, the latter is probably the most satisfactory.

This fruit of the vine. — Gennhma touampelon is a periphrasis for wine, and is the mode of expression used in the form of giving thanks upon taking the passover cup; for then the master of the house said, “Blessed be he that created the fruit of the vine.”

V. 30. And when they had sung the hymn-Which was constantly sung at the close of the passover. It consisteth of six psalms, from the 113th to the 118th. <19B301>Psalm 113:1 &c.

The mount of Olives-Was over against the temple, about two miles from Jerusalem. Mark 14:26; Luke 22:39; John 18:1.

Verse 30. And when they had sung a hymn] umnhsantev means, probably, no more than a kind of recitative reading or chanting. As to the hymn itself, we know, from the universal consent of Jewish antiquity, that it was composed of Psalms 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, and 118, termed by the Jews llh halel, from hy-wllh halelu-yah, the first word in Psalm

113. These six Psalms were always sung at every paschal solemnity. They sung this great hillel on account of the five great benefits referred to in it; viz.

1. The Exodus from Egypt, <19B401>Psalm 114:1. When Israel went out of Egypt, &c.

2. The miraculous division of the Red Sea, <19B403>Psalm 114:3. The sea saw it and fled.

3. The promulgation of the law, <19B404>Psalm 114:4. The mountains skipped like lambs.

4. The resurrection of the dead, <19B609>Psalm 116:9. I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living.

5. The passion of the Messiah, <19B501>Psalm 115:1. Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, &c.

See Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr. p. 231, and my Discource on the nature and design of the Eucharist, 8vo. Lond. 1808.

Verses 30-32. And when they had sung a hymn — Which was constantly sung at the close of the passover. It consisted of six psalms, from the 113th to the 118th. See the contents of Psalm 113. They went out into the mount of Olives — That is, after some other facts had occurred, and some other instructions, advices, and warnings, see Luke 22:24-28; John 13:31-38; and the divine discourse recorded John 14. had been delivered to the eleven disciples: the sermon contained in the 15th and 16th chapters of the same gospel, it seems, being preached on the mount of Olives, where also Christ offered to his Father his intercessory prayer, in chap. 18. Then saith Jesus — After they arrived on the mount of Olives. All ye shall be offended because of me this night — Notwithstanding all the faith you have professed in me, and all the affection which you bear me, yet, not only one, or another, but all of you shall be so terrified by the distress befalling me in your presence, and by a view of the sufferings which I am beginning to pass through, that it shall prove the sad occasion of your giving way to unbelief and sin, and of your forsaking me, your master and friend. For it is written, Zechariah 13:7, I will smite the shepherd, &c. — I am that shepherd, and you the timorous sheep, that will be scattered by the assault made on your keeper. But, as it is afterward added there, by way of encouragement, I will turn my hand upon the little ones, namely, to reduce and recover them from this dispersed state; so likewise, I assure you for your comfort, that after I am risen from the dead, as I soon shall be, I will go before you, as a shepherd before his sheep, into Galilee, and there give not only to you, my apostles, but to all my disciples, the amplest demonstration both of my resurrection and my love; whereby your hearts shall be established in the firmest adherence to me; for though you forsake me, I will not for this forsake you.

Ver. 30. And when they had sung a hymn they went out. In the Hebrew feasts it was common to sing a hymn of praise and thanksgiving, on account of which the Lord’s supper is frequently called the holy eucharist.

30. And when they had sung a hymn — According to the custom of the Jews, the passover was closed with singing what they called the Hallel, which consisted of Psalms cxiii-cxviii. It may be remarked that this is the only time our Lord is described as sanctioning by his example the exercise of singing. Before this closing exercise our Lord uttered the discourses and offered the prayer recorded in John, xiv-xvii.

Went out into the mount of Olives — Our Lord is to be pictured to our minds as rising about nine or ten o’clock in the evening from the supper-table, and walking, followed by his accustomed train, (probably through the Golden, now St. Stephen’s Gate,) down the gorge, and across the brook Kedron, until he comes into a wood or grove called Gethsemane. Verse 36.

§ 125. — THE INTIMATION TO THE DISCIPLES AND TO PETER OF THEIR DESERTION AND

Verse 30. Sang a hymn. — The paschal psalms were from the hundred and thirteenth to the hundred and eighteenth inclusive, and were called the great Hallel; of which the Jews themselves remark, that they allude to the sorrows of the Messiah, and the resurrection from the dead. This Hallel, or song of praise, was not sung all at once, but in parts, the last of which was sung at the close of the passover.

V. 31. All ye will be offended at me-Something will happen to me, which will occasion your falling into sin by forsaking me. Zechariah 13:7.

Verse 31. All ye shall be offended] Or rather, Ye will all be stumbled-pantev umeiv skandalisqhsesqe-ye will all forsake me, and lose in a great measure your confidence in me.

This night] The time of trial is just at hand.

I will smite the shepherd] It will happen to you as to a flock of sheep, whose shepherd has been slain-the leader and guardian being removed, the whole flock shall be scattered, and be on the point of becoming a prey to ravenous beasts.

Verses 30-32. And when they had sung a hymn — Which was constantly sung at the close of the passover. It consisted of six psalms, from the 113th to the 118th. See the contents of Psalm 113. They went out into the mount of Olives — That is, after some other facts had occurred, and some other instructions, advices, and warnings, see Luke 22:24-28; John 13:31-38; and the divine discourse recorded John 14. had been delivered to the eleven disciples: the sermon contained in the 15th and 16th chapters of the same gospel, it seems, being preached on the mount of Olives, where also Christ offered to his Father his intercessory prayer, in chap. 18. Then saith Jesus — After they arrived on the mount of Olives. All ye shall be offended because of me this night — Notwithstanding all the faith you have professed in me, and all the affection which you bear me, yet, not only one, or another, but all of you shall be so terrified by the distress befalling me in your presence, and by a view of the sufferings which I am beginning to pass through, that it shall prove the sad occasion of your giving way to unbelief and sin, and of your forsaking me, your master and friend. For it is written, Zechariah 13:7, I will smite the shepherd, &c. — I am that shepherd, and you the timorous sheep, that will be scattered by the assault made on your keeper. But, as it is afterward added there, by way of encouragement, I will turn my hand upon the little ones, namely, to reduce and recover them from this dispersed state; so likewise, I assure you for your comfort, that after I am risen from the dead, as I soon shall be, I will go before you, as a shepherd before his sheep, into Galilee, and there give not only to you, my apostles, but to all my disciples, the amplest demonstration both of my resurrection and my love; whereby your hearts shall be established in the firmest adherence to me; for though you forsake me, I will not for this forsake you.

HIS DENIALS, 31-35.

This passage Matthew inserts out of its true order. It is to be considered not as occurring after, but before leaving the table, and before the extended discourses recorded by John. To take in the full account of all the intimations given to the reluctant Peter of his denials, we must read in the following order: John 13:36-38; Matthew 26:31-33; Luke 22:31-33; Matthew 26:34, 35. We thus find that before leaving the supper-table our Lord gave Peter three warnings of his folly. This of Matthew is the second. As it is the self-confidence of Peter that induces the first warning of our Lord, so, through all the three, Peter retains his protestations that he will prefer death rather than unfaithfulness.

31. Shall be offended — Literally, shall be entrapped into wrong. Shall be made to fail in your fidelity to me.

I will smite the Shepherd — Our Lord here quotes Zechariah as an illustration, or, as some of the best commentators suppose, as a direct prediction of his desertion in his affliction by his disciples.

Verse 31. Then saith Jesus unto them, &c. — The time was probably as they were proceeding to the mount of Olives. The term offended here, as in several other places, signifies, to be so discouraged and affrighted by the sufferings to which men would be exposed for Christ’s sake, as to forsake him, as men do a rough and dangerous path. When they saw their Master arrested, they feared the consequences as to themselves, and for the time forsook him.

For it is written, I will smite, &c. — Although this quotation is not introduced with the more lengthened formula, “that it might or may be fulfilled,” the particle gar sufficiently shows that our Lord represented the scattering of his disciples, like a flock of timid sheep, to be the proper accomplishment of the prophecy to which he refers, and not, as so many understand it, as warranting the application of an apt proverbial expression. The passage referred to, and in fact quoted, is Zechariah 13:7: “Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.” The section of prophecy in which this passage stands has a reference both to nearer and more distant, and manifestly evangelical, events; and, like all other prophecies of this class, it contains passages, the peculiar phrase of which shows that they can only be applied to our Lord himself. In the former part of the text quoted by our Lord, he against whom the sword of God is summoned to awake, is called my shepherd; which indeed might apply to any ruler raised up by him to rule his people the Jews; but when this shepherd is called “THE FELLOW” of the Lord of hosts, no one can be intended but Him who was “equal” with God, and yet by becoming man, and a substitute for guilty men, he voluntarily exposed himself to the sword of the rectoral justice of God, to make atonement for the sins of the world. With the smiting of the shepherd, the prophet connects the scattering of the sheep; and the event both in time and manner signally answers to the prophecy: when our Lord was apprehended, all the disciples “forsook him and fled.” But why, it may be asked, should this apparently minor circumstance have been noticed, since no great blame appears to have been attached to them simply for this act, and had they remained with Christ they could have afforded him no assistance, nor indeed did he need any power save his own, had he chosen to exert it? The reason probably was, not only to record an instructive incident, but to direct attention to the whole of an illustrious prophecy, which not only predicts the sufferings of Messiah, and the desertion of his immediate followers, but inscribes in the strongest character the doctrine of his Divinity, — THE MAN, THE FELLOW OF JEHOVAH, and by consequence the vicarious nature of his sufferings; for to such a being suffering must have been voluntary, and endured for others; and though inflicted by men in the exercise of their free agency, yet thereby accomplishing the counsel of God: the sword was the Lord’s; the hand that wielded it, as far as the sufferings were external, the hand of man.

V. 32. But notwithstanding this, after I am risen I will go before you (as a shepherd before his sheep) into Galilee. Though you forsake me, I will not for this forsake you.

Verse 32. But after I am risen again] Don’t lose your confidence; for though I shall appear for a time to be wholly left to wicked men, and be brought under the power of death, yet I will rise again, and triumph over all your enemies and mine.

I will go before you] Still alluding to the case of the shepherd and his sheep. Though the shepherd has been smitten and the sheep scattered, the shepherd shall revive again, collect the scattered flock, and go before them, and lead them to peace, security, and happiness.

Verses 30-32. And when they had sung a hymn — Which was constantly sung at the close of the passover. It consisted of six psalms, from the 113th to the 118th. See the contents of Psalm 113. They went out into the mount of Olives — That is, after some other facts had occurred, and some other instructions, advices, and warnings, see Luke 22:24-28; John 13:31-38; and the divine discourse recorded John 14. had been delivered to the eleven disciples: the sermon contained in the 15th and 16th chapters of the same gospel, it seems, being preached on the mount of Olives, where also Christ offered to his Father his intercessory prayer, in chap. 18. Then saith Jesus — After they arrived on the mount of Olives. All ye shall be offended because of me this night — Notwithstanding all the faith you have professed in me, and all the affection which you bear me, yet, not only one, or another, but all of you shall be so terrified by the distress befalling me in your presence, and by a view of the sufferings which I am beginning to pass through, that it shall prove the sad occasion of your giving way to unbelief and sin, and of your forsaking me, your master and friend. For it is written, Zechariah 13:7, I will smite the shepherd, &c. — I am that shepherd, and you the timorous sheep, that will be scattered by the assault made on your keeper. But, as it is afterward added there, by way of encouragement, I will turn my hand upon the little ones, namely, to reduce and recover them from this dispersed state; so likewise, I assure you for your comfort, that after I am risen from the dead, as I soon shall be, I will go before you, as a shepherd before his sheep, into Galilee, and there give not only to you, my apostles, but to all my disciples, the amplest demonstration both of my resurrection and my love; whereby your hearts shall be established in the firmest adherence to me; for though you forsake me, I will not for this forsake you.

32. Go before you into Galilee — By the smiting of the Shepherd the sheep should be scattered; and after his recovery from the blow by his resurrection, the Shepherd would go before his flock, and it should be again gathered in the old haunts in Galilee. The fulfilment of the promise is narrated in Matthew 28:16. The chief Shepherd marshalled his flock upon a mountain in Galilee. This was a most tender promise, that they should meet again amid the scenes of his earlier ministry. It does not imply that he would never appear after his resurrection, previous to meeting them in Galilee.

Verse 32. But after I am risen again, &c. — So plainly did our Lord speak of his resurrection; and yet so little did they comprehend his meaning, as to be quite unprepared for that event when it actually occurred. Either through the agitation of their minds at this season, they paid little attention to these words, or they understood him as speaking figuratively of delivering himself out of the hands of his enemies. I will go before you into Galilee; where he chose to give them the most signal proofs of the truth of his resurrection, as he had made that country the scene of his most constant labours. It is unnecessary to lay any stress upon proaxw umav, I will go before you, as though, the pastoral metaphor in the preceding verse were here continued. The words appear to mean simply, “I will PRECEDE YOU again into Galilee, and meet you there.”

Verse 33. Peter-said unto him, Though all men shall be offended-yet will I never] The presumptuous person imagines he can do every thing, and can do nothing: thinks he can excel all, and excels in nothing: promises every thing, and performs nothing. The humble man acts a quite contrary part. There is nothing we know so little of as ourselves-nothing we see less of than our own weakness and poverty. The strength of pride is only for a moment. Peter, though vainly confident, was certainly sincere-he had never been put to a sore trial, and did not know his own strength. Had this resolution of his been formed in the strength of God, he would have been enabled to maintain it against earth and hell. This most awful denial of Christ, and his abandoning him in the time of trial, was sufficient to have disqualified him for ever from being, in any sense, head of the Church, had such a supremacy been ever designed him. Such a supremacy was never given him by Christ; but the fable of it is in the Church of Rome, and the mock Peter, not Peter the apostle, is there and there only to be found.

Verses 33-35. Peter answered and said — According to Luke 22:31, our Lord had warned Peter before they left the house, of a violent assault which would be made upon him by Satan; and on Peter’s declaring his readiness to go with Christ to prison and death, Christ had warned him that he would be overcome by the temptation, and would fall. Peter, therefore, now recollecting what Christ had said to him before, and being grieved afresh to find his Master still entertaining such thoughts of him, the vehemence of his temper hurried him to boast a second time of his courageous and close attachment to Jesus. He answered, Though all men shall be offended, &c. — In this protestation, Peter, no doubt, was sincere. Nevertheless, he was greatly to blame for not paying a due attention to his Master’s repeated predictions of his fall; for the preference which he gave himself above his brethren; and for leaning to his own strength, instead of begging assistance of him from whom all human sufficiency is derived. Wherefore, to make him sensible of the pride of his heart, his self- confidence, and carnal security, which Jesus knew would produce unwatchfulness and neglect of prayer, he thought fit to forewarn him of his danger again, and in stronger terms, saying, Verily, this night, before the cock crow — Or rather, before the cock-crowing, that is, before three in the morning, the usual time of cock-crowing; although one cock was heard to crow once after Peter’s first denial of his Lord. Peter — However, not convinced of his weakness, or that any temptation could make him guilty of such base conduct, said — with still greater confidence and vehemence; Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee — And, doubtless, so he thought. Likewise said all the disciples — They all joined Peter in professing their fixed resolution of suffering death, rather than they would deny their Master; yet the event was exactly as Jesus had foretold, and foreknew it certainly would be; nevertheless such was his tenderness, that he would not aggravate their sin by making any reply. From this circumstance we learn how ignorant men frequently are of themselves, and that to be pious and virtuous, it is not sufficient to form the strongest resolutions.

33. Peter answered — Peter is here, as often elsewhere, an impulsive, self-appointed spokesman. All men — He will stand with Christ against the world. This was the heroism of a brave man vowing fidelity to his chief. Had our Saviour really been a warrior, and allowed this high blood full play, Peter could have been as good as his word. See note on verse 74. Be offended — See note on verse 31. 34.

Verily I say unto thee — Our Lord is forced by Peter’s boasts, nay, gain-sayings, to bring out the clear, precise, sorrowful truth. Before the cock crow — Mark and Luke say, “before the cock crow twice.” This Matthew omits, because it was the second cock-crowing that was usually and technically called “the cock-crowing.” Our Lord doubtless referred to the usual morning cock-crowing, since the midnight one is seldom heard, or in conversation taken into account. No difficulty can arise from the fact that the Jews kept no gallinaceous or barn fowls. The Romans may have done so, and the crow of the cock may have been heard from the Pretorium.

“In the crowing of a cock,” says Buckhardt, “there are two remarkable things: One, that an animal so small should cry with so loud a voice; the other, that it sings at stated hours, and at such times as other birds are silent in sleep.” He is created nature’s living time-keeper, He is God’s appointed watchman and crier in the midnight and at daylight, knowing and telling the hours by a wonderful instinct. That he is so inspired by a divine faculty, the Arabians expressed by their fancy that there was a white cock before the throne of God, whose voice gives the signal for all cocks on earth to crow. It was such a crier at whose voice the conscience of Peter was to be made to awake. But there was no power in the voice of the bird to express a divine meaning, had it not been interpreted beforehand by our Lord. So the voice of nature speaks with a divine wisdom, when we take God’s word to interpret its language.

Verse 33. Peter answered and said, &c. — He said this in great sincerity: the genuineness of Peter’s attachment to his Master, and the fulness of his conviction that he was the true Messiah, were equally undoubted. But he knew not himself fully, nor the power of strong temptation upon over confident and unwatchful minds. Judas’s sin was deliberate, Peter’s a sin of surprise; Judas’s the result of an habitual state of heart, Peter’s was an act contrary to his habitual feelings and principles. Judas’s fall produced nothing upon reflection but despair and horror, all gracious feelings having been extinguished by avarice; but Peter’s fall awoke the sorrows of a generous and affectionate nature, which, but in this sad instance of the effect of sudden fear, had never wavered in its clear and simple devotedness to his beloved Master. No characters could be more unlike; as contrary to each other, indeed, as their respective ends.

V. 34. Before cock crowing thou wilt deny me thrice-That is, before three in the morning, the usual time of cock crowing: although one cock was heard to crow once, after Peter's first denial of his Lord.

Verse 34. Jesus said] Our Lord’s answer to Peter is very emphatic and impressive. Verily-I speak a solemn weighty truth, thou wilt not only be stumbled, fall off, and forsake thy Master, but thou wilt even deny that thou hast, or ever had, any knowledge of or connection with me; and this thou wilt do, not by little and little, through a long process of time, till the apostasy, daily gathering strength, shall be complete; but thou wilt do it this very night, and that not once only, but thrice; and this thou wilt do also in the earlier part of the night, before even a cock shall crow. Was not this warning enough to him not to trust in his own strength, but to depend on God?

Verses 33-35. Peter answered and said — According to Luke 22:31, our Lord had warned Peter before they left the house, of a violent assault which would be made upon him by Satan; and on Peter’s declaring his readiness to go with Christ to prison and death, Christ had warned him that he would be overcome by the temptation, and would fall. Peter, therefore, now recollecting what Christ had said to him before, and being grieved afresh to find his Master still entertaining such thoughts of him, the vehemence of his temper hurried him to boast a second time of his courageous and close attachment to Jesus. He answered, Though all men shall be offended, &c. — In this protestation, Peter, no doubt, was sincere. Nevertheless, he was greatly to blame for not paying a due attention to his Master’s repeated predictions of his fall; for the preference which he gave himself above his brethren; and for leaning to his own strength, instead of begging assistance of him from whom all human sufficiency is derived. Wherefore, to make him sensible of the pride of his heart, his self- confidence, and carnal security, which Jesus knew would produce unwatchfulness and neglect of prayer, he thought fit to forewarn him of his danger again, and in stronger terms, saying, Verily, this night, before the cock crow — Or rather, before the cock-crowing, that is, before three in the morning, the usual time of cock-crowing; although one cock was heard to crow once after Peter’s first denial of his Lord. Peter — However, not convinced of his weakness, or that any temptation could make him guilty of such base conduct, said — with still greater confidence and vehemence; Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee — And, doubtless, so he thought. Likewise said all the disciples — They all joined Peter in professing their fixed resolution of suffering death, rather than they would deny their Master; yet the event was exactly as Jesus had foretold, and foreknew it certainly would be; nevertheless such was his tenderness, that he would not aggravate their sin by making any reply. From this circumstance we learn how ignorant men frequently are of themselves, and that to be pious and virtuous, it is not sufficient to form the strongest resolutions.

Ver. 34. Thou shalt deny me thrice. See the note on Jeremiah 36:3.

HIS DENIALS, 31-35.

This passage Matthew inserts out of its true order. It is to be considered not as occurring after, but before leaving the table, and before the extended discourses recorded by John. To take in the full account of all the intimations given to the reluctant Peter of his denials, we must read in the following order: John 13:36-38; Matthew 26:31-33; Luke 22:31-33; Matthew 26:34, 35. We thus find that before leaving the supper-table our Lord gave Peter three warnings of his folly. This of Matthew is the second. As it is the self-confidence of Peter that induces the first warning of our Lord, so, through all the three, Peter retains his protestations that he will prefer death rather than unfaithfulness.

31. Shall be offended — Literally, shall be entrapped into wrong. Shall be made to fail in your fidelity to me.

I will smite the Shepherd — Our Lord here quotes Zechariah as an illustration, or, as some of the best commentators suppose, as a direct prediction of his desertion in his affliction by his disciples.

Verses 34, 35. Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice, &c. — St. Mark says, “before the cock crow twice;” St. Luke and St. John, “the cock shall not crow,” &c. Cock-crowing was used to express two periods, midnight and the third watch, or about three in the morning; and the second being more noticeable: than the first, was often so called by way of eminence, and is usually the time meant by alektorofonia, or cock- crowing. St. Mark refers to this as the second crowing of the cock, and therefore says, “Before the cock crow TWICE.” The other evangelists, referring only to that which was popularly observed and spoken of as the cock-crowing, take no notice of the former period, and speak as if the latter were the only time of cockcrow; and thus the apparent discrepancy is reconciled. The Talmud says that “cocks were not kept in Jerusalem, because of the holy things.” But if this be not a superstitious invention of later times, and the Jews in our Lord’s time were equally averse to keeping this species of fowl within the walls, there was a sufficient number of Romans and other Gentiles resident there who had no such scruple; and the learned labours of Reland and Schoettgen, to prove that a cock might crow outside the walls, and yet be heard by Peter, might have been spared. How accurately were these words of our Saviour accomplished! After Peter’s third denial, “the cock crew the second time.” Then, indeed, Peter remembered the words of the Lord, which unhappily, for the time, made no impression upon him, though so solemnly delivered. So resolutely proof against the cautions of wisdom is the self-confiding spirit. Peter, instead of being warned, reiterates his professions, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee; and whereas before he spoke in his own name, now he speaks as the mouth of the rest, — likewise also said all the disciples, who yet were stricken with the same cowardice, though they did not so formally, and with imprecations like him, deny their Lord.

V. 35. In like manner also said all the disciples-But such was the tenderness of our Lord, that he would not aggravate their sin by making any reply.

Verse 35. Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee.] He does not take the warning which his Lord gave him-he trusts in the warm, sincere attachment to Christ which he now feels, not considering that this must speedily fail, unless supported by the power of God.

Verses 33-35. Peter answered and said — According to Luke 22:31, our Lord had warned Peter before they left the house, of a violent assault which would be made upon him by Satan; and on Peter’s declaring his readiness to go with Christ to prison and death, Christ had warned him that he would be overcome by the temptation, and would fall. Peter, therefore, now recollecting what Christ had said to him before, and being grieved afresh to find his Master still entertaining such thoughts of him, the vehemence of his temper hurried him to boast a second time of his courageous and close attachment to Jesus. He answered, Though all men shall be offended, &c. — In this protestation, Peter, no doubt, was sincere. Nevertheless, he was greatly to blame for not paying a due attention to his Master’s repeated predictions of his fall; for the preference which he gave himself above his brethren; and for leaning to his own strength, instead of begging assistance of him from whom all human sufficiency is derived. Wherefore, to make him sensible of the pride of his heart, his self- confidence, and carnal security, which Jesus knew would produce unwatchfulness and neglect of prayer, he thought fit to forewarn him of his danger again, and in stronger terms, saying, Verily, this night, before the cock crow — Or rather, before the cock-crowing, that is, before three in the morning, the usual time of cock-crowing; although one cock was heard to crow once after Peter’s first denial of his Lord. Peter — However, not convinced of his weakness, or that any temptation could make him guilty of such base conduct, said — with still greater confidence and vehemence; Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee — And, doubtless, so he thought. Likewise said all the disciples — They all joined Peter in professing their fixed resolution of suffering death, rather than they would deny their Master; yet the event was exactly as Jesus had foretold, and foreknew it certainly would be; nevertheless such was his tenderness, that he would not aggravate their sin by making any reply. From this circumstance we learn how ignorant men frequently are of themselves, and that to be pious and virtuous, it is not sufficient to form the strongest resolutions.

35. Should die with thee — Peter is able to recognise the fact that his Lord may die, and is ready to die by his side.

Verses 34, 35. Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice, &c. — St. Mark says, “before the cock crow twice;” St. Luke and St. John, “the cock shall not crow,” &c. Cock-crowing was used to express two periods, midnight and the third watch, or about three in the morning; and the second being more noticeable: than the first, was often so called by way of eminence, and is usually the time meant by alektorofonia, or cock- crowing. St. Mark refers to this as the second crowing of the cock, and therefore says, “Before the cock crow TWICE.” The other evangelists, referring only to that which was popularly observed and spoken of as the cock-crowing, take no notice of the former period, and speak as if the latter were the only time of cockcrow; and thus the apparent discrepancy is reconciled. The Talmud says that “cocks were not kept in Jerusalem, because of the holy things.” But if this be not a superstitious invention of later times, and the Jews in our Lord’s time were equally averse to keeping this species of fowl within the walls, there was a sufficient number of Romans and other Gentiles resident there who had no such scruple; and the learned labours of Reland and Schoettgen, to prove that a cock might crow outside the walls, and yet be heard by Peter, might have been spared. How accurately were these words of our Saviour accomplished! After Peter’s third denial, “the cock crew the second time.” Then, indeed, Peter remembered the words of the Lord, which unhappily, for the time, made no impression upon him, though so solemnly delivered. So resolutely proof against the cautions of wisdom is the self-confiding spirit. Peter, instead of being warned, reiterates his professions, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee; and whereas before he spoke in his own name, now he speaks as the mouth of the rest, — likewise also said all the disciples, who yet were stricken with the same cowardice, though they did not so formally, and with imprecations like him, deny their Lord.

V. 36. Then cometh Jesus to a place called Gethsemane-That is, the valley of fatness. The garden probably had its name from its soil and situation, laying in some little valley between two of those many hills, the range of which constitutes the mount of Olives. Mark 14:32; Luke 22:40.

Verse 36. A place called Gethsemane] A garden at the foot of the mount of Olives. The name seems to be formed from hg gath, a press, and ˆmc shemen, oil; probably the place where the produce of the mount of Olives was prepared for use. The garden of the oilpress, or olive-press. Sit ye here] Or, stay in this place, while I go and pray yonder: and employ ye the time as I shall employ it-in watching unto prayer.

Verses 36-38. Then cometh Jesus to a place called Gethsemane — A garden, lying, it seems, at the foot of the mount of Olives, which had its name, probably, from its soil and situation, the word, from µynmc ayg, signifying, the valley of fatness. And saith to the disciples, Sit ye here — Probably near the garden door, within, for John says the disciples went into the garden with him: while I go and pray yonder — In a retired place, at a little distance. Doubtless he intended that they should be employed as he was, in watching and prayer. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, who had been witnesses of his transfiguration and glory, and were now to be witnesses of his humiliation and agony: and began to be sorrowful and very heavy — Gr. Dupeisqai kai

adhmonein, to be penetrated with the most exquisite sorrow, and overwhelmed with deep anguish. This was probably from the arrows of the Almighty sticking fast in his soul, while God laid on him the iniquities of us all. Who can tell what painful and dreadful sensations were then impressed on him by the immediate hand of God? Then saith he, My soul is exceeding sorrowful — Gr. Perilupov, surrounded with sorrows on every side; even unto death — “This expressions,” says Dr. Campbell, “is rather indefinite, and seems to imply a sorrow that would continue till death; whereas the import of the original is such a sorrow as was sufficient to cause death.” He therefore renders the clause, My soul is overwhelmed with a deadly anguish. Castalio translates it, In tanto sum animi dolore ut emoriar, “I am in such trouble of mind that I shall die.” He evidently meant, that his sorrow was so great that the infirmity of his human nature must immediately sink under it without some extraordinary relief and support; for which he was about to pray, and for which he wished them to pray, adding, Tarry ye here and watch with me — Had these disciples done as Christ here directed, they would soon have found a rich equivalent for their watchful care, in the eminent improvement of their graces by this wonderful and edifying sight. For Christ was now sustaining those grievous sorrows in his soul, by which, as well as by his dying on the cross, he became a sin-offering, and accomplished the redemption of mankind.

§ 131. — THE AGONIES OF GETHSEMANE, 36-46.

36. Unto a place called Gethsemane — Supposing the last paragraph to be out of the order of time, we must connect this verse to verse 30. We suppose the supper-room to have been situated somewhere upon the eastern brow of Mount Zion. (See note on Mark 14:13.) From the supper-room we must trace our Lord going forth over the “great bridge” of the Tyropoeon; passing through the temple precincts, and through the great front temple gate, (or perhaps through what was equivalent to the present St. Stephen’s gate;) descending the valley of Jehoshaphat; crossing the brook Kedron, (about where its dry channel is now spanned by a small bridge of a single arch,) and walking, followed by the eleven, toward the ascent of Olivet. In a level space between the Kedron and the foot of the hill is a yard or garden, which, from the ancient olive trees there, is called Gethsemane, or the press of oil. There is still at the base of the Mount of Olives a secure enclosure, signalized by several most venerable olive trees, surrounded by a stone wall to designate the spot. Stanley says: “In spite of all the doubts that can be raised against their antiquity or the genuineness of their site, the eight aged olive trees, if only by their manifest difference from all others on the mountain, have always struck even the most indifferent observers. They will remain, so long as their already protracted life is spared, the most venerable of their race on the surface of the earth; their gnarled trunks and scanty foliage will always be regarded as the most affecting of the sacred memorials in or about Jerusalem, the most nearly approaching to the everlasting hills themselves in the force with which they carry us back to the events of the Gospel history.” Captain Lynch says that these olives are one thousand years old; and as the olive tree reproduces from the same root, these trees are the radical descendants from the same germ as those of our Saviour’s time. By the word place is generally understood a villa or cluster of houses, to which the garden was an appendage.

Verse 36. A place called Gethsemane. — Some take this to have been the name of a village at the foot of the mount of Olives; and so cwrion is rendered in the Ethiopic, Arabic, and Vulgate Latin versions: but if Gethsemane were a village, the particular place into which our Lord entered was a GARDEN belonging to it; for so it is described by St. John. As no gardens were allowed within the walls of Jerusalem, they abounded in the suburbs. Gethsemane signifies the place of oil presses, and was probably so called from the presses there used to obtain the oil from the olives, which give its name to this celebrated mountain and district. In one part of this secluded garden he commanded all the disciples to sit down, while he went to pray at a distance, no doubt in some part of the garden still more retired, and less liable to intrusion. It was a place, however, known to Judas; for, as we learn from St. John, “Jesus oft resorted thither with his disciples,” no doubt for confidential instruction, and devotional exercises. Whole nights, as we gather from different parts of the history, had been spent there by our Lord; but no such night as that which now overshadowed him.

V. 37. And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee-To be witnesses of all; he began to be sorrowful and in deep anguish-Probably from feeling the arrows of the Almighty stick fast in his soul, while God laid on him the iniquities of us all. Who can tell what painful and dreadful sensations were then impressed on him by the immediate hand of God? The former word in the original properly signifies, to be penetrated with the most exquisite sorrow; the latter to be quite depressed, and almost overwhelmed with the load.

Verse 37. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee] That is, James and John; the same persons who had beheld his transfiguration on the mount-that they might contemplate this agony in the light of that glory which they had there seen; and so be kept from being stumbled by a view of his present humiliation.

Began to be sorrowful] lupeisqai, from luw, to dissolve-exquisite sorrow, such as dissolves the natural vigour, and threatens to separate soul and body.

And very heavy.] Overwhelmed with anguish-adhmonein. This word is used by the Greeks to denote the most extreme anguish which the soul can feel-excruciating anxiety and torture of spirit.

Verses 36-38. Then cometh Jesus to a place called Gethsemane — A garden, lying, it seems, at the foot of the mount of Olives, which had its name, probably, from its soil and situation, the word, from µynmc ayg, signifying, the valley of fatness. And saith to the disciples, Sit ye here — Probably near the garden door, within, for John says the disciples went into the garden with him: while I go and pray yonder — In a retired place, at a little distance. Doubtless he intended that they should be employed as he was, in watching and prayer. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, who had been witnesses of his transfiguration and glory, and were now to be witnesses of his humiliation and agony: and began to be sorrowful and very heavy — Gr. Dupeisqai kai

adhmonein, to be penetrated with the most exquisite sorrow, and overwhelmed with deep anguish. This was probably from the arrows of the Almighty sticking fast in his soul, while God laid on him the iniquities of us all. Who can tell what painful and dreadful sensations were then impressed on him by the immediate hand of God? Then saith he, My soul is exceeding sorrowful — Gr. Perilupov, surrounded with sorrows on every side; even unto death — “This expressions,” says Dr. Campbell, “is rather indefinite, and seems to imply a sorrow that would continue till death; whereas the import of the original is such a sorrow as was sufficient to cause death.” He therefore renders the clause, My soul is overwhelmed with a deadly anguish. Castalio translates it, In tanto sum animi dolore ut emoriar, “I am in such trouble of mind that I shall die.” He evidently meant, that his sorrow was so great that the infirmity of his human nature must immediately sink under it without some extraordinary relief and support; for which he was about to pray, and for which he wished them to pray, adding, Tarry ye here and watch with me — Had these disciples done as Christ here directed, they would soon have found a rich equivalent for their watchful care, in the eminent improvement of their graces by this wonderful and edifying sight. For Christ was now sustaining those grievous sorrows in his soul, by which, as well as by his dying on the cross, he became a sin-offering, and accomplished the redemption of mankind.

37. Peter and the two sons of Zebedee — The whole body of the eleven disciples went with our Lord to Gethsemane; but from the entire number he now selects Peter, James, and John, “the elect among the elect,” to attend him at a little distance from the rest in the moments of his agonizing prayer. These had been selected to witness his glorification upon the mount of transfiguration, and they were now selected to be witnesses of the deep humiliation of the garden.

Began to be sorrowful — The first moment of the terrible hour had now arrived, and our Lord receives the first stroke of atoning sorrow from an invisible source. At the instant of his leaving the eight disciples the trial of sorrow began. For this whole scene of Gethsemane is to be looked upon, not as an hour of fear over his approaching trial, but as the first and, perhaps, far most terrible part of the atoning agony. The sufferings of the cross were, we conceive, from the visible powers of earth; the sufferings of the bitter cup and the bloody sweat were from the invisible powers of hell. The garden was the place of assault from the interior powers of darkness, as the cross was the place of the exterior assaults or men. Both were correspondent parts of the same great work. (For a view of this entire subject, I refer to my Sermon on Substitutional Atonement.)

Verse 37. Began to be sorrowful and very heavy, &c. — In this deeply solemn and affecting account of our blessed Lord’s agony, several particulars call for our attention, on which all may profitably meditate, without, as too many have done, pressing too boldly upon this mysterious scene. For it is not without instructive meaning to us, that the body of the disciples were kept at a distance, and even the favoured three who accompanied our Lord were oppressed with sleep, and witnessed not all the particulars which were afterward very generally and briefly revealed, in order to their being recorded. Imagination may indeed be busy here; but imagination must be reined in by humility and sobriety, for we are at a distance while our Lord prays and agonizes “yonder;” and as a veil is thrown over all but the prominent passages of this wondrous scene, human imagination has no light to dispel the darkness, and probably always perverts where she pretends to discover. We may, however, notice,

1. The terms employed to express our Lord’s mental sufferings, which have been so justly called his agony. He began to be sorrowful, and very heavy, lupeisqai kai adhmonein, to be pierced with sorrow and filled with anguish. St. Mark uses another term, amazed, ekqambeisqai, to be so overwhelmed with anguish as to absorb the faculties, or, to use the expressive phrase of the Old Testament, to drink up the spirit. In the next verse our Lord uses the term perilupov, where the intensive force of the preposition is well expressed by our translators by exceeding sorrowful; and yet it is added, in awful accumulation of the emphasis, ewv qanatou, even unto death, expressive of an overwhelming anguish, threatening the instant and violent extinction of life itself.

2. The circumstance added by St. Luke, still more strongly than the language employed, powerfully emphatic as it is, marks the intenseness of Christ’s inward struggle. In the human nature he derived strength from the ministry of an angel; and then, “being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly,” as though the strength thus imparted was but renewed strength to suffer, and “his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” Even if we adopt the opinion, that a mere comparison of the profuse and heavy sweat to clots of blood was intended, this itself, considering that there was no bodily exertion to produce it, and that the time was night, when the heat of the day had passed, could not have been produced but by the strongest conflict and commotion of spirit. But unless more was intended, it is difficult to conceive why clotted blood should have been fixed upon as an illustration of the rolling down of great drops of sweat. It is certainly unusual, and to any one who attempts to compare the one with the other, will appear inapt. It is not, however, necessary to suppose that this sweat was altogether a profusion of blood, which is the error some have fallen into on the other side. And though some heathen writers have been quoted by the critics who mention bloody sweats, and a modern instance or two of this, as the effect of the strong emotion of fear, has been given, all that can fairly be understood by these accounts is, that by a rupture of some of the finer blood vessels in some parts of the body, the sweat became tinged, and, to a certain extent, bloody. This is probably what Galen means in the passage quoted by Dr. Mead: “Contingere interdum, poros ex multo aut fervido spiritu usque adeo dilatari, ut etiam exeat sanguis per eos, FIATQUE SUDOR SANGUINEUS.” Thuanus, too, in his History, having mentioned an Italian gentleman thrown into great horror of a public execution, says: “Observatum, tam indignæ mortis vehementi metu adeo concussum animo eum fuisse, ut SANGUINEUM SUDOREM toto corpore fundaret.” But whatever may be thought of these extraordinary cases, in the instance of our Lord, the most natural inference from the words of the evangelist is, that his profuse and heavy perspiration was thus tinged with blood which had burst from the smaller vessels, so that “his sweat was wsei, like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” So that not only was the perspiration, but blood also, forced out by the conflict within.

3. The weight of that load of sorrow, laid upon our Lord in his agony, is farther indicated to us from the circumstance of his praying so earnestly that, if it were possible, that cup might pass from him. Grotius and others, who take the cup to be a figurative expression for death, understand our Lord as praying, if it were possible, to be excused from going through his undertaking, and suffering the penalty of death, This notion, however, contradicts the whole character of Christ, who not only knew that it was not possible for the world to be redeemed in any other way than by his dying for its sin, but throughout exhibited a calm and unmoved courage in anticipation of that event, which came not upon him unexpectedly, but was ever present to his mind, as appears from the many declarations respecting it which he had made during his ministry. In the language of the Old Testament, the portion of men, both of good and evil, is called their cup; and the administration of the Divine judgments is frequently expressed under the same figure. Hence we read, “the cup of trembling,” “the cup of the Lord’s fury;” and a mixed or empoisoned cup is represented as in the Lord’s hand, which his enemies should be obliged to drink. The cup here spoken of by our Lord was his present bitter anguish and unspeakable sufferings. This is plain from comparing the accounts of the evangelists. St. Matthew says, THIS cup, that which he was then drinking; nor does he pray that the cup of death might not be administered; but, Let this cup, then put into his hands, pass, parelqetw, from me. St. Mark expresses the same thing without a figure: “he prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him,” clearly meaning that the duration of his sufferings might be shortened. And St. Luke, still uttering precisely the same idea in somewhat varied phrase, states the prayer of Jesus to be, “If thou be willing, REMOVE this cup from me.” Mightily as he had been strengthened to suffer, he was sinking under a deadly anguish, and prayed that, “if it were possible,” if it were consistent with the Divine purpose, if it could be done without impairing the efficacy of his atonement and vicarious undertaking, that bitter cup, that cup of trembling and horror, might pass away from him; yet with entire, submission, leaving it to his Father to judge of the fitness of the request, and the measure of suffering which his justice was to exact from one who was now in the room and place of a guilty world, bearing their transgressions; and who, by that substitution of himself in their place, had given up all right to decide this question for himself. And it was possible, not for the cup to be withheld from him, but for that cup, after he had drunk so largely of its bitterness, to pass away from him. This we know from the fact: he was relieved from his agony, and rejoined his disciples in a state of composure which itself, from its suddenness, indicated a supernatural interposition: and we know it also from the words of St. Paul, “Who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared,” Hebrews 5:7. Such are the declarations and circumstances which mark the PECULIAR and UNPARALLELED mental sufferings of our Lord in his agony. On the causes of those sufferings many superficial and even misleading conjectures have been offered by commentators both ancient and modern, often influenced by false or by imperfect views of the true nature of the passion and death of Christ. His sorrows on this occasion have been referred to a natural horror of death; to the sense he had of the ingratitude of the Jews; to his foresight of the ignominy with which he was about to be treated; to his sympathy with his country, whose terrible calamities he had foretold; to a sense of the evil of sin, to a conflict with the powers of darkness, and other causes equally inadequate to account for the fact; for mysterious as it is, it is plain that the true cause lay deeper than any of these, or all of them collectively, although they might contribute somewhat to increase the pressure of the load. The true key to the case is in the fact that this sorrow and anguish of our Lord was purely MENTAL, except as his body might be consequentially affected by them: “My soul is exceeding sorrowful,” &c. That he did not inflict them upon himself is certain; that he was not yet delivered into the hands of men to injure him is equally certain; and the conclusion must therefore inevitably be, that they were inflicted by his heavenly Father. Now of this agency of God is the passion of Christ, as well as the subsequent agency of men, both types and prophecies are full; and of the latter none need be referred to in proof but the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, where it is not only said that “he was despised and rejected of MEN;” but that “it pleased THE LORD to bruise him; HE hath put him to grief.” Now though it be granted that sometimes the Lord is said to do what he permits to be done by others, this can scarcely apply to a prophecy where the different agents are kept so distinct; and the fact that Christ did endure an agony of suffering quite independent of men, and which in the history itself is expressly referred to the agency of God, as the cup given him by his Father to drink, and which his Father only could make to pass from him, confirms this as the sense of the prophecy. Now, whether we can understand in any degree or not, how the Father “BRUISED him” and “put him to GRIEF;” that he did so is both the subject of the prophecy and the declaration of the history. We cannot indeed comprehend what was meant by the Father forsaking him upon the cross; but we see there a poignant suffering as the result of this, quite distinct from his bodily tortures. In like manner we are unable to form any adequate conception of the manner in which the sufferings in the garden were inflicted upon the “soul” of Christ; yet they resulted either from denying to the human soul of Christ that which had upheld and felicitated it, or the production of a positive misery by supernatural intercourse and influence. In one word, he had put himself in the place of sinners; and as to the penalty of sin, though not as to aversion to his person, he was treated for the time as a sinner. In their penal consequence our sins were laid upon him: “Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows,” the griefs and sorrows which we must otherwise have borne and carried ourselves: and as the penalty of sin is not only inflicted upon the body but upon the soul; as that is made to feel an insupportable load of anguish when God arises to judgment, and is overwhelmed with fear, because of the terrors of the Lord; so our Lord drank of this cup of the most poignant bitterness, and took it out of the hands of offended justice, that it might never be placed in ours. That, according to the theory of some, he endured the same measure of punishment in a degree equal to that which would have been extended through all eternity to the elect had they been lost, is not only an unnecessary hypothesis, because it affords no explication of the doctrine of the atonement, but is obviously impossible. The merit of the sufferings of Christ is not to be estimated by the quantum endured, but by the dignity and glory of the sufferer; and yet there was to be suffering, so severe, so marked, in words so unutterable, that, in this method of accepting an atonement for human transgression, there should be an awful DEMONSTRATION of the rectoral justice of God, his infinite hatred of sin, and his respect for the honour and authority of his laws. Here our Saviour was made not only to bear the burden of our offences in their penal results, but to faint and sink under it, so as to need a special interposition on the part of God to relieve him for a time from it, that he might fulfil the measure hereafter, and pay “the rigid satisfaction, death for death.” Nor is it any objection to this view that our Lord never ceased to be the beloved of the Father. Personally, he always remained the beloved Son; so, and the more so, because of this very act of substituting himself in the place of the guilty, from his infinite love to us: but as taking our place, and offering in his own person the redemption price, he was treated accordingly; “it was exacted, and he was made answerable;” and this good pleasure of the Father remained perfectly consonant with his severity. So these two ideas, irreconcilable to some, are exhibited in union by Isaiah: “YET it PLEASED the Lord to bruise HIM:” that is, notwithstanding the perfect excellence and moral loveliness of his character, as stated in the preceding verses. On this subject it may finally be added that Christ’s agony can no otherwise be accounted for than on the principle that he not only suffered for our benefit, but vicariously in our room and stead. The derogating doctrine of those who deny his Divinity and atonement can furnish no explication of the fact which does not detract from that character of the highest virtue which they are nevertheless anxious to ascribe to him. Were he only a great and virtuous man, how, upon the supposition that his agony was occasioned by the fear of death, can we account for his approaching death with less courage not only than many of his persecuted followers, who endured it in forms as terrible, as far as corporal tortures go; but also than many heathens? how was it that, unlike other excellent men under persecution, he brought no comfort to his spirit from reflecting upon his integrity and uprightness? and how that prayer to him was not the instrument of a cheerful sustaining intercourse with his heavenly Father; but in the garden an earnest passionate pleading for mere mitigation of suffering, and upon the cross a vehement complaint that God had forsaken him? The Christian doctrine, that he died the just for the unjust to bring us to God, explains all these otherwise inscrutable particulars, and shows that they all stand in exact harmony with the purpose of God, and his own voluntary surrender to be a sacrifice for the sins of others; but, upon any other theory, they remain without a reason, and draw a veil over the character of Christ in his last passion which nothing can withdraw.

Verse 38. Then saith he] Then saith-Jesus:-I have added the word Jesus, o ihsouv, on the authority of a multitude of eminent MSS. See them in Griesbach.

My soul is exceeding sorrowful, (or, is surrounded with exceeding sorrow,) even unto death.] This latter word explains the two former: My soul is so dissolved in sorrow, my spirit is filled with such agony and anguish, that, if speedy succour be not given to my body, death must be the speedy consequence.

Now, the grand expiatory sacrifice begins to be offered: in this garden Jesus enters fully into the sacerdotal office; and now, on the altar of his immaculate divinity, begins to offer his own body-his own life-a lamb without spot, for the sin of the world. St. Luke observes, Luke 22:43, 44, that there appeared unto him an angel from heaven strengthening him; and that, being in an agony, his sweat was like great drops of blood falling to the ground. How exquisite must this anguish have been, when it forced the very blood through the coats of the veins, and enlarged the pores in such a preternatural manner as to cause them to empty it out in large successive drops! In my opinion, the principal part of the redemption price was paid in this unprecedented and indescribable agony.

Bloody sweats are mentioned by many authors; but none was ever such as this-where a person in perfect health, (having never had any predisposing sickness to induce a debility of the system,) and in the full vigour of life, about thirty-three years of age, suddenly, through mental pressure, without any fear of death, sweat great drops of blood; and these continued, during his wrestling with God to fall to the ground.

To say that all this was occasioned by the fear he had of the ignominious death which he was about to die confutes itself-for this would not only rob him of his divinity, for which purpose it is brought, but it deprives him of all excellency, and even of manhood itself. The prospect of death could not cause him to suffer thus, when he knew that in less than three days he was to be restored to life, and be brought into an eternity of blessedness. His agony and distress can receive no consistent explication but on this ground-He SUFFERED, the JUST for the UNJUST, that he might BRING us to GOD. O glorious truth! O infinitely meritorious suffering! And O! above all, the eternal love, that caused him to undergo such sufferings for the sake of SINNERS!

Verses 36-38. Then cometh Jesus to a place called Gethsemane — A garden, lying, it seems, at the foot of the mount of Olives, which had its name, probably, from its soil and situation, the word, from µynmc ayg, signifying, the valley of fatness. And saith to the disciples, Sit ye here — Probably near the garden door, within, for John says the disciples went into the garden with him: while I go and pray yonder — In a retired place, at a little distance. Doubtless he intended that they should be employed as he was, in watching and prayer. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, who had been witnesses of his transfiguration and glory, and were now to be witnesses of his humiliation and agony: and began to be sorrowful and very heavy — Gr. Dupeisqai kai

adhmonein, to be penetrated with the most exquisite sorrow, and overwhelmed with deep anguish. This was probably from the arrows of the Almighty sticking fast in his soul, while God laid on him the iniquities of us all. Who can tell what painful and dreadful sensations were then impressed on him by the immediate hand of God? Then saith he, My soul is exceeding sorrowful — Gr. Perilupov, surrounded with sorrows on every side; even unto death — “This expressions,” says Dr. Campbell, “is rather indefinite, and seems to imply a sorrow that would continue till death; whereas the import of the original is such a sorrow as was sufficient to cause death.” He therefore renders the clause, My soul is overwhelmed with a deadly anguish. Castalio translates it, In tanto sum animi dolore ut emoriar, “I am in such trouble of mind that I shall die.” He evidently meant, that his sorrow was so great that the infirmity of his human nature must immediately sink under it without some extraordinary relief and support; for which he was about to pray, and for which he wished them to pray, adding, Tarry ye here and watch with me — Had these disciples done as Christ here directed, they would soon have found a rich equivalent for their watchful care, in the eminent improvement of their graces by this wonderful and edifying sight. For Christ was now sustaining those grievous sorrows in his soul, by which, as well as by his dying on the cross, he became a sin-offering, and accomplished the redemption of mankind.

Ver. 38. My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. Other martyrs went to the theatre of conflict as the heroes of the church; but Jesus who was not yet in the hands of his enemies, who made himself a willing offering, and to whom death approached without the terrors of guilt, cried, prayed, and wrestled beyond the powers of language to describe. Why was all this difference? It was because the anguish and death due to a guilty world seized his soul. The sorrows of death compassed him about, and the pains of hell gat hold upon him. Divine justice stood arrayed in all the terrors of righteousness, with the bitter cup of anguish and death in his hand, the death menaced to man before the fall; and either the Saviour or the sinner must drink the very dregs. Justice could abate nothing of the ransom, for now all heaven must be instructed in the righteousness of God in man’s redemption. Oh then, it was not the fear of the cross, but the pangs of human guilt and human punishment which made the Saviour weep and cry. The conflict was tremendous. His sweat was tinted with gore; thrice he fell, and thrice he rose; but life was granted on the sanctifying basis of his death. May my soul tremble at the scene, and learn to sin no more. It pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief, when he had made his soul an offering for sin. How shall I dare then to fly in the face of justice and transgress his holy law. Ah, surely it is fools, and fools of the last degree, who make a mock at sin. They know neither its nature nor its consequences. They know not the terrors of the Lord, against whom they have transgressed.

38. My soul is exceeding sorrowful — Jesus then had a purely human soul. The doctrine of the Monophysites, that he had only a human body, of which God was the only soul, is not true. That human soul, Luke informs us, in his childhood increased in wisdom and in favour with God and man. Hence our Lord was complete man. His mind, as human, was subject to limitations. Beyond its human circle were innumerable things it did not know; though, doubtless, his mind was so divinely illuminated as not to be liable to positive involuntary falsity or mistake.

Exceeding sorrowful — Our Saviour here speaks not of fear, that is, of the approaching cross, but of sorrow. A supernatural woe overwhelms and all but sinks him before the cross arrives. “He trod the winepress of the wrath of God.”

Sorrowful even unto death — Not sorrowful in anticipation of death; but a sorrow, not his own, pressed so heavily and so damply upon him, that it would drown and quench the spark of life but for the divine aid impregnating and strengthening his human person. What sorrow was this? Doubtless the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 53:4) furnishes the true answer: “Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” We do not here find any warrant for the supposition that God, the Father Almighty, poured the thunderbolts of personal anger on his suffering Son. But as Christ suffered as a substitute for a sinful world, so he did voluntarily, by his own sad consent, encounter all the woe that could be inflicted by hell and earth, (the natural executioners of absolute justice under the government of God,) and thus with his infinite dignity do honour to the law of eternal justice. And in view of this, having done homage to justice in his own person, he is entitled to bestow paradise and confer righteousness on all who obediently accept him as their substitute and Redeemer.

Tarry… watch — They were to watch, yet at a reverent distance. The Saviour, as if powers other than human were haunting his soul, yearns to be in reach of human sympathy.

Verse 38. And, watch with me. — In the duty of watching he included prayer, as appears from verse 41. If prayer was necessary to the Master, much more to the disciples, who were to have their hour of temptation and danger.

V. 39. And going a little farther-About a stone's cast, Luke 22:41-So that the apostles could both see and hear him still.

If it be possible, let this cup pass from me-And it did pass from him quickly. When he cried unto God with strong cries and tears, he was heard in that which he feared. God did take away the terror and severity of that inward conflict.

Verse 39. Fell on his face] See Clarke’s note on “Luke 22:44”. This was the ordinary posture of the supplicant when the favour was great which was asked, and deep humiliation required. The head was put between the knees, and the forehead brought to touch the earth-this was not only a humiliating, but a very painful posture also.

This cup] The word cup is frequently used in the Sacred Writings to point out sorrow, anguish, terror, death. It seems to be an allusion to a very ancient method of punishing criminals. A cup of poison was put into their hands, and they were obliged to drink it. Socrates was killed thus, being obliged by the magistrates of Athens to drink a cup of the juice of hemlock. To death, by the poisoned cup, there seems an allusion in Hebrews 2:9, Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, TASTED death for every man. The whole world are here represented as standing guilty and condemned before the tribunal of God; into every man’s hand the deadly cup is put, and he is required to drink off the poison-Jesus enters, takes every man’s cup out of his hand, and drinks off the poison, and thus tastes or suffers the death which every man otherwise must have undergone.

Pass from me] Perhaps there is an allusion here to several criminals standing in a row, who are all to drink of the same cup; but, the judge extending favour to a certain one, the cup passes by him to the next. Instead of proelqwn mikron, going a little forward, many eminent MSS. have proselqwn, coming a little forward-but the variation is of little moment. At the close of this verse several MSS. add the clause in Luke 22:43, There appeared an angel, &c.

Verse 39. And he went a little further — Luke says, He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, so that the apostles could still both see and hear him; and fell on his face — It seems he first knelt down, Luke 22:41, and then, as the ardour of his soul increased, prostrated himself on his face to the ground, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible — That is, if it be consistent with the salvation of the world; let this cup — Of bitterness and terror, pass from me — And it did pass from him soon; for when he cried unto God with strong cries and tears, he was heard in that which he feared, Hebrews 5:7. God took away the terror and severity of that inward conflict. That it was not the fear of dying on the cross which made our Lord speak and pray in the manner here related, is evident from this, that to suppose it would be to degrade his character infinitely. Suppose his sufferings to be as terrible as possible, clothe them with all the aggravating circumstances imaginable; yet if no more was included in them than the pains of death, inasmuch as his human nature was strengthened far beyond the natural pitch by its union with the divine, for Jesus to have shrunk at the prospect of them, would have shown a weakness which many of his followers were strangers to, encountering more terrible deaths without the least emotion. Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt — Here we see, that though his prayer was most fervent, yet it was accompanied with due expressions of entire resignation.

Ver. 39. Oh my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. This was the hour and power of darkness. Oh mysterious agony! Beyond conception, and above all comment. He offered up strong cries and tears to the Father. The fiends of hell were let loose on his soul, ere his body was delivered to the tormentors. This is the dark valley which no martyr ever trod. The prince of darkness loaded him with all the anguish and crimes of a guilty race; he drenched him with the bitter cup. God spared not his own Son. Oh sin: oh death! Suffice it to say, the sun shone, leaving the Saviour victorious in the field.

39. And he went a little further — Luke says, “He went about a stone’s cast.” So that there were three divisions of the little band: there were the eight disciples; the three chosen ones; and, at the distance of a “stone’s throw,” the suffering Saviour. While he suffers they slumber. And prayed — The disciples were entreated to watch with our Lord, but not to pray with him or for him. That work he does alone, and asks no participation. They cannot pray his prayer. He may intercede for them, not they for him. Saying — The disciples could not have heard this prayer. The distance was too great, and they were even unable to keep awake. They must have learned the truth from our Lord’s own explanations of his sufferings after his resurrection. See Luke 24:27, 32. O my Father — This prayer has three distinct points: the appeal, the deprecation, and the resignation.

The purpose of recording this prayer is great. It contains a profound lesson, how under affliction the sufferer may innocently writhe under the pain, may ask to be delivered, up to the point of the divine will. But at that point, however deep the agony, the resignation must be absolute. Father — However near the paternity of God, it still leaves him the right and the reason to inflict upon us terrible sorrows. Yet true faith looks up, even to his frowning face, with a filial claim. If it be possible — The possibility here meant presupposes that the solid plans of redemption must be undisturbed. If, without lifting up these foundations, it be possible. This cup — What was this cup? Not the crucifixion; but the present supernatural agonies of the garden. For, as his sorrows were greater than his strength, they opened up before him a just and true fear that a complete catastrophe, even to unknown depths of failure, could result. Those terrible results lay as dregs at the bottom of the cup. And as Paul says, (Hebrews 5:7) He was saved in that he feared. From that fearful and inevitable break-down which he justly feared, and could escape only by obtaining supplicated aid, he was saved. But was this failure truly possible? Not only possible but surely certain, but for the power of this same faithful prayer, and for the true spirit in which the Redeemer offered it. O how narrow was the pass of danger through which our Jesus trod to his and our redemption! Pass from me — Saint Paul truly says that this prayer was heard. Causes were bearing down upon this lonely victim, as sure to crush as the rail-car would the shrinking infant lying on its track. Before the dregs of the cup were reached, the draught attained its limit! So God shall temper our trial to our strength, and our strength to our trial, if but the earnest prayer be put forth and the deep submission be retained. Not as I will — His own individual will was but a wish, which could not be wrong so long as it existed in complete submission to God’s will. To sacrifice our own preferences, in order that our wills may be one with God’s, is true resignation.

Verse 39. And he went a little farther. — Leaving them behind to engage in the devotions proper to their condition. St. Luke marks the distance: “And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast.”

And fell on his face. — The humblest and most earnest posture of supplication; and an action probably produced by the oppressive load upon his spirit, which prostrated him to the earth.

If it be possible, &c. — See the note on verse 37. In the parallel passage of St. Mark we read, “Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee;” but in this there is nothing inconsistent: God is the object of prayer, because all things are possible to him, as the, schoolmen say, per se; but we are taught to put this limitation upon our prayers, and to add, if it be possible, that is, not inconsistent with the Divine wisdom or other attributes of his nature, or purposes of his holy and perfect will. We may therefore consistently say that things may be at once possible with God and impossible; possible, physically, because he can do all things; impossible, morally, because he cannot do that which is not wise and right. Of the latter possibility, in many cases, we are imperfect judges, and must therefore pray conditionally. With our Lord the case was, in this respect, different: he indeed knew all things, yet now being in the place of the sinner, he would not be the judge in his own cause, (see the note just referred to,) but honoured the justice of the Father by leaving it to that strict attribute to exact all that was necessary for the manifestation of its own purity, while at the same time he appealed to the Divine compassion. He therefore adds, “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt;” yielding himself with absolute submission to the Divine appointment, and affording us in a state of suffering, as in all other circumstances, a perfect example, that we, in our measure, and by the aids of his powerful grace, should “tread in his steps.”

Verse 40. He-saith unto Peter] He addressed himself more particularly to this apostle, because of the profession he had made, Matthew 26:33; as if he had said: “Is this the way you testify your affectionate attachment to me? Ye all said you were ready to die with me; what, then, cannot you watch ONE hour?”

Instead of ouk iscusate, could YE not, the Codex Alexandrinus, the later Syriac in the margin, three of the Itala, and Juvencus, read ouk iscusav, couldst THOU not-referring the reproach immediately to Peter, who had made the promises mentioned before.

Verse 40. And he cometh unto the disciples — Unto the three from whom he had withdrawn himself a little way; and findeth them asleep — Notwithstanding the distress they saw him in, and the strict command that he had given them to watch. It seems a supernatural heaviness had fallen upon them. And saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? — According to Mark, (who must be considered as peculiarly accurate in what relates to Peter, his gospel having been revised by that apostle,) Christ addressed himself especially to Peter, saying, Simon, sleepest thou? couldst not thou watch one hour? — Thou, who so lately boastedst of thy courage and constancy in my service, couldst thou not keep thyself awake for one hour, when I was in such an agony? Doubtless, however, Jesus also addressed the others, as Matthew signifies. As if he had said, And you, who were so ready to join with Peter in the same profession, could neither of you be mindful of me? and in this time of my extreme distress, could none of you perform your resolution, so as to watch one single hour with me? Watch and pray — As I must again exhort you with the greatest earnestness; that ye enter not into temptation — That ye do not yield to and fall by that dangerous temptation which is now approaching, and of which I so lately gave you notice. The spirit indeed is willing — You, in spirit, are ready to express the dutiful regard that you have for me, and I know your resolutions of adhering to me are very sincere; but the flesh — Your nature; is weak — As your present experience may convince you. How gentle a rebuke was this, and how kind an apology! especially at this time, when our Lord’s own mind was so weighed down with sorrow.

40. Findeth them asleep — Luke says they were asleep for sorrow. It seems as if the air of that night were dense with fearful, supernatural influences, weighing them down with stupor. It was as though a deadly vapour from the bottomless pit steeped their spirits. Watch with me one hour — There is, doubtless, rebuke in this question: but it is, we think, uttered more with the purpose of marking for us the fact that the pressure under which Jesus struggled was, even in its proximity, too much for them.

Verses 40, 41. And saith unto Peter, &c. — Peter is here singled out from the others, and specially cautioned, as having been foremost to profess his zeal, and about to be specially proved by the temptation which awaited him. When our Lord says, Watch and pray that ye enter not, mh eiselqhte, into temptation, he means not that they might be preserved from circumstances of trial and danger, but that they might not fall under their power. So St. Paul uses the phrase, “fall into temptation,” 1 Timothy 6:9, for being overcome by it. When our Lord adds, The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak, he has been generally thought to make a kind apology for the drowsiness of his disciples; but the remark has by some been considered as a motive to the duty, implying that a willing spirit ought to remember the clogs and hinderances which the frailty of flesh hangs upon it, and exert itself the more vigorously to prevent its being brought into bondage to its influence. When, however, it is recollected, as stated by St. Luke, that their great drowsiness was heightened by their sympathizing emotions occasioned by their Master’s distress, — for he says, “he found them sleeping for sorrow,” — the former interpretation is to be preferred. They knew not the full extent of his griefs: he separated himself from them, but they could not be unobservant of his trouble; and he might not be so far distant, but that in the stillness of the night they might hear his “strong crying,” and when he returned to them after each part of the mighty conflict, might observe his “tears.” They at least so far knew the moving and mysterious case, as to partake so deeply of his sorrows, that their animal spirits were exhausted, through the mixed and painful emotions which oppressed them; and they were thus the more readily overpowered with sleep. All this he knew; and a kind excuse seemed to be called for, by a fault into which they were in part led by the strength of their affection for their Master.

V. 41. The spirit-Your spirit: ye yourselves.

The flesh-Your nature. How gentle a rebuke was this, and how kind an apology! especially at a time when our Lord's own mind was so weighed down with sorrow.

Verse 41. That ye enter not into temptation] If ye cannot endure a little fatigue when there is no suffering, how will ye do when the temptation, the great trial of your fidelity and courage, cometh? Watch-that ye be not taken unawares; and pray-that when it comes ye may be enabled to bear it. The spirit-is willing, but the flesh is weak] Your inclinations are good-ye are truly sincere; but your good purposes will be overpowered by your timidity. Ye wish to continue steadfast in your adherence to your Master; but your fears will lead you to desert him.

Ver. 41. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. This is an admirable copy of the human heart. Man wishes to resemble God, and to be a hero in the hour of temptation; but that is the time when he very often most dishonours God and himself. Hence our Saviour speak this, not to excuse negligence and sin, but to excite watchfulness and prayer, lest we enter into temptation. Let us set a tenfold guard against the weak part, and always run for shelter to him who is always conqueror. It is far better to keep our bones whole, than to undergo the painful process of healing and knitting them again.

41. Watch — The words wake and watch are different forms of the same term. Yet to watch is more than to be awake. It implies that our wakeful powers are exerted to guard against the evil. Pray — While we exert our own energies against the evil powers, let us also supplicate divine aid. That ye enter not into temptation — As a fragile boat would avoid the rocks and rifts, so should the feeble Christian avoid the dangers of trials that may wreck him. The spirit — Of the sincere but wavering disciple. Is willing — Both to wake and to conquer the tempter. The flesh — Of that disciple. Is weak — It is weighed down and conquered by the tempter’s influences, or it is overcome in the hour of conflict.

How true a description was this of the disciples, as, for instance, Peter! His spirit was willing to watch, but Satan weighed him down through the flesh. His spirit was willing to adhere to his Master, but Satan overcame him through fleshly fear. But does our Lord intend this as an excuse for Peter, and an exemption from guilt? Rather, he renders it as a reason for his admonition to watch and pray, the neglect of which gave Satan his advantage over their earthly nature.

Verses 40, 41. And saith unto Peter, &c. — Peter is here singled out from the others, and specially cautioned, as having been foremost to profess his zeal, and about to be specially proved by the temptation which awaited him. When our Lord says, Watch and pray that ye enter not, mh eiselqhte, into temptation, he means not that they might be preserved from circumstances of trial and danger, but that they might not fall under their power. So St. Paul uses the phrase, “fall into temptation,” 1 Timothy 6:9, for being overcome by it. When our Lord adds, The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak, he has been generally thought to make a kind apology for the drowsiness of his disciples; but the remark has by some been considered as a motive to the duty, implying that a willing spirit ought to remember the clogs and hinderances which the frailty of flesh hangs upon it, and exert itself the more vigorously to prevent its being brought into bondage to its influence. When, however, it is recollected, as stated by St. Luke, that their great drowsiness was heightened by their sympathizing emotions occasioned by their Master’s distress, — for he says, “he found them sleeping for sorrow,” — the former interpretation is to be preferred. They knew not the full extent of his griefs: he separated himself from them, but they could not be unobservant of his trouble; and he might not be so far distant, but that in the stillness of the night they might hear his “strong crying,” and when he returned to them after each part of the mighty conflict, might observe his “tears.” They at least so far knew the moving and mysterious case, as to partake so deeply of his sorrows, that their animal spirits were exhausted, through the mixed and painful emotions which oppressed them; and they were thus the more readily overpowered with sleep. All this he knew; and a kind excuse seemed to be called for, by a fault into which they were in part led by the strength of their affection for their Master.

Verse 42. O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me] If it be not possible-to redeem fallen man, unless I drink this cup, unless I suffer death for them; thy will be done-I am content to suffer whatever may be requisite to accomplish the great design. In this address the humanity of Christ most evidently appears; for it was his humanity alone that could suffer; and if it did not appear that he had felt these sufferings, it would have been a presumption that he had not suffered, and consequently made no atonement. And had he not appeared to have been perfectly resigned in these sufferings, his sacrifice could not have been a free-will but a constrained offering, and therefore of no use to the salvation of mankind.

Verses 42-45. He went away again the second time — For the sorrow of his soul still continued; and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup, &c. — If it be necessary, in pursuance of the great end for which I came into the world, that I should endure these grievous sufferings, thy will be done — I acquiesce in thy appointment, how painful soever it may be to flesh and blood: and he came and found them asleep again — He returned thus frequently to his disciples, that by reading his distress in his countenance and gesture, they might be witnesses of his passion. Our Lord’s pains on this occasion were intense beyond expression, for he went away the third time to pray, saying the same words as before, that is, offering petitions to the same effect, and in the same spirit of intense desire and perfect resignation. It appears, however, from Luke, that his inward conflict was greater than before, for notwithstanding that an angel was sent from heaven to strengthen his human nature, left to suffer, it seems, without its usual support from the divine, yet the sense of his sorrows so increased, that he was thrown into an agony, and his whole body was strained to such a degree, that his blood was pressed through the pores of his skin along with his sweat, and fell down in great drops to the ground: a circumstance which was the more extraordinary as he was now in the open air, and that in the cool of the night. “Some, indeed, have interpreted Luke’s expression, his sweat was as it were great drops of blood, in a metaphorical sense; fancying that, as those who weep bitterly are said to weep blood, so they may be said to sweat blood who sweat excessively by reason of hard labour or acute pain. But others more justly affirm that our Lord’s sweat was really mixed with blood to such a degree, that its colour and consistency was as if it had been wholly blood.” — Macknight. Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith, Sleep on now, &c. — For by your watching you can show no further kindness and concern for me, who am now to be delivered into the hands of my enemies. Some late interpreters translate this with an interrogation thus, Do ye still sleep on and take your rest? This appears at first to suit better the words which follow, Arise, let us be going. “I cannot, however,” says Dr. Campbell, “help favouring the more common, which is also the more ancient, translation.” Nor is there any inconsistency between this order, which contains an ironical reproof, very natural in such circumstances, and the exhortation which follows, Arise, behold, the hour is at hand — The long-expected hour, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners — “The Greek word, amartwlwn, expresses more here than is implied in the English term sinners. Our Lord thereby signified, that he was to be consigned to the heathen, whom the Jews called, by way of eminence, amartwloi, because they were idolaters. See Galatians 2:15. For a similar reason they were also called anomoi, lawless, impious, as destitute of the law of God.”

42. He went away again — In human sympathy the Saviour finds no resource. He is completely alone. He turns again from man to God. If this cup may not pass — His prayer here has yielded the point. He prays no longer, Let it pass; but, If it may not pass, Thy will be done. “Thy will be done” limits not only all murmur, but all prayer.

Verse 43. Their eyes were heavy.] That is, they could not keep them open. Was there nothing preternatural in this? Was there no influence here from the powers of darkness?

Verses 42-45. He went away again the second time — For the sorrow of his soul still continued; and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup, &c. — If it be necessary, in pursuance of the great end for which I came into the world, that I should endure these grievous sufferings, thy will be done — I acquiesce in thy appointment, how painful soever it may be to flesh and blood: and he came and found them asleep again — He returned thus frequently to his disciples, that by reading his distress in his countenance and gesture, they might be witnesses of his passion. Our Lord’s pains on this occasion were intense beyond expression, for he went away the third time to pray, saying the same words as before, that is, offering petitions to the same effect, and in the same spirit of intense desire and perfect resignation. It appears, however, from Luke, that his inward conflict was greater than before, for notwithstanding that an angel was sent from heaven to strengthen his human nature, left to suffer, it seems, without its usual support from the divine, yet the sense of his sorrows so increased, that he was thrown into an agony, and his whole body was strained to such a degree, that his blood was pressed through the pores of his skin along with his sweat, and fell down in great drops to the ground: a circumstance which was the more extraordinary as he was now in the open air, and that in the cool of the night. “Some, indeed, have interpreted Luke’s expression, his sweat was as it were great drops of blood, in a metaphorical sense; fancying that, as those who weep bitterly are said to weep blood, so they may be said to sweat blood who sweat excessively by reason of hard labour or acute pain. But others more justly affirm that our Lord’s sweat was really mixed with blood to such a degree, that its colour and consistency was as if it had been wholly blood.” — Macknight. Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith, Sleep on now, &c. — For by your watching you can show no further kindness and concern for me, who am now to be delivered into the hands of my enemies. Some late interpreters translate this with an interrogation thus, Do ye still sleep on and take your rest? This appears at first to suit better the words which follow, Arise, let us be going. “I cannot, however,” says Dr. Campbell, “help favouring the more common, which is also the more ancient, translation.” Nor is there any inconsistency between this order, which contains an ironical reproof, very natural in such circumstances, and the exhortation which follows, Arise, behold, the hour is at hand — The long-expected hour, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners — “The Greek word, amartwlwn, expresses more here than is implied in the English term sinners. Our Lord thereby signified, that he was to be consigned to the heathen, whom the Jews called, by way of eminence, amartwloi, because they were idolaters. See Galatians 2:15. For a similar reason they were also called anomoi, lawless, impious, as destitute of the law of God.”

§ 131. — THE AGONIES OF GETHSEMANE, 36-46.

36. Unto a place called Gethsemane — Supposing the last paragraph to be out of the order of time, we must connect this verse to verse 30. We suppose the supper-room to have been situated somewhere upon the eastern brow of Mount Zion. (See note on Mark 14:13.) From the supper-room we must trace our Lord going forth over the “great bridge” of the Tyropoeon; passing through the temple precincts, and through the great front temple gate, (or perhaps through what was equivalent to the present St. Stephen’s gate;) descending the valley of Jehoshaphat; crossing the brook Kedron, (about where its dry channel is now spanned by a small bridge of a single arch,) and walking, followed by the eleven, toward the ascent of Olivet. In a level space between the Kedron and the foot of the hill is a yard or garden, which, from the ancient olive trees there, is called Gethsemane, or the press of oil. There is still at the base of the Mount of Olives a secure enclosure, signalized by several most venerable olive trees, surrounded by a stone wall to designate the spot. Stanley says: “In spite of all the doubts that can be raised against their antiquity or the genuineness of their site, the eight aged olive trees, if only by their manifest difference from all others on the mountain, have always struck even the most indifferent observers. They will remain, so long as their already protracted life is spared, the most venerable of their race on the surface of the earth; their gnarled trunks and scanty foliage will always be regarded as the most affecting of the sacred memorials in or about Jerusalem, the most nearly approaching to the everlasting hills themselves in the force with which they carry us back to the events of the Gospel history.” Captain Lynch says that these olives are one thousand years old; and as the olive tree reproduces from the same root, these trees are the radical descendants from the same germ as those of our Saviour’s time. By the word place is generally understood a villa or cluster of houses, to which the garden was an appendage.

Verse 44. Prayed the third time] So St. Paul-I besought the Lord THRICE that it might depart from me, 2 Corinthians 12:8. This thrice repeating the same petition argues deep earnestness of soul.

Verses 42-45. He went away again the second time — For the sorrow of his soul still continued; and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup, &c. — If it be necessary, in pursuance of the great end for which I came into the world, that I should endure these grievous sufferings, thy will be done — I acquiesce in thy appointment, how painful soever it may be to flesh and blood: and he came and found them asleep again — He returned thus frequently to his disciples, that by reading his distress in his countenance and gesture, they might be witnesses of his passion. Our Lord’s pains on this occasion were intense beyond expression, for he went away the third time to pray, saying the same words as before, that is, offering petitions to the same effect, and in the same spirit of intense desire and perfect resignation. It appears, however, from Luke, that his inward conflict was greater than before, for notwithstanding that an angel was sent from heaven to strengthen his human nature, left to suffer, it seems, without its usual support from the divine, yet the sense of his sorrows so increased, that he was thrown into an agony, and his whole body was strained to such a degree, that his blood was pressed through the pores of his skin along with his sweat, and fell down in great drops to the ground: a circumstance which was the more extraordinary as he was now in the open air, and that in the cool of the night. “Some, indeed, have interpreted Luke’s expression, his sweat was as it were great drops of blood, in a metaphorical sense; fancying that, as those who weep bitterly are said to weep blood, so they may be said to sweat blood who sweat excessively by reason of hard labour or acute pain. But others more justly affirm that our Lord’s sweat was really mixed with blood to such a degree, that its colour and consistency was as if it had been wholly blood.” — Macknight. Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith, Sleep on now, &c. — For by your watching you can show no further kindness and concern for me, who am now to be delivered into the hands of my enemies. Some late interpreters translate this with an interrogation thus, Do ye still sleep on and take your rest? This appears at first to suit better the words which follow, Arise, let us be going. “I cannot, however,” says Dr. Campbell, “help favouring the more common, which is also the more ancient, translation.” Nor is there any inconsistency between this order, which contains an ironical reproof, very natural in such circumstances, and the exhortation which follows, Arise, behold, the hour is at hand — The long-expected hour, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners — “The Greek word, amartwlwn, expresses more here than is implied in the English term sinners. Our Lord thereby signified, that he was to be consigned to the heathen, whom the Jews called, by way of eminence, amartwloi, because they were idolaters. See Galatians 2:15. For a similar reason they were also called anomoi, lawless, impious, as destitute of the law of God.”

44. Saying the same words — Form utters the same words from a want of feeling; earnestness repeats from abundance of feeling. Luke adds: “And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven strengthening him.” This marks the climax and the close of his present cup.

Verse 44. And prayed the third time, using the same words. — The petition in each case was the same, and the expressions of meek resignation with which it was accompanied. But at each time it would seem that the intensity of his feelings was heightened, and his sorrows became more pressing; for after one of these acts of supplication, “there appeared to him an angel from heaven strengthening him,” lest he should wholly sink under his sufferings; and thus strengthened, “being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly.” See the note on verse 37.

V. 45. Sleep on now, if you can, and take your rest-For any farther service you can be of to me.

Verse 45. Sleep on now, and take your rest] Perhaps it might be better to read these words interrogatively, and paraphrase them thus: Do ye sleep on still? Will no warnings avail? Will no danger excite you to watchfulness and prayer? My hour-in which I am to be delivered up, is at hand; therefore now think of your own personal safety.

The Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.] amartwlwn, viz. the Gentiles or heathens, who were generally distinguished by this appellation from the Jews. Here it probably means the Roman cohort that was stationed on festivals for the defence of the temple. By the Romans he was adjudged to death; for the Jews acknowledged that they had no power in capital cases. See the note on Matthew 9:10.

Verses 42-45. He went away again the second time — For the sorrow of his soul still continued; and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup, &c. — If it be necessary, in pursuance of the great end for which I came into the world, that I should endure these grievous sufferings, thy will be done — I acquiesce in thy appointment, how painful soever it may be to flesh and blood: and he came and found them asleep again — He returned thus frequently to his disciples, that by reading his distress in his countenance and gesture, they might be witnesses of his passion. Our Lord’s pains on this occasion were intense beyond expression, for he went away the third time to pray, saying the same words as before, that is, offering petitions to the same effect, and in the same spirit of intense desire and perfect resignation. It appears, however, from Luke, that his inward conflict was greater than before, for notwithstanding that an angel was sent from heaven to strengthen his human nature, left to suffer, it seems, without its usual support from the divine, yet the sense of his sorrows so increased, that he was thrown into an agony, and his whole body was strained to such a degree, that his blood was pressed through the pores of his skin along with his sweat, and fell down in great drops to the ground: a circumstance which was the more extraordinary as he was now in the open air, and that in the cool of the night. “Some, indeed, have interpreted Luke’s expression, his sweat was as it were great drops of blood, in a metaphorical sense; fancying that, as those who weep bitterly are said to weep blood, so they may be said to sweat blood who sweat excessively by reason of hard labour or acute pain. But others more justly affirm that our Lord’s sweat was really mixed with blood to such a degree, that its colour and consistency was as if it had been wholly blood.” — Macknight. Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith, Sleep on now, &c. — For by your watching you can show no further kindness and concern for me, who am now to be delivered into the hands of my enemies. Some late interpreters translate this with an interrogation thus, Do ye still sleep on and take your rest? This appears at first to suit better the words which follow, Arise, let us be going. “I cannot, however,” says Dr. Campbell, “help favouring the more common, which is also the more ancient, translation.” Nor is there any inconsistency between this order, which contains an ironical reproof, very natural in such circumstances, and the exhortation which follows, Arise, behold, the hour is at hand — The long-expected hour, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners — “The Greek word, amartwlwn, expresses more here than is implied in the English term sinners. Our Lord thereby signified, that he was to be consigned to the heathen, whom the Jews called, by way of eminence, amartwloi, because they were idolaters. See Galatians 2:15. For a similar reason they were also called anomoi, lawless, impious, as destitute of the law of God.”

45. Cometh he to his disciples — For the last time he now returns; for the betrayer is at hand, and from the invisible struggle with hell he is next to undergo the visible struggle with men.

Sleep on now, and take your rest — But why should he bid them sleep now when the tramp of the soldier is almost in their hearing? Of all the renderings of this verse to meet this query, I think the best is that which by merely changing the punctuation, which is of no authority, makes it a question. Sleep ye on now, and take your rest? Is it a time for slumber when the betrayer is on the approach? There is another meaning admissable. The whole matter is now decided, and you may sleep on, as watching is needless.

The hour — The great suffering, atoning hour is come; and the executioners of vicarious justice, though they mean it not, are now at hand. Let us be going — Our Lord now directs his face toward the terrible sufferings of the cross. He is strengthened, and calm from his past agony. He meets his betrayer, his foes, his judges, with a majesty which shows that he is Lord even of those to whom he submits. His glory even in this his suffering is most particularly described in the narrative of John.

Verse 45. Sleep on now, and take your rest. — Because our Lord almost immediately adds, Rise, let us be going, these words have been taken interrogatively; but the import is, “I no longer enjoin it upon you to watch; the season is now past for this duty, and the time of trial, for which watchfulness and prayer would have better prepared you, has arrived.” Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. By sinners, amartwloi, it has been argued that the Romans must be understood, because all heathens were so specially denominated by the Jews; but it is not probable that our Lord would, on an occasion which particularly marked the extreme wickedness of the leading Jews, countenance that proud and exclusive language which implied that they were not “sinners of the Gentiles.” The weight of criminality in the most unjust and cruel conduct experienced by our Lord rested upon them; and this strong term was therefore their fitting designation.

Verse 46. Rise, let us be going] That is, to meet them, giving thereby the fullest proof that I know all their designs, and might have, by flight or otherwise, provided for my own safety; but I go willingly to meet that death which their malice designs me, and, through it, provide for the life of the world.

Verses 46-49. Rise, let us be going — Namely, to meet those who are coming to arrest me, and to go along with them whithersoever they shall lead us. Behold, he is at hand that doth betray me — Though they had not come within sight, our Lord perfectly knew the precise moment of their approach, and gave his disciples notice of it. And while he yet spake, Judas came — Judas found Christ in the most heavenly and excellent employment when he came to apprehend him. O how happy is it when our sufferings find us in God’s way, engaged in his service, and engaging his assistance by fervent supplication! Thus did our Lord’s sufferings meet him; may ours so meet us! And with him a great multitude — The chief priests and elders being informed by Judas that the proper time of apprehending his Master was come, sent a band of soldiers along with him, and servants — Uphretav, (John 18:3,) carrying lanterns and torches to show them the way, because, though it was always full moon at the passover, the sky was dark by reason of the clouds, and the place whither they were going was shaded with trees. At the same time, a deputation of their number accompanied the band, to see that every one did his duty, (Luke 22:52,) for they were exceedingly anxious to get Jesus into their hands. He that betrayed him gave them a sign, &c. — As the soldiers probably had never seen Jesus before, and it was now night, and there were twelve persons together, probably dressed much alike, Judas found it necessary to point him out to them by some such sign as he now gave: a sign, the design of which was less to be suspected by his other disciples, as it was a Jewish custom, after a long absence, or at departing from each other, to make use of the ceremony of a kiss. They used it likewise as a sign of affection to their equals, and as a mark of homage and reverence to their superiors. See Psalms 2:12Psalm 2:12; Luke 7:45. It is very probable that our Lord, in great condescension, had used, agreeably to this custom, to permit his disciples thus to salute him when they returned, after having been any time absent. And forthwith he came to Jesus — Here we see it was the portion of our blessed Redeemer to be betrayed into the hands of his mortal enemies by the treachery of a false and dissembling friend, whose sin was greatly aggravated by the eminence of his place and station, and by the peculiar honour done him and trust reposed in him. For he bare the bag; that is, he was, as it were, almoner and steward of Christ’s family, to take care for the necessary accommodations of Christ and his apostles; and yet this man, thus called, thus honoured, thus respectfully treated by Christ, for the lucre of a little money, perfidiously betrays him! “O whither,” says Burkitt, “will not a bad heart and busy devil carry a man?” Hail, Master, and kissed him — “Here was honey on the tongue, and poison in the heart. This treacherous kiss enhanced his crime beyond expression. O vilest of hypocrites, how durst thou approach so near thy Lord in the exercise of so much baseness and ingratitude! But none sin with so much impudence as hypocrites and apostates.”

46. Behold, he is at hand — ”As I sat beneath the olives, and observed how very near the city was, with what perfect ease a person there could survey at a glance the entire length of the eastern wall, and the slope of the hill towards the valley, I could not divest myself of the impression that this local peculiarity should be allowed to explain a passage in the account of the Saviour’s apprehension. Every one must have noticed something abrupt in his summons to the disciples: ‘Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.’ Matthew 26:46. It is not improbable that his watchful eye at that moment caught sight of Judas and his accomplices, as they issued from one of the eastern gates, or turned round the northern or southern corner of the walls, in order to descend into the valley. Even if the night was dark, he could have seen the torches which they carried, and could have felt no uncertainty respecting the object of such a movement at that unseasonable hour.” — Prof. Hackett.

Verse 46. Rise, let us be going. — These words do not indicate any intention of escape. Our Lord wished to rejoin his disciples in the less retired part of the garden, and to meet those whom Judas was leading to this his well known retreat, in order to apprehend him according to his infamous contract.

V. 47. Mark 14:43; Luke 22:47; John 18:2.

Verse 47. Judas, one of the twelve] More deeply to mark his base ingratitude and desperate wickedness-HE was ONE of the TWELVE-and he is a TRAITOR, and one of the vilest too that ever disgraced human nature. A great multitude with swords and staves] They did not come as officers of justice, but as a desperate mob. Justice had nothing to do in this business. He who a little before had been one of the leaders of the flock of Christ is now become the leader of ruffians and murderers! What a terrible fall!

Verses 46-49. Rise, let us be going — Namely, to meet those who are coming to arrest me, and to go along with them whithersoever they shall lead us. Behold, he is at hand that doth betray me — Though they had not come within sight, our Lord perfectly knew the precise moment of their approach, and gave his disciples notice of it. And while he yet spake, Judas came — Judas found Christ in the most heavenly and excellent employment when he came to apprehend him. O how happy is it when our sufferings find us in God’s way, engaged in his service, and engaging his assistance by fervent supplication! Thus did our Lord’s sufferings meet him; may ours so meet us! And with him a great multitude — The chief priests and elders being informed by Judas that the proper time of apprehending his Master was come, sent a band of soldiers along with him, and servants — Uphretav, (John 18:3,) carrying lanterns and torches to show them the way, because, though it was always full moon at the passover, the sky was dark by reason of the clouds, and the place whither they were going was shaded with trees. At the same time, a deputation of their number accompanied the band, to see that every one did his duty, (Luke 22:52,) for they were exceedingly anxious to get Jesus into their hands. He that betrayed him gave them a sign, &c. — As the soldiers probably had never seen Jesus before, and it was now night, and there were twelve persons together, probably dressed much alike, Judas found it necessary to point him out to them by some such sign as he now gave: a sign, the design of which was less to be suspected by his other disciples, as it was a Jewish custom, after a long absence, or at departing from each other, to make use of the ceremony of a kiss. They used it likewise as a sign of affection to their equals, and as a mark of homage and reverence to their superiors. See Psalms 2:12Psalm 2:12; Luke 7:45. It is very probable that our Lord, in great condescension, had used, agreeably to this custom, to permit his disciples thus to salute him when they returned, after having been any time absent. And forthwith he came to Jesus — Here we see it was the portion of our blessed Redeemer to be betrayed into the hands of his mortal enemies by the treachery of a false and dissembling friend, whose sin was greatly aggravated by the eminence of his place and station, and by the peculiar honour done him and trust reposed in him. For he bare the bag; that is, he was, as it were, almoner and steward of Christ’s family, to take care for the necessary accommodations of Christ and his apostles; and yet this man, thus called, thus honoured, thus respectfully treated by Christ, for the lucre of a little money, perfidiously betrays him! “O whither,” says Burkitt, “will not a bad heart and busy devil carry a man?” Hail, Master, and kissed him — “Here was honey on the tongue, and poison in the heart. This treacherous kiss enhanced his crime beyond expression. O vilest of hypocrites, how durst thou approach so near thy Lord in the exercise of so much baseness and ingratitude! But none sin with so much impudence as hypocrites and apostates.”

§ 132. — APPREHENSION OF JESUS, 47-56.

While the solemn scenes of the Last Supper and of Gethsemane are transpiring, a very different business is going on between Judas and the Jewish authorities. The armed band is furnished; he knows the customary place of Jesus and his twelve; and now, lo! he comes. To show that he truly lays down his life with full power to retain it, our Lord for a moment by divine power overwhelms his assailants. (See John 18:4-9.) He meets with cutting rebuke the treacherous kiss of the betrayer. He arrests the sword of Peter and heals the wound it inflicted. He reproves the shamefulness of their armed band, and declares that he submits only to the divine necessity of fulfilling the prophetic Scripture. His disciples flee; the evangelist Mark is all but apprehended. (Mark 14:51.) The Saviour then is in the hands and at the mercy of his enemies.

47. Lo, Judas — The deed by which his name is forever a term of abhorrence is now in course of completion. Staves — The plural of staff. They were nearer canes than clubs. Although it was full moon, they came, as John informs us, with torches and lanterns. Judas led the way, going before them. Luke 22:47.

With him a great multitude — By what authority was Jesus now arrested? and of whom or what did this multitude consist?

To the first question we may answer, that in Judea there was an inferior native or Jewish government, under the dominion of the Roman government. Of the Jewish government the chief magistrate was the high priest. The legislative authority resided in the Sanhedrim. It was by the Jewish authority, or at least at their prosecution, that our Lord is now arrested and taken before their high priest, to answer for offence against the Jewish law.

The multitude who apprehended Jesus were of the following four classes:

1. The band, (John 18:3,) being a detachment from the garrison of five hundred Roman soldiers, who, in the fortress of Antonia, overlooking the temple, kept the Jews in awe. A detachment was ever ready to be sent when the commander was informed that a disturber needed to be taken in custody. So that thus much Jesus was apprehended by the loan of a Roman body. 2. The captains of the temple, (Luke 22:52,) who came, doubtless, attended by their guard or police, men who kept order at the temple. 3. Several of the Jewish dignitaries attended to see the work carefully done; namely, (verse 47,) chief priests, zealous Pharisees, and elders. 4. Servants of these dignitaries, (John 18:18,) both private and official, like Malchus. Our Lord was thus arrested by the Jewish authority, partly using Roman instrumentality.

Verse 47. A great multitude. — These were composed of a “band,” and “officers from the chief priests and Pharisees,” John 18:3. The force employed indicated their fears that a rescue might be attempted, should they meet with any considerable body of those who had so lately welcomed him as the King Messiah into Jerusalem.

Swords and staves. — Both the swords and staves, or clubs, appear to have been borne by this “multitude,” composed of the “officers” of the Jewish magistrates and those who followed them promiscuously. For though St. John uses the term “band,” speira, which was one of the divisions of the Roman legion, less than a cohort, it is probably used in a vague sense, for any body of men employed by authority to apprehend a prisoner. As yet we have no clear indication of the presence of the Roman soldiery.

Verse 48. Gave them a sign] How coolly deliberate is this dire apostate! The man whom I shall kiss-how deeply hypocritical! That is he, hold him fast, seize him-how diabolically malicious!

Hail, Master] A usual compliment among the Jews. Judas pretends to wish our Lord continued health while he is meditating his destruction! How many compliments of this kind are there in the world! Judas had a pattern in Joab, who, while he pretends to inquire tenderly for the health of Amasa, thrust him through with his sword; but the disciple here vastly outdoes his master, and through a motive, if possible, still more base. Let all those who use unmeaning or insidious compliments rank for ever with Joab and Judas.

And kissed him.] And tenderly kissed him-this is the proper meaning of the original word katefilhsen, he kissed him again and again-still pretending the most affectionate attachment to him, though our Lord had before unmasked him.

Verses 46-49. Rise, let us be going — Namely, to meet those who are coming to arrest me, and to go along with them whithersoever they shall lead us. Behold, he is at hand that doth betray me — Though they had not come within sight, our Lord perfectly knew the precise moment of their approach, and gave his disciples notice of it. And while he yet spake, Judas came — Judas found Christ in the most heavenly and excellent employment when he came to apprehend him. O how happy is it when our sufferings find us in God’s way, engaged in his service, and engaging his assistance by fervent supplication! Thus did our Lord’s sufferings meet him; may ours so meet us! And with him a great multitude — The chief priests and elders being informed by Judas that the proper time of apprehending his Master was come, sent a band of soldiers along with him, and servants — Uphretav, (John 18:3,) carrying lanterns and torches to show them the way, because, though it was always full moon at the passover, the sky was dark by reason of the clouds, and the place whither they were going was shaded with trees. At the same time, a deputation of their number accompanied the band, to see that every one did his duty, (Luke 22:52,) for they were exceedingly anxious to get Jesus into their hands. He that betrayed him gave them a sign, &c. — As the soldiers probably had never seen Jesus before, and it was now night, and there were twelve persons together, probably dressed much alike, Judas found it necessary to point him out to them by some such sign as he now gave: a sign, the design of which was less to be suspected by his other disciples, as it was a Jewish custom, after a long absence, or at departing from each other, to make use of the ceremony of a kiss. They used it likewise as a sign of affection to their equals, and as a mark of homage and reverence to their superiors. See Psalms 2:12Psalm 2:12; Luke 7:45. It is very probable that our Lord, in great condescension, had used, agreeably to this custom, to permit his disciples thus to salute him when they returned, after having been any time absent. And forthwith he came to Jesus — Here we see it was the portion of our blessed Redeemer to be betrayed into the hands of his mortal enemies by the treachery of a false and dissembling friend, whose sin was greatly aggravated by the eminence of his place and station, and by the peculiar honour done him and trust reposed in him. For he bare the bag; that is, he was, as it were, almoner and steward of Christ’s family, to take care for the necessary accommodations of Christ and his apostles; and yet this man, thus called, thus honoured, thus respectfully treated by Christ, for the lucre of a little money, perfidiously betrays him! “O whither,” says Burkitt, “will not a bad heart and busy devil carry a man?” Hail, Master, and kissed him — “Here was honey on the tongue, and poison in the heart. This treacherous kiss enhanced his crime beyond expression. O vilest of hypocrites, how durst thou approach so near thy Lord in the exercise of so much baseness and ingratitude! But none sin with so much impudence as hypocrites and apostates.”

§ 132. — APPREHENSION OF JESUS, 47-56.

While the solemn scenes of the Last Supper and of Gethsemane are transpiring, a very different business is going on between Judas and the Jewish authorities. The armed band is furnished; he knows the customary place of Jesus and his twelve; and now, lo! he comes. To show that he truly lays down his life with full power to retain it, our Lord for a moment by divine power overwhelms his assailants. (See John 18:4-9.) He meets with cutting rebuke the treacherous kiss of the betrayer. He arrests the sword of Peter and heals the wound it inflicted. He reproves the shamefulness of their armed band, and declares that he submits only to the divine necessity of fulfilling the prophetic Scripture. His disciples flee; the evangelist Mark is all but apprehended. (Mark 14:51.) The Saviour then is in the hands and at the mercy of his enemies.

47. Lo, Judas — The deed by which his name is forever a term of abhorrence is now in course of completion. Staves — The plural of staff. They were nearer canes than clubs. Although it was full moon, they came, as John informs us, with torches and lanterns. Judas led the way, going before them. Luke 22:47.

With him a great multitude — By what authority was Jesus now arrested? and of whom or what did this multitude consist?

To the first question we may answer, that in Judea there was an inferior native or Jewish government, under the dominion of the Roman government. Of the Jewish government the chief magistrate was the high priest. The legislative authority resided in the Sanhedrim. It was by the Jewish authority, or at least at their prosecution, that our Lord is now arrested and taken before their high priest, to answer for offence against the Jewish law.

The multitude who apprehended Jesus were of the following four classes:

1. The band, (John 18:3,) being a detachment from the garrison of five hundred Roman soldiers, who, in the fortress of Antonia, overlooking the temple, kept the Jews in awe. A detachment was ever ready to be sent when the commander was informed that a disturber needed to be taken in custody. So that thus much Jesus was apprehended by the loan of a Roman body. 2. The captains of the temple, (Luke 22:52,) who came, doubtless, attended by their guard or police, men who kept order at the temple. 3. Several of the Jewish dignitaries attended to see the work carefully done; namely, (verse 47,) chief priests, zealous Pharisees, and elders. 4. Servants of these dignitaries, (John 18:18,) both private and official, like Malchus. Our Lord was thus arrested by the Jewish authority, partly using Roman instrumentality.

Verse 48. Gave them a sign. — This was agreed upon with them by the traitor, that they might not mistake another person for Jesus, the time being night, and, though moonlight, the place shaded with trees.

Verses 46-49. Rise, let us be going — Namely, to meet those who are coming to arrest me, and to go along with them whithersoever they shall lead us. Behold, he is at hand that doth betray me — Though they had not come within sight, our Lord perfectly knew the precise moment of their approach, and gave his disciples notice of it. And while he yet spake, Judas came — Judas found Christ in the most heavenly and excellent employment when he came to apprehend him. O how happy is it when our sufferings find us in God’s way, engaged in his service, and engaging his assistance by fervent supplication! Thus did our Lord’s sufferings meet him; may ours so meet us! And with him a great multitude — The chief priests and elders being informed by Judas that the proper time of apprehending his Master was come, sent a band of soldiers along with him, and servants — Uphretav, (John 18:3,) carrying lanterns and torches to show them the way, because, though it was always full moon at the passover, the sky was dark by reason of the clouds, and the place whither they were going was shaded with trees. At the same time, a deputation of their number accompanied the band, to see that every one did his duty, (Luke 22:52,) for they were exceedingly anxious to get Jesus into their hands. He that betrayed him gave them a sign, &c. — As the soldiers probably had never seen Jesus before, and it was now night, and there were twelve persons together, probably dressed much alike, Judas found it necessary to point him out to them by some such sign as he now gave: a sign, the design of which was less to be suspected by his other disciples, as it was a Jewish custom, after a long absence, or at departing from each other, to make use of the ceremony of a kiss. They used it likewise as a sign of affection to their equals, and as a mark of homage and reverence to their superiors. See Psalms 2:12Psalm 2:12; Luke 7:45. It is very probable that our Lord, in great condescension, had used, agreeably to this custom, to permit his disciples thus to salute him when they returned, after having been any time absent. And forthwith he came to Jesus — Here we see it was the portion of our blessed Redeemer to be betrayed into the hands of his mortal enemies by the treachery of a false and dissembling friend, whose sin was greatly aggravated by the eminence of his place and station, and by the peculiar honour done him and trust reposed in him. For he bare the bag; that is, he was, as it were, almoner and steward of Christ’s family, to take care for the necessary accommodations of Christ and his apostles; and yet this man, thus called, thus honoured, thus respectfully treated by Christ, for the lucre of a little money, perfidiously betrays him! “O whither,” says Burkitt, “will not a bad heart and busy devil carry a man?” Hail, Master, and kissed him — “Here was honey on the tongue, and poison in the heart. This treacherous kiss enhanced his crime beyond expression. O vilest of hypocrites, how durst thou approach so near thy Lord in the exercise of so much baseness and ingratitude! But none sin with so much impudence as hypocrites and apostates.”

Ver. 49. Hail, Master; and he kissed him. This consummate audacity was a proof that Satan had entered into him with the sop. The officers bowed themselves to the earth, the usual mark of respect, in arresting an illustrious person. During the Irish massacre of the protestants, a papist girl had a protestant grandmother concealed in the house. When the murderers came with the usual threats, the girl betrayed her trust, and ran up stairs to the hidingplace and fell down on her knees to obtain the kiss of pardon! On being reproached with treason, she cried, oh grandmamma, what could I do? I could not damn my own soul!

49. Forthwith he came to Jesus… and kissed him — As, in verse 46, Jesus said, “Let us be going,” he turned his firm face to his foes, yet unseen, and walked forth to meet them. His disciples — first the three, and then the eight — start as we may suppose from their slumbers, and follow him along in irregular train. Thus, as Jesus alone leads the little band of his peaceful followers, Judas leads the hostile multitude of assailants. They two singly meet — the Divine victim and the diabolical betrayer — face to face. The traitor, prostituting the purest signal of love to the purpose of death, accomplishes the greatest masterpiece of treachery known to the universe. The Saviour calmly accepts the kiss; and surely, amid all the mockeries he suffered, this kiss was the most repulsive. Well did the German writer, Pfenninger, (quoted by Stier,) remark: “Wouldst thou know what Satan can do and God can suffer — what the basest of mankind can commit and the best of mankind can bear? behold the lips of Judas who kisses, and the cheek of Jesus who receives the kiss!” Hail, Master — The same lips that gave the false kiss preceded it with this false salutation. It was doubtless uttered with a loud voice. It proclaimed to the soldiery, “I have found the man I betray.” It proclaimed to our Lord, “You have found the man who betrays you.” The question at the supper-table, “Master, is it I?” now changes to the affirmation, “Master, it is I!”

Verse 49. And kissed him. — A customary mode of salutation among the Jews at departing or meeting again, and used also as an expression of reverence to a superior.

V. 50. The heroic behaviour of the blessed Jesus, in the whole period of his sufferings, will be observed by every attentive eye, and felt by every pious heart: although the sacred historians, according to their usual but wonderful simplicity, make no encomiums upon it. With what composure does he go forth to meet the traitor! With what calmness receive that malignant kiss! With what dignity does he deliver himself into the hands of his enemies! Yet plainly showing his superiority over them, and even then leading as it were captivity captive!

Verse 50. Jesus said-Friend] Rather, companion, etaire, (not FRIEND,) wherefore, rather, against whom (ef~ d, the reading of all the best MSS.) art thou come? How must these words have cut his very soul, if he had any sensibility left! Surely, thou, who hast so long been my companion, art not come against me, thy Lord, Teacher and Friend! What is the human heart not capable of, when abandoned by God, and influenced by Satan and the love of money!

Laid hands on Jesus] But not before they had felt that proof of his sovereign power by which they had all been struck down to the earth, John 18:6. It is strange that, after this, they should dare to approach him; but the Scriptures must be fulfilled.

Verses 50-54. Jesus said, Friend Gr. etaire, companion; wherefore — Gr. ef’ w, For what, or against whom, art thou come? — Against me, thy Teacher, Saviour, and Lord? And to put me into the hands of murderers? Our Lord also added, (see Luke 22:48,) Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? — Art thou so vile a hypocrite as to betray thy Lord and Master by that which all men use as the symbol either of love or homage, making it the signal of thy treachery? The heroic behaviour of the blessed Jesus, in the whole period of his sufferings, will be observed by every attentive eye, and felt by every pious heart: although the sacred historians, according to their usual but wonderful simplicity, make no encomiums upon it. With what composure does he go forth to meet the traitor! With what calmness receive that malignant kiss! With what dignity does he deliver himself into the hands of his enemies! Yet plainly showing his superiority over them, and even then leading, as it were, captivity captive! And one of them which were with Jesus — Namely, Peter; struck a servant of the high-priest — Probably the person that seized Jesus first, or was showing greater forwardness than the rest in this business. This servant’s name was Malchus, John 18:10. But why did not Peter draw his sword upon Judas, rather than Malchus? Doubtless because Judas had concealed his purpose so well from the disciples, that Peter did not suspect him, nor understand the treacherous design of his kiss. Though this might seem a courageous action of Peter, it was really very imprudent; and had not Christ, by some secret influence, overawed their spirits, it is very probable that not only Peter, but the rest of the apostles, might have been cut to pieces. Accordingly, Jesus ordered him to sheath his sword, telling him that his unseasonable and imprudent defence might prove the occasion of his destruction; or rather, as Grotius interprets it, that there was no need of fighting in his defence, because God would punish the Jews for putting him to death. See Revelation 13:10; where this very expression, they that take the sword shall perish with the sword, is used in predicting the destruction of the persecutors of true Christians. Christ told him, likewise, that his rash conduct implied both a distrust of the divine providence, which can always employ a variety of means for the safety of his servants, and gross ignorance of the Scriptures. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father — Who heareth me always; and he shall give me more than twelve legions of angels — “The legion was a Roman military term, and as the band which now surrounded them was a Roman cohort, our Lord might make use of this term by way of contrast, to show what an inconsiderable thing the cohort was, in comparison of the force he could summon to his assistance; — more than twelve legions, not of soldiers, but of angels — Instead of twelve deserting, timorous disciples! How dreadfully irresistible would such an army of angels have been, when one of these celestial spirits was able to destroy 185,000 Assyrians at one stroke! 2 Kings 19:35.” Peter, it must be observed, had not only wounded the ear of the high-priest’s servant, but had actually cut it off. Jesus, however, repaired this injury; He touched his ear and healed him, Luke 22:51; either putting the ear on again, which was cut off, or creating a new one in the place of it: or if he performed the cure in any other way, he equally demonstrated both his goodness and power; and it is surprising that such a miracle, done in such circumstances, made no impression on those that came to apprehend him, especially as he put them in mind, at the same time, of his other miracles. For,

50. Friend — Rather, companion, associate. For the sincere Saviour could hardly call him friend. Wherefore art thou come? — Our Lord puts in this question, as Judas well knows, not in order to learn, but to make Judas think. What errand is it for which you, a disciple, have now come to your Lord? And then he develops his full knowledge by the question supplied by Mark: “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” To betray is bad enough; to betray the Son of man is worse; to betray him with a kiss is worst of all.

With meek majesty, showing even at that very moment that he is Lord, Jesus accepts this beginning of insults from man. But for a brief interval (John 18:4-9) he holds his foes at bay by the secret restraint of his power before he yields to the arrest. This he does to demonstrate that he lays down his life of himself. For the same reason he utters the declaration in verse 53.

Took him — As soon as the divine influence, by which the multitude were withheld, was in a measure withdrawn, they used their power to apprehend him.

Verse 50. Friend, wherefore art thou come? — Etaire was an ordinary but general form of address, marking somewhat of courteous distance and strangeness. The interrogation may be considered either as a calm inquiry as to the purpose of Judas, or as conveying in the mildest words the most poignant reproof: ef’ w, against whom art thou come? Against him whom thou hast acknowledged as thy Master and Lord, followed as his disciple, receiving the benefit of his instructions, and by whom thou hast been placed among the number of his friends, and raised to the rank of an apostle; art THOU come against HIM? Several MSS. read ef’ o; which rendering is adopted by Griesbach, Tittman, and others. The authorities for each reading are, however, nearly balanced.

V. 51. And one of them striking the servant of the high priest-Probably the person that seized Jesus first;

Cut off his ear-Aiming, it seems, to cleave his head, but that by a secret providence interposing, he declined the blow. Mark 14:47; Luke 22:49; John 18:10.

Verse 51. One of them which were with Jesus] This was Peter-struck a servant of the high priest’s, the servant’s name was Malchus, John 18:10, and smote off his ear. In Luke 22:51, it is said, Jesus touched and healed it. Here was another miracle, and striking proof of the Divinity of Christ. Peter did not cut the ear, merely, he cut it OFF, afeilen. Now to heal it, Jesus must either take up the ear and put it on again, or else create a new one-either of these was a miracle, which nothing less than unlimited power could produce. See Clarke’s note on “John 18:10”.

Verses 50-54. Jesus said, Friend Gr. etaire, companion; wherefore — Gr. ef’ w, For what, or against whom, art thou come? — Against me, thy Teacher, Saviour, and Lord? And to put me into the hands of murderers? Our Lord also added, (see Luke 22:48,) Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? — Art thou so vile a hypocrite as to betray thy Lord and Master by that which all men use as the symbol either of love or homage, making it the signal of thy treachery? The heroic behaviour of the blessed Jesus, in the whole period of his sufferings, will be observed by every attentive eye, and felt by every pious heart: although the sacred historians, according to their usual but wonderful simplicity, make no encomiums upon it. With what composure does he go forth to meet the traitor! With what calmness receive that malignant kiss! With what dignity does he deliver himself into the hands of his enemies! Yet plainly showing his superiority over them, and even then leading, as it were, captivity captive! And one of them which were with Jesus — Namely, Peter; struck a servant of the high-priest — Probably the person that seized Jesus first, or was showing greater forwardness than the rest in this business. This servant’s name was Malchus, John 18:10. But why did not Peter draw his sword upon Judas, rather than Malchus? Doubtless because Judas had concealed his purpose so well from the disciples, that Peter did not suspect him, nor understand the treacherous design of his kiss. Though this might seem a courageous action of Peter, it was really very imprudent; and had not Christ, by some secret influence, overawed their spirits, it is very probable that not only Peter, but the rest of the apostles, might have been cut to pieces. Accordingly, Jesus ordered him to sheath his sword, telling him that his unseasonable and imprudent defence might prove the occasion of his destruction; or rather, as Grotius interprets it, that there was no need of fighting in his defence, because God would punish the Jews for putting him to death. See Revelation 13:10; where this very expression, they that take the sword shall perish with the sword, is used in predicting the destruction of the persecutors of true Christians. Christ told him, likewise, that his rash conduct implied both a distrust of the divine providence, which can always employ a variety of means for the safety of his servants, and gross ignorance of the Scriptures. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father — Who heareth me always; and he shall give me more than twelve legions of angels — “The legion was a Roman military term, and as the band which now surrounded them was a Roman cohort, our Lord might make use of this term by way of contrast, to show what an inconsiderable thing the cohort was, in comparison of the force he could summon to his assistance; — more than twelve legions, not of soldiers, but of angels — Instead of twelve deserting, timorous disciples! How dreadfully irresistible would such an army of angels have been, when one of these celestial spirits was able to destroy 185,000 Assyrians at one stroke! 2 Kings 19:35.” Peter, it must be observed, had not only wounded the ear of the high-priest’s servant, but had actually cut it off. Jesus, however, repaired this injury; He touched his ear and healed him, Luke 22:51; either putting the ear on again, which was cut off, or creating a new one in the place of it: or if he performed the cure in any other way, he equally demonstrated both his goodness and power; and it is surprising that such a miracle, done in such circumstances, made no impression on those that came to apprehend him, especially as he put them in mind, at the same time, of his other miracles. For,

51. One… drew his sword — Two swords, as appears by Luke 22:38, were in possession of the disciples, and perhaps two disciples proposed to resist, as appears probable by Luke 22:49. Our Lord is being bound and gives no reply. But one of them, Peter, draws his unbidden sword. The Greek word for sword here used is macaira, machaira, and signifies a knife, which was used either as a weapon, as a slaughter-knife, or a sacrificial knife for slaying and dividing the victim. The two knives used by the two disciples in preparing the passover lamb were, probably, the swords in possession on the present occasion. A servant of the high priest — John tells us his name was Malchus. Jesus requests the officers to pause until he could remedy the matter, and he heals the ear of Malchus and utters the following rebuke.

Not one step can the multitude stir while our Lord is engaged in this work and uttering these words. They obey their Lord, unconscious of his supremacy or the secret of their own obedience. And why did not they cease to bind him when they saw his miracles? We answer, the very fact that they found themselves able to bind him induced them to proceed. They doubtless paused in surprise at his deed. Yet, since he was so weak as to submit and to be bound, it was plain, (so they inferred,) that he was a mortal and a malefactor. If he is supernatural, why does he not break our bands and drive us from his presence and become King Messiah? Our Lord answers in the following verses. How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled?

Smote off his ear — He meant doubtless to smite off his head; but perhaps the same power that healed, prevented the true aim of the blow.

Verse 51. One of them which were with Jesus, &c. — This, as we learn from St. John, was Peter; always forward and impetuous until experience and the richer supplies of grace new moulded and renewed his spirit. He not improbably thought of setting an example of courageous resistance to the other disciples, having faith in his Master’s power to enable to conquer many by a few, as in the instances of the Old Testament. But this act of mistaken zeal, and of faith exercised without authority or warrant, gave occasion for a new display of the mild and merciful character of our Lord, and for teaching several important lessons. He healed the wound inflicted upon the servant of the high priest, probably by reuniting the parts, and taught that his cause was not to be maintained by a warfare of carnal weapons; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Some refer this to the Jews, as though the reason given to Peter to sheathe his sword was, that God himself would take vengeance upon Christ’s enemies in due time, so that those who employed the sword against him should perish by the sword of the Romans. But this interpretation does not well cohere with the occasion; and the words more naturally refer to Peter, who was reproved for using force, by the general principle laid down, that all who took the sword, meaning as he took it, should perish by it. These words were not designed to prohibit the use of the sword on every occasion; or why should our Lord have permitted his disciples to wear swords or hangers as Peter did, according to the custom of the Jews on travel, to defend themselves against robbers? So also the magistrate, when he “beareth not the sword in vain” fulfils his duty; and it would be difficult to prove from the New Testament, that strictly defensive national wars are unlawful. But our Lord manifestly designed to teach that injuries for the sake of RELIGION are not to be repelled by retaliative violence, but submitted to with patience; and that his cause was not to be maintained or promoted by the strifes of an earthly warfare, or by civil coercion: “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight;” words which show that such as is the nature of the kingdom are the means by which it is appropriately upheld and maintained. In both these views the lesson was most important:

1. To the disciples so long as Christianity should be under persecution. In no instance were they to resist or “return evil for evil, but contrariwise, blessing;” after the example of him who healed the wound of Malchus, although one of those who had “come out against him.” By the opposite conduct they would take their cause out of the hand of God, and yet would not escape danger; there was a sword still to which they would be exposed; after the sword of man, certainly the sword of God, “He that saveth his life,” by such or any other unlawful means, “shall lose it.”

2. The lesson was equally important to the Church, and no doubt looked onward to the time when Christianity should become powerful and triumphant. He who foresaw all things knew that the time would come when his servants would fight for his kingdom as though it were a civil, not a spiritual institution, and when compulsion and persecution would be the instruments to which they would resort under pretence of repelling Christ’s enemies, or increasing the number of his adherents. The doom of persecuting Churches and persecutors is here, therefore, forewritten by him who, from the first, disclaimed such officious disciples, even when so far sincere as to believe they were “doing God service.” “They that take the sword shall perish by the sword;” by the awakened vengeance, often of injured communities debarred of the rights of conscience, or the slower but still certain vengeance of Him who especially abhors all zeal which is not animated by the mild flame of charity.

V. 52. All they that take the sword-Without God's giving it them: without sufficient authority.

Verse 52. Put up again thy sword into his place] Neither Christ nor his religion is to be defended by the secular arm. God is sufficiently able to support his ark: Uzzah need not stretch out his hand on the occasion. Even the shadow of public justice is not to be resisted by a private person, when coming from those in public authority. The cause of a Christian is the cause of God: sufferings belong to one, and vengeance to the other. Let the cause, therefore, rest in his hands, who will do it ample justice. Shall perish with the sword] Instead of apolountai, shall perish, many excellent MSS., versions, and fathers, have apoqanountai, shall die. The general meaning of this verse is, they who contend in battle are likely, on both sides, to become the sacrifices of their mutual animosities. But it is probably a prophetic declaration of the Jewish and Roman states. The Jews put our Lord to death under the sanction of the Romans-both took the sword against Christ, and both perished by it. The Jews by the sword of the Romans, and the Romans by that of the Goths, Vandals, &c. The event has verified the prediction-the Jewish government has been destroyed upwards of 1700 years, and the Roman upwards of 1000. Confer with this passage, Psalms 2:4Psalm 2:4, 9; 110:1, 5, 6. But how came Peter to have a sword? Judea was at this time so infested with robbers and cut-throats that it was not deemed safe for any person to go unarmed. He probably carried one for his mere personal safety.

Verses 50-54. Jesus said, Friend Gr. etaire, companion; wherefore — Gr. ef’ w, For what, or against whom, art thou come? — Against me, thy Teacher, Saviour, and Lord? And to put me into the hands of murderers? Our Lord also added, (see Luke 22:48,) Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? — Art thou so vile a hypocrite as to betray thy Lord and Master by that which all men use as the symbol either of love or homage, making it the signal of thy treachery? The heroic behaviour of the blessed Jesus, in the whole period of his sufferings, will be observed by every attentive eye, and felt by every pious heart: although the sacred historians, according to their usual but wonderful simplicity, make no encomiums upon it. With what composure does he go forth to meet the traitor! With what calmness receive that malignant kiss! With what dignity does he deliver himself into the hands of his enemies! Yet plainly showing his superiority over them, and even then leading, as it were, captivity captive! And one of them which were with Jesus — Namely, Peter; struck a servant of the high-priest — Probably the person that seized Jesus first, or was showing greater forwardness than the rest in this business. This servant’s name was Malchus, John 18:10. But why did not Peter draw his sword upon Judas, rather than Malchus? Doubtless because Judas had concealed his purpose so well from the disciples, that Peter did not suspect him, nor understand the treacherous design of his kiss. Though this might seem a courageous action of Peter, it was really very imprudent; and had not Christ, by some secret influence, overawed their spirits, it is very probable that not only Peter, but the rest of the apostles, might have been cut to pieces. Accordingly, Jesus ordered him to sheath his sword, telling him that his unseasonable and imprudent defence might prove the occasion of his destruction; or rather, as Grotius interprets it, that there was no need of fighting in his defence, because God would punish the Jews for putting him to death. See Revelation 13:10; where this very expression, they that take the sword shall perish with the sword, is used in predicting the destruction of the persecutors of true Christians. Christ told him, likewise, that his rash conduct implied both a distrust of the divine providence, which can always employ a variety of means for the safety of his servants, and gross ignorance of the Scriptures. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father — Who heareth me always; and he shall give me more than twelve legions of angels — “The legion was a Roman military term, and as the band which now surrounded them was a Roman cohort, our Lord might make use of this term by way of contrast, to show what an inconsiderable thing the cohort was, in comparison of the force he could summon to his assistance; — more than twelve legions, not of soldiers, but of angels — Instead of twelve deserting, timorous disciples! How dreadfully irresistible would such an army of angels have been, when one of these celestial spirits was able to destroy 185,000 Assyrians at one stroke! 2 Kings 19:35.” Peter, it must be observed, had not only wounded the ear of the high-priest’s servant, but had actually cut it off. Jesus, however, repaired this injury; He touched his ear and healed him, Luke 22:51; either putting the ear on again, which was cut off, or creating a new one in the place of it: or if he performed the cure in any other way, he equally demonstrated both his goodness and power; and it is surprising that such a miracle, done in such circumstances, made no impression on those that came to apprehend him, especially as he put them in mind, at the same time, of his other miracles. For,

Ver. 52. All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. No nation allows of private war. Justice must not be administered by faction, fury, and passion. The judge who bears his sovereign’s sword will punish assassins with death. They also who employ the sword against the innocent, as the jews now did against Christ, shall perish by the sword. So it happened when the Romans cut them off. This text is generally applicable to wars, as well as to other aggressions. The victorious sing the Te Deum, for God is on their side. But in the next campaign, victory recoils like the tide; then the Te Deum is sung in the enemies’ capital, for God is now on their side also! No, no, sinful nations. God is against you both, and making you a dreadful scourge one to the other because of your avarice, pride, impiety, and crimes. Hasten therefore to make peace, and implore the divine mercy and protection.

52. Sword into its place — The sword has its place, but its place is not the hands of the apostles. Our Lord does not command the sword to be flung away. As a recognized instrument of governmental authority, the stern asserter of law and peace, it has its place. Take the sword… perish with the sword — It is plain that this was intended as stating the result of any attempt at resistance on the part of the disciples. But it is expressed with comprehensive wisdom, so as to be true as a general law. At least it states a law of contingency to which all who follow the profession of arms are to submit. We take the sword under the full chance of perishing by it.

V. 53. He will presently give me more than twelve legions of angels-The least of whom, it is probable, could overturn the earth and destroy all the inhabitants of it.

Verse 53. More than twelve legions of angels?] As if he had said, Instead of you twelve, one of whom is a traitor, my Father can give me more than twelve legions of angels to defend me. A legion, at different times, contained different numbers; 4,200, 5,000, and frequently 6,000 men; and from this saying, taking the latter number, which is the common rate, may we not-safely believe that the angels of God amount to more than 72,000?

Verses 50-54. Jesus said, Friend Gr. etaire, companion; wherefore — Gr. ef’ w, For what, or against whom, art thou come? — Against me, thy Teacher, Saviour, and Lord? And to put me into the hands of murderers? Our Lord also added, (see Luke 22:48,) Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? — Art thou so vile a hypocrite as to betray thy Lord and Master by that which all men use as the symbol either of love or homage, making it the signal of thy treachery? The heroic behaviour of the blessed Jesus, in the whole period of his sufferings, will be observed by every attentive eye, and felt by every pious heart: although the sacred historians, according to their usual but wonderful simplicity, make no encomiums upon it. With what composure does he go forth to meet the traitor! With what calmness receive that malignant kiss! With what dignity does he deliver himself into the hands of his enemies! Yet plainly showing his superiority over them, and even then leading, as it were, captivity captive! And one of them which were with Jesus — Namely, Peter; struck a servant of the high-priest — Probably the person that seized Jesus first, or was showing greater forwardness than the rest in this business. This servant’s name was Malchus, John 18:10. But why did not Peter draw his sword upon Judas, rather than Malchus? Doubtless because Judas had concealed his purpose so well from the disciples, that Peter did not suspect him, nor understand the treacherous design of his kiss. Though this might seem a courageous action of Peter, it was really very imprudent; and had not Christ, by some secret influence, overawed their spirits, it is very probable that not only Peter, but the rest of the apostles, might have been cut to pieces. Accordingly, Jesus ordered him to sheath his sword, telling him that his unseasonable and imprudent defence might prove the occasion of his destruction; or rather, as Grotius interprets it, that there was no need of fighting in his defence, because God would punish the Jews for putting him to death. See Revelation 13:10; where this very expression, they that take the sword shall perish with the sword, is used in predicting the destruction of the persecutors of true Christians. Christ told him, likewise, that his rash conduct implied both a distrust of the divine providence, which can always employ a variety of means for the safety of his servants, and gross ignorance of the Scriptures. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father — Who heareth me always; and he shall give me more than twelve legions of angels — “The legion was a Roman military term, and as the band which now surrounded them was a Roman cohort, our Lord might make use of this term by way of contrast, to show what an inconsiderable thing the cohort was, in comparison of the force he could summon to his assistance; — more than twelve legions, not of soldiers, but of angels — Instead of twelve deserting, timorous disciples! How dreadfully irresistible would such an army of angels have been, when one of these celestial spirits was able to destroy 185,000 Assyrians at one stroke! 2 Kings 19:35.” Peter, it must be observed, had not only wounded the ear of the high-priest’s servant, but had actually cut it off. Jesus, however, repaired this injury; He touched his ear and healed him, Luke 22:51; either putting the ear on again, which was cut off, or creating a new one in the place of it: or if he performed the cure in any other way, he equally demonstrated both his goodness and power; and it is surprising that such a miracle, done in such circumstances, made no impression on those that came to apprehend him, especially as he put them in mind, at the same time, of his other miracles. For,

Ver. 53. Twelve legions of angels, a legion to defend each of the apostles, and the Saviour. These would be able to destroy all the unbelievers in a moment. There is then, Peter, no need of thy rash help. In Alexander’s time a Grecian legion was reckoned to be six thousand six hundred and sixty six. The Romans retained the Greek word, and so do all the versions, because in military arrangements we have no correspondent word. But had such interposition been admitted, how should the scriptures be fulfilled, which speak of the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

53. Thinkest thou — Addressed to Peter to show him that there was no place for, because no need of, a human sword. How contemptible to suppose that He needs thy sword, at whose prayer legions of angels would troop from the skies.

Twelve legions — A legion to each apostle, naming the official number notwithstanding the defection of Judas.

Verse 53. Twelve legions of angels. — Peter’s distrust in the wisdom and care of God is here reproved. “Is my Father less concerned for my safety than thou? And were it necessary, would he not in answer to my prayer, even now, arti, in this very juncture, surround me not with a few weak disciples, but with twelve legions of angels?” The Roman legion, to which the allusion probably is, was composed, at this period, of six thousand men.

Verse 54. But how then] Had I such a defence-shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say, that thus it must be? That is, that I am to suffer and die for the sin of the world. Probably the Scriptures to which our Lord principally refers are Psa 22, 69, and especially Isaiah 53, and Daniel 9:24-27. Christ shows that they had no power against him but what he permitted; and that he willingly gave up himself into their hands.

Verses 50-54. Jesus said, Friend Gr. etaire, companion; wherefore — Gr. ef’ w, For what, or against whom, art thou come? — Against me, thy Teacher, Saviour, and Lord? And to put me into the hands of murderers? Our Lord also added, (see Luke 22:48,) Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? — Art thou so vile a hypocrite as to betray thy Lord and Master by that which all men use as the symbol either of love or homage, making it the signal of thy treachery? The heroic behaviour of the blessed Jesus, in the whole period of his sufferings, will be observed by every attentive eye, and felt by every pious heart: although the sacred historians, according to their usual but wonderful simplicity, make no encomiums upon it. With what composure does he go forth to meet the traitor! With what calmness receive that malignant kiss! With what dignity does he deliver himself into the hands of his enemies! Yet plainly showing his superiority over them, and even then leading, as it were, captivity captive! And one of them which were with Jesus — Namely, Peter; struck a servant of the high-priest — Probably the person that seized Jesus first, or was showing greater forwardness than the rest in this business. This servant’s name was Malchus, John 18:10. But why did not Peter draw his sword upon Judas, rather than Malchus? Doubtless because Judas had concealed his purpose so well from the disciples, that Peter did not suspect him, nor understand the treacherous design of his kiss. Though this might seem a courageous action of Peter, it was really very imprudent; and had not Christ, by some secret influence, overawed their spirits, it is very probable that not only Peter, but the rest of the apostles, might have been cut to pieces. Accordingly, Jesus ordered him to sheath his sword, telling him that his unseasonable and imprudent defence might prove the occasion of his destruction; or rather, as Grotius interprets it, that there was no need of fighting in his defence, because God would punish the Jews for putting him to death. See Revelation 13:10; where this very expression, they that take the sword shall perish with the sword, is used in predicting the destruction of the persecutors of true Christians. Christ told him, likewise, that his rash conduct implied both a distrust of the divine providence, which can always employ a variety of means for the safety of his servants, and gross ignorance of the Scriptures. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father — Who heareth me always; and he shall give me more than twelve legions of angels — “The legion was a Roman military term, and as the band which now surrounded them was a Roman cohort, our Lord might make use of this term by way of contrast, to show what an inconsiderable thing the cohort was, in comparison of the force he could summon to his assistance; — more than twelve legions, not of soldiers, but of angels — Instead of twelve deserting, timorous disciples! How dreadfully irresistible would such an army of angels have been, when one of these celestial spirits was able to destroy 185,000 Assyrians at one stroke! 2 Kings 19:35.” Peter, it must be observed, had not only wounded the ear of the high-priest’s servant, but had actually cut it off. Jesus, however, repaired this injury; He touched his ear and healed him, Luke 22:51; either putting the ear on again, which was cut off, or creating a new one in the place of it: or if he performed the cure in any other way, he equally demonstrated both his goodness and power; and it is surprising that such a miracle, done in such circumstances, made no impression on those that came to apprehend him, especially as he put them in mind, at the same time, of his other miracles. For,

54. Scriptures be fulfilled — So far as man is concerned, he is really and truly under no compulsion, but lays down his life of himself. But there is a higher law by which he is most perfectly bound. The counsel of God is, that he shall pursue a certain course of duty, and that course has been predicted in the Scripture. The plan of God must be obeyed, and the Scriptures must not be falsified. From all which we argue that our Saviour was intrinsically able to break the Scriptures; but that the all-wise Jehovah did select of all possible beings to be Messiah that one who, with full power to disobey, would yet most perfectly obey his will. See note on Matthew 1:4-11.

Verse 54. But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled? &c. — Peter’s ignorance of the Scriptures is also reproved; the predictions and types of which most unequivocally declare that “the Messiah should be cut off,” and that even by the instrumentality of unjust men, he should “pour out his soul unto death, and make intercession for the transgressors.” But by thus referring to the declarations of the prophets, our Lord not only reproved Peter, but placed a support beneath the faith of his disciples, which might otherwise have been fatally shaken by the occurrences which followed, to them so mysterious and unexpected.

V. 55. Mark 14:48; Luke 22:52

Verse 55. Are ye come out as against a thief] At this time Judea was much infested by robbers, so that armed men were obliged to be employed against them-to this our Lord seems to allude. See Clarke on “Matthew 26:52”.

I sat daily with you] Why come in this hostile manner? Every day, for four days past, ye might have met with me in the temple, whither I went to teach you the way of salvation. See Clarke on “Matthew 21:17”.

Verses 55, 56. In that same hour, Jesus said to the multitude — And particularly unto the chief priests and elders, &c, Luke 22:52, Are ye come out as against a thief, &c. — Or robber, that would make a desperate resistance, armed in this way with swords and staves, as if you came to seize me at the hazard of your lives? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple — When you had opportunities in abundance to have secured me, if there had been any crime with which you could have charged me: yet then you laid no hold on me — Ye took me not; so Mark. All this was done, &c. — I know the reason of all this better than you yourselves do: you have hitherto been kept under a secret restraint, which is now removed; and this is your hour, in which God has let you loose against me, and the power of darkness is now permitted to rage with peculiar violence, Luke 22:53; for it is under the instigation of Satan and his infernal powers that you now act, with whatever pious names you may affect to consecrate the deed. That the Scriptures might be fulfilled — That is, hereby those predictions of the prophets are fulfilled which were uttered under an infallible prescience that all these things would be done. “This,” says Dr. Doddridge, “was a consideration which, if duly applied, might have prevented his disciples from being offended at his sufferings: and it strongly intimated that he still kept up the claim, which he had formerly made, of being the Messiah; and that what he was now to go through was so far from being at all inconsistent with that claim, that, on the whole, it was absolutely necessary, in order to make it out to full satisfaction.” Then all the disciples forsook him and fled — Immediately, it seems, as soon as they saw him in the hands of his enemies, notwithstanding that they might have followed him with safety, as the priests had no design against them. “Perhaps, however, they were afraid that the action of Peter would be imputed to them all, and might bring their lives into danger. But, whatever they apprehended, their precipitate flight in these circumstances was the basest cowardice and ingratitude, considering not only how lately they had been warned of their danger, and what solemn promises they had made of a courageous adherence to Christ; but also what an agony they had just seen him in; what zeal he had a few moments before showed in their defence, what amazing power he had exerted to terrify his enemies into a compliance with that part of his demand which related to the safety of his friends, John 18:6-8; and especially that his prophecy of their continued usefulness in his church was equivalent to a promise of their preservation, whatever danger they might now meet with.” But thus our Lord’s prediction concerning their being offended and forsaking him, verse 31, was fulfilled; and by his permitting them to act in this false and cowardly manner, we may learn not to depend too confidently on the friendship and fidelity even of the very best of men.

55. In that same hour — While led in bonds by the band. To the multitudes — Luke says, “to the chief priests, captains of the temple, and elders.” It was doubtless in hearing of the multitudes, but intentionally aimed at the dignitaries mentioned. Come out — Voluntarily, not sent out by authority, like the poor soldiery. These dignitaries were the principal and guilty movers. And so anxious were they to see it done, that they compromised their dignity in coming out to the spot at that late hour. As against a thief — Rather a robber. They knew his purity, his holiness, his mysterious power of rebuke. Yet they would slay him as a malefactor. To take me — Why was so formidable a body sent to apprehend a single individual? Doubtless they feared his miraculous powers, and had a sort of vague notion that a mighty force was necessary to overcome him. When they felt his miraculous repressive influences, and saw his last miracle of healing, they were probably alarmed. But when they saw him still submit they imagined themselves too strong for him.

Daily — His teaching was daily; their assault is nightly. Luke adds to our Lord’s words, “but this is your hour and the power of darkness.” These words further explain that our Lord submits because his ministry is finished, and the work of suffering at the hands of sinners has commenced.

Verse 55. As against a thief, &c. — This is a trait of dignity. While he submitted to it, he spurned the degradation of the manner of his apprehension, hunted out by night with torches and lanterns as a thief who was hiding himself from justice, and dared not appear by day. He reminds them, therefore, that he had appeared among them openly, daily teaching in the temple, his whole conduct and doctrine being made manifest to all, when he might have been apprehended had any just charge been laid against him. Thus were their treachery and cowardice reproved.

Verse 56. But all this was done] This is probably the observation of the evangelist. See Clarke on “Matthew 2:23”.

Then all the disciples forsook him and fled.] O what is man! How little is even his utmost sincerity to be depended on! Jesus is abandoned by all!-even zealous Peter and loving John are among the fugitives! Was ever master so served by his scholars? Was ever parent so treated by his children? Is there not as much zeal and love among them all as might make one martyr for God and truth? Alas! no. He had but twelve who professed inviolable attachment to him; one of these betrayed him, another denied him with oaths, and the rest run away and utterly abandon him to his implacable enemies! Are there not found among his disciples still, 1st. Persons who betray him and his cause? 2dly. Persons who deny him and his people? 3dly. Persons who abandon him, his people, his cause, and his truth? Reader! dost thou belong to any of these classes?

Verses 55, 56. In that same hour, Jesus said to the multitude — And particularly unto the chief priests and elders, &c, Luke 22:52, Are ye come out as against a thief, &c. — Or robber, that would make a desperate resistance, armed in this way with swords and staves, as if you came to seize me at the hazard of your lives? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple — When you had opportunities in abundance to have secured me, if there had been any crime with which you could have charged me: yet then you laid no hold on me — Ye took me not; so Mark. All this was done, &c. — I know the reason of all this better than you yourselves do: you have hitherto been kept under a secret restraint, which is now removed; and this is your hour, in which God has let you loose against me, and the power of darkness is now permitted to rage with peculiar violence, Luke 22:53; for it is under the instigation of Satan and his infernal powers that you now act, with whatever pious names you may affect to consecrate the deed. That the Scriptures might be fulfilled — That is, hereby those predictions of the prophets are fulfilled which were uttered under an infallible prescience that all these things would be done. “This,” says Dr. Doddridge, “was a consideration which, if duly applied, might have prevented his disciples from being offended at his sufferings: and it strongly intimated that he still kept up the claim, which he had formerly made, of being the Messiah; and that what he was now to go through was so far from being at all inconsistent with that claim, that, on the whole, it was absolutely necessary, in order to make it out to full satisfaction.” Then all the disciples forsook him and fled — Immediately, it seems, as soon as they saw him in the hands of his enemies, notwithstanding that they might have followed him with safety, as the priests had no design against them. “Perhaps, however, they were afraid that the action of Peter would be imputed to them all, and might bring their lives into danger. But, whatever they apprehended, their precipitate flight in these circumstances was the basest cowardice and ingratitude, considering not only how lately they had been warned of their danger, and what solemn promises they had made of a courageous adherence to Christ; but also what an agony they had just seen him in; what zeal he had a few moments before showed in their defence, what amazing power he had exerted to terrify his enemies into a compliance with that part of his demand which related to the safety of his friends, John 18:6-8; and especially that his prophecy of their continued usefulness in his church was equivalent to a promise of their preservation, whatever danger they might now meet with.” But thus our Lord’s prediction concerning their being offended and forsaking him, verse 31, was fulfilled; and by his permitting them to act in this false and cowardly manner, we may learn not to depend too confidently on the friendship and fidelity even of the very best of men.

56. But all this was done — Mark puts words somewhat similar to these into the mouth of our Lord; but it is plain that these are the words of the evangelist. No doubt our Lord expressed the sentiment which the evangelist expresses. All the disciples forsook him and fled — Forbidden to fight, and unable to aid their Master, nothing save flight seemed obvious to the disciples. Passive courage is far more difficult than action. In the moment of panic, it hardly occurred to them to walk by his side, and meet, if need be, the malefactor’s death. From Gethsemane the whole band proceeds back to the city, perhaps through the gate in front of the temple, and, if we trace its course aright, crossing the bridge of the Tyropoeon, reaches the palace of Caiaphas and Annas, on the northernmost part of Mount Zion, between the Armory and Millo. (See our plan of Ancient Jerusalem.)

Verse 56. But this was done, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. — This is not a remark of the evangelist thrown into the account, as the division of the verses would intimate, but the continuance of the address of Christ to those who came to apprehend him; not indeed designed for their instruction, but for ours. Those scriptures were fulfilled by the circumstances of our Lord’s apprehension, which foretold the treachery of Judas, the leader of the band, and by all those also which refer to his humiliation in being accounted and treated as the lowest criminals. Thus, as to Judas, Psalms 41:9Psalm 41:9: “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” And, with reference to his being treated as a transgressor, and as a thief, Isaiah’s words, he was “numbered with the transgressors,” may apply both to his apprehension in the manner of criminals of this class, and his being placed between two of them on the cross; although, doubtless, it has also a more extended meaning. The desertion of the disciples, immediately added, fulfilled another scripture before quoted from Zechariah. — The shepherd being smitten, the sheep were then scattered.

V. 57. They led him away to Caiaphas-From the house of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, to whom they had carried him first. Mark 14:53; Luke 22:54; John 18:12.

Verse 57. They-led him away to Caiaphas] John says, John 18:13, that they led him first to Annas; but this appears to have been done merely to do him honour as the father-in-law of Caiaphas, and his colleague in the high priesthood. But as the Sanhedrin was assembled at the house of Caiaphas, it was there he must be brought to undergo his mock trial: but see Clarke on “John 18:13”.

Verses 57, 58. And they led him away to Caiaphas — From Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, to whom they had carried him first; where the scribes and the elders — Or chief members of the sanhedrim; were assembled — Doubtless by a summons from Caiaphas, and were waiting for Jesus to be brought before them. But Peter followed him afar off — Variously agitated by conflicting passions: love constrained him to follow his Master; fear made him follow him afar off. Unto the high-priest’s palace — Or, the court of the high-priest’s house, as Campbell translates it. From verse 69, as well as from what we are told in the other gospels, it is evident that Peter was only in the court without, which, though enclosed on all sides, was open above, nor was it any wise extraordinary to kindle a fire in such a place. And went in and sat with the servants — Twn uphretwn, rather, with the officers, the servants of the public, or official servants of those in authority, as the word commonly means. These were unfit companions for Peter, as the event showed.

§ 134. — JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS AND THE SANHEDRIM, 57-68. We should not know from Matthew that our Lord was led to Annas, or Hananiah, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, before he was led to Caiaphas. John details the facts that occurred before Annas. From Annas, he was sent bound to Caiaphas, who was then the high priest, and whose residence may have adjoined that of Annas. While Christ was before Annas, the Sanhedrim was assembling at the palace of Caiaphas, preparatory to the arraignment of Jesus before them.

57. Where the scribes and the elders were assembled — The usual place of assemblage for the great Sanhedrim was at the council room in the temple precincts. But this being an extraordinary, perhaps irregular and partial meeting, is held at the palace of the pontiff.

Verse 57. To Caiaphas the high priest. — He was led first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas; but as nothing of importance took place there, this circumstance is omitted by all the evangelists except John. Why he was first taken to Annas, who had been deposed from the high priest’s office by the Romans, does not appear. He, however, sent him bound to Caiaphas, in whose palace the great council had assembled to determine his case.

V. 58. But Peter followed him afar off-Variously agitated by conflicting passions; love constrained him to follow his Master; fear made him follow afar off.

And going in, sat with the servants-Unfit companions as the event showed.

Verse 58. Peter followed him afar off] Poor Peter! this is the beginning of his dreadful fall. His fear kept him from joining the company, and publicly acknowledging his Lord; and his affection obliged him to follow at a distance that he might see the end.

And sat with the servants, to see the end.] When a man is weak in faith, and can as yet only follow Christ at a distance, he should avoid all dangerous places, and the company of those who are most likely to prove a snare to him. Had not Peter got to the high priest’s palace, and sat down with the servants, he would not thus have denied his Lord and Master. Servants-officers, uphretwn. Such as we term serjeants, constables, &c.

Verses 57, 58. And they led him away to Caiaphas — From Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, to whom they had carried him first; where the scribes and the elders — Or chief members of the sanhedrim; were assembled — Doubtless by a summons from Caiaphas, and were waiting for Jesus to be brought before them. But Peter followed him afar off — Variously agitated by conflicting passions: love constrained him to follow his Master; fear made him follow him afar off. Unto the high-priest’s palace — Or, the court of the high-priest’s house, as Campbell translates it. From verse 69, as well as from what we are told in the other gospels, it is evident that Peter was only in the court without, which, though enclosed on all sides, was open above, nor was it any wise extraordinary to kindle a fire in such a place. And went in and sat with the servants — Twn uphretwn, rather, with the officers, the servants of the public, or official servants of those in authority, as the word commonly means. These were unfit companions for Peter, as the event showed.

58. Followed him afar off — Though, with the rest, Peter had fled, he was by no means contented to leave his Master without knowing his fate; hoping, perhaps, that he would yet by some unknown turn deliver himself. He follows him to the palace of the high priest, to know what will be the result.

Verse 58. Peter followed him afar off. — Between the period of Christ’s being taken to Annas, and thence to Caiaphas, Peter, and also John, appear to have recovered their fright, and to have followed their Master to his place of trial; but Peter afar off, as fearful of being discovered; and it was probably this parleying with his fears which increased them, and led to those shameful acts which followed.

The high priest’s palace. — The word aulh properly signifies an open court, but sometimes is used for the building also to which it is attached. Here it seems to signify the interior court in the middle of a large oriental house, which was generally in the form of a square, enclosing this area. The court itself was open at the top.

Verse 59. All the council sought false witness] What a prostitution of justice!-they first resolve to ruin him, and then seek the proper means of effecting it: they declare him criminal, and after that do all they can to fix some crime upon him, that they may appear to have some shadow of justice on their side when they put him to death. It seems to have been a common custom of this vile court to employ false witness, on any occasion, to answer their own ends. See this exemplified in the case of Stephen, Acts 6:11-13.

Verses 59, 60. The chief priests, and all the council, sought false witness — “When the council found that Jesus declined answering the questions, whereby they would have drawn from him an acknowledgment of his being the Messiah, they examined many witnesses to prove his having assumed that character; for it appears, by what happened afterward, that they considered such a pretension as blasphemy in his mouth, who, being nothing but a man, as they supposed, could not, without affronting the majesty of God, take the title of God’s Son, which of right belonged to the Messiah. But, in examining the witnesses, they acted like interested and enraged persecutors, rather than impartial judges; for they formed their questions after such a manner as, if possible, to draw from them expressions which they might pervert into suspicions of guilt, whereupon they might condemn Jesus. But found none, though many false witnesses came — Notwithstanding they were at the utmost pains to procure such a proof as in the eye of the law would justify the sentence which they were resolved at all hazards to pass upon Jesus, they exerted themselves to no purpose. Because, though they suborned many witnesses, these, in giving their testimony, contradicted one another; a circumstance which the most illiterate person in the court could not but be sensible invalidated their evidence.” “As this was a great proof of Christ’s innocence, so it is a singular instance of the power of God over men’s minds, that, for all the rewards these great men could offer, no two consistent witnesses could be procured to charge him with any gross crime. Possibly, the exertion of his miraculous power, in striking to the ground those that were most forward to seize him, might intimidate the spirits of some who might otherwise have been prevailed upon.” At last came two false witnesses — Such they were, although part of what they said was true, because our Lord did not speak some of the words they mentioned at all; nor any of them in the sense in which they represented them as being spoken. See Macknight and Doddridge.

59. Sought false witness — The consequences of their haste now alarmed the conspirators. Precipitated by the offer of Judas to betray Jesus, they had him on their hands before the accusation was planned and the evidence arranged. They have a criminal without a crime. As they dare not sentence him to death without some satisfactory inculpation, they are in a strait for charges and evidence.

Verse 59. Sought false witnesses. — They sought them among the by- standers, probably offering bribes by their officers, or inviting those who were zealous for their law to come forward to secure the condemnation of so great a reputed subverter of it. False prophets, seducers of the people to idolatry, and blasphemers were to be put to death; and the object was, to obtain witnesses to prove either that he was a false prophet or a blasphemer; but as the law required that, in capital cases, two or three witnesses should agree in their testimony, and it was necessary also to lay something like consistent and plausible evidence before the Roman governor, in order to secure his confirmation of their sentence, they kept up some appearance of regard at least to their forms of justice. These, however, appear, from Maimonides, to have been extremely lax in the cases of persons charged with the spiritual offences above mentioned. “The judgment of a deceiver is not as the rest of capital punishments: his witnesses are hid, and he has no premonition or warning as the rest of those that are put to death; and if he goes out of the sanhedrim acquitted, and one says, I can prove the charge against him, they turn him back; but if he goes out condemned, and one says, I can prove him innocent, they do not put him again on his trial.” Of these loose notions in the administration of justice, on such occasions, the Jewish council appear in the case of our Lord to have largely availed themselves, to proceed against him in the most unjust and malignant manner.

V. 60. Yet found they none-On whose evidence they could condemn him to die.

At last came two false witnesses-Such they were, although part of what they said was true; because our Lord did not speak some of those words at all; nor any of them in this sense.

Verse 60. Though many false witnesses came] There is an unaccountable confusion in the MSS. in this verse: without stating the variations, which may be seen in Griesbach, I shall give that which I believe to be the genuine sense of the evangelist. Then the chief priests and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; but they found it not, though many false witnesses came up. At last two false witnesses came up, saying; This man said, &c. It is the property of falsity to be ever inconsistent, and to contradict itself; therefore they could not find two consistent testimonies, without which the Jewish law did not permit any person to be put to death. However, the hand of God was in this business: for the credit of Jesus, and the honour of the Christian religion, he would not permit him to be condemned on a false accusation; and, therefore, at last they were obliged to change their ground, and, to the eternal confusion of the unrighteous council, he is condemned on the very evidence of his own innocence, purity, and truth!

Verses 59, 60. The chief priests, and all the council, sought false witness — “When the council found that Jesus declined answering the questions, whereby they would have drawn from him an acknowledgment of his being the Messiah, they examined many witnesses to prove his having assumed that character; for it appears, by what happened afterward, that they considered such a pretension as blasphemy in his mouth, who, being nothing but a man, as they supposed, could not, without affronting the majesty of God, take the title of God’s Son, which of right belonged to the Messiah. But, in examining the witnesses, they acted like interested and enraged persecutors, rather than impartial judges; for they formed their questions after such a manner as, if possible, to draw from them expressions which they might pervert into suspicions of guilt, whereupon they might condemn Jesus. But found none, though many false witnesses came — Notwithstanding they were at the utmost pains to procure such a proof as in the eye of the law would justify the sentence which they were resolved at all hazards to pass upon Jesus, they exerted themselves to no purpose. Because, though they suborned many witnesses, these, in giving their testimony, contradicted one another; a circumstance which the most illiterate person in the court could not but be sensible invalidated their evidence.” “As this was a great proof of Christ’s innocence, so it is a singular instance of the power of God over men’s minds, that, for all the rewards these great men could offer, no two consistent witnesses could be procured to charge him with any gross crime. Possibly, the exertion of his miraculous power, in striking to the ground those that were most forward to seize him, might intimidate the spirits of some who might otherwise have been prevailed upon.” At last came two false witnesses — Such they were, although part of what they said was true, because our Lord did not speak some of the words they mentioned at all; nor any of them in the sense in which they represented them as being spoken. See Macknight and Doddridge.

60. Found none — They found plenty of false witnesses, but they found none that gave in testimony which was evidence before a Roman court to secure their victim’s death.

Verse 60. They found none. — They found many willing, but none who said what was to their purpose; many ready to pervert some acts or words of our Lord to support a criminal charge, but all so vague or incredible, that even they could not receive their testimony; and thus his real innocence was made the more apparent from the encouragement held out to present charges against him.

At the last came two false witnesses, &c. — Two who seemed to be agreed to depose that he had said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. To speak against the temple was deemed a capital offence. For prophesying against the city and temple Jeremiah was said to be worthy of death by the priests and prophets of his day, Jeremiah 26:11, 12. And it was one of the capital charges laid by the false witnesses against Stephen, that he had spoken “blasphemous words against this holy place.” “Yet,” adds St. Mark, “their witness did not agree together.” It was a perversion of his words, “Destroy this temple,” meaning the temple of his body, “and in three days will I raise it up;” their version of which was, I WILL destroy, or, as St. Mark has it, I am ABLE to destroy, the temple of God; two different propositions, which point out the discrepancy of those two witnesses, if we suppose St. Matthew to give the words of one, and St. Mark those of the other. Even had the words been as they stated, yet, as the declaration as to the destruction of the temple was accompanied with the promise to build it up again in three days, the words could not fairly be construed into speaking AGAINST, or blaspheming the temple because of the promise of its restoration. All this, however, availed nothing; and, his condemnation being resolved upon, the high priest assumes that the witnesses had deposed a consistent capital charge; and, seeing no eagerness in our Lord to reply, he arose, as if for the purpose of intimidation, and in order to draw from Christ something which, by his own perverse handling, might corroborate the accusation, and demands, Answerest thou nothing to what these witness against thee?

Verse 61. I am able to destroy the temple of God] 1st. These words were not fairly quoted. Jesus had said, John 2:19, Destroy this temple, and I will build it again in three days. 2dly. The inuendo which they produce, applying these words to a pretended design to destroy the temple at Jerusalem, was utterly unfair; for these words he spoke of the temple of his body. It is very easy, by means of a few small alterations, to render the most holy things and innocent persons odious to the world, and even to take away the life of the innocent.

61. This fellow — The word fellow is added by the translators; but the contempt implied in the word is also implied in the Greek word for THIS. Destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days — This was false testimony so far as the sense was concerned; but it seemed to contain more consistent fact and more plausible charge than anything else they could procure. Our Lord had said, (John 2:19:) “Destroy the temple and I will build it again in three days.” There was surely no hostility to the temple in this; for the destroying was supposed to be performed by them, and the rebuilding by himself.

Verse 62. Answerest thou nothing?] The accusation was so completely frivolous that it merited no notice: besides, Jesus knew that they were determined to put him to death, and that his hour was come; and that therefore remonstrance or defence would be of no use: he had often before borne sufficient testimony to the truth.

Verses 62-64. And the high-priest arose, (Mark, stood up in the midst,) and said, Answerest thou nothing? — When the high-priest found that Jesus took little notice of the things which the witnesses alleged against him, he rose from his seat in a passion, supposing that our Lord intended to put an affront upon the council, and desired him to give the reason of his conduct. But finding this in vain, in order to cut the trial short and insnare him, he adjured him, or required him to answer upon oath, whether or not he was the Christ. I adjure thee — Exorkizw se. “This appears to have been the Jewish manner of administering an oath. The Hebrews [ykch, which in the Old Testament is commonly, by our interpreters, rendered, to make one swear, is justly translated by the LXX. orkizw, or exorkizw. Thus, Genesis 24:3, where we have an account of the oath administered by Abraham to his steward, which is rendered in our Bible, I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, &c., is thus expressed in the LXX., exorkiw se Kurion ton Qeon tou ouranou, &c. I adjure thee by Jehovah, the God of heaven and earth. After such adjuration by a magistrate, or lawful superior, the answer returned by the person adjured was an answer upon oath: a false answer was perjury; and even the silence of the person adjured was not deemed innocent.” He was under the necessity of giving an explicit answer, and of speaking the whole truth without disguise. Compare Exodus 22:11; Leviticus 5:1; and Proverbs 29:24. See Campbell. “The craft of the question lay in this, that if Jesus answered it in the affirmative, they were ready to condemn him as a blasphemer; but if in the negative they proposed to punish him as an impostor, who, by accepting the honours and titles of the Messiah from the people, had deceived them.” Jesus saith, Thou hast said, that is, as Mark expresses it, I am. Being put upon oath, or, according to Jewish customs, adjured by the magistrate, he no longer declines answering. And he adds, Nevertheless, Gr. plhn, moreover, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man — He speaks in the third person, modestly, yet plainly: sitting on the right hand of power — That is, of God: and coming in the clouds of heaven — As he is represented by Daniel 7:13, 14. Our Lord looked very unlike that person now! But nothing could be more awful, more majestic, and becoming, than such an admonition in such circumstances! The sending down of the Holy Ghost, the wonderful progress of the gospel, the destruction of Jerusalem, of the temple, and of the Jewish state, were unquestionable proofs and demonstrations shown forth by Jesus Christ of the infinite power wherewith he was invested at the right hand of God.

62. Answerest thou nothing? — Our Lord was most wisely silent; for what was there in his words, thus given in evidence, to answer? The high priest here behaves most unbecomingly in endeavouring to give importance to what he must have been conscious was nothing.

Verse 63. I adjure thee by the living God] I put thee to thy oath. To this solemn adjuration Christ immediately replies, because he is now called on, in the name of God, to bear another testimony to the truth. The authority of God in the most worthless magistrate should be properly respected. However necessary our Lord saw it to be silent, when the accusations were frivolous, and the evidence contradictory, he felt no disposition to continue this silence, when questioned concerning a truth, for which he came into the world to shed his blood.

Verses 62-64. And the high-priest arose, (Mark, stood up in the midst,) and said, Answerest thou nothing? — When the high-priest found that Jesus took little notice of the things which the witnesses alleged against him, he rose from his seat in a passion, supposing that our Lord intended to put an affront upon the council, and desired him to give the reason of his conduct. But finding this in vain, in order to cut the trial short and insnare him, he adjured him, or required him to answer upon oath, whether or not he was the Christ. I adjure thee — Exorkizw se. “This appears to have been the Jewish manner of administering an oath. The Hebrews [ykch, which in the Old Testament is commonly, by our interpreters, rendered, to make one swear, is justly translated by the LXX. orkizw, or exorkizw. Thus, Genesis 24:3, where we have an account of the oath administered by Abraham to his steward, which is rendered in our Bible, I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, &c., is thus expressed in the LXX., exorkiw se Kurion ton Qeon tou ouranou, &c. I adjure thee by Jehovah, the God of heaven and earth. After such adjuration by a magistrate, or lawful superior, the answer returned by the person adjured was an answer upon oath: a false answer was perjury; and even the silence of the person adjured was not deemed innocent.” He was under the necessity of giving an explicit answer, and of speaking the whole truth without disguise. Compare Exodus 22:11; Leviticus 5:1; and Proverbs 29:24. See Campbell. “The craft of the question lay in this, that if Jesus answered it in the affirmative, they were ready to condemn him as a blasphemer; but if in the negative they proposed to punish him as an impostor, who, by accepting the honours and titles of the Messiah from the people, had deceived them.” Jesus saith, Thou hast said, that is, as Mark expresses it, I am. Being put upon oath, or, according to Jewish customs, adjured by the magistrate, he no longer declines answering. And he adds, Nevertheless, Gr. plhn, moreover, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man — He speaks in the third person, modestly, yet plainly: sitting on the right hand of power — That is, of God: and coming in the clouds of heaven — As he is represented by Daniel 7:13, 14. Our Lord looked very unlike that person now! But nothing could be more awful, more majestic, and becoming, than such an admonition in such circumstances! The sending down of the Holy Ghost, the wonderful progress of the gospel, the destruction of Jerusalem, of the temple, and of the Jewish state, were unquestionable proofs and demonstrations shown forth by Jesus Christ of the infinite power wherewith he was invested at the right hand of God.

63. Held his peace — Thus at once defeating the unjust judge, and calling to mind the prediction of the prophet: “As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.” How valuable a gift is the talent for judicious silence! I adjure thee — The high priest now takes a new turn. The testimony said something about rebuilding the temple. Now the glorious rebuilding of the temple was one of the popular things ascribed to the Messiah. “This man then,” says the high priest to himself, “I understand to be a claimant to the Messiahship.” He therefore puts the adjuration, which every Jew was bound to answer truly. The Christ, the Son of God — The high priest doubtless knew that these two titles meant, according to prophecy, the same being. He joins the two together, with an air of great solemnity, for the purpose of making the claim to them both appear more formidable.

Verse 63. But Jesus held his peace, &c. — The silence of our Lord has been often accounted for by interpreters, from his perceiving that this unjust tribunal was determined upon his destruction; but that would have been a reason for his preserving the same silence throughout the trial. His silence had a deeper meaning: he knew that the wisdom of God had appointed that he should be found guilty upon a charge which was in fact the great truth by which he was glorified, namely, that he professed to be the Son of God; and his silence wholly baffled the intention of the high priest, who evidently was not quite bold enough to pronounce sentence upon so vague a charge without fortifying it by what he might draw forth from our Lord himself. To that charge therefore our Lord answered nothing; and the high priest wholly quits it in order to question him upon a higher and graver matter, as to whether, as had been commonly reported, he had professed to be, not merely the Messiah, but the Christ, the Son of God. No one appears to have been present who had heard our Lord make this profession, although he had done it on a few occasions publicly; and this gives the reason why the high priest, who knew how certainly this would decide the case against him with the sanhedrim, laid him under so solemn an adjuration, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. This was a Jewish mode of placing a witness under oath; and after such a sanction, when adjured by a magistrate, the answer of the witness was, as we should express it, upon oath. By some it is affirmed that an accused person so adjured, was obliged to answer; but this does not certainly appear from any authority adduced. Silence would, however, after so solemn a form, tend greatly to increase suspicion against him. Our Lord, however, hesitated not, but answered under the oath laid upon him: a sufficient proof that his own command in the sermon on the mount, Swear not at all, did not relate to judicial oaths; for he himself submitted in this respect to the practice of the Jewish courts.

V. 64. Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man-He speaks in the third person, modestly, and yet plainly;

Sitting on the right hand of power-That is, the right hand of God: And coming upon the clouds of heaven-As he is represented by Daniel, Daniel 7:13, 14. Our Lord looked very unlike that person now! But nothing could be more awful, more majestic and becoming, than such an admonition in such circumstances!

Verse 64. Thou hast said] That is, I am the Christ, the promised Messiah, (see Clarke on “Matthew 26:25”;) and you and this whole nation shall shortly have the fullest proof of it: for hereafter, in a few years, ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, fully invested with absolute dominion, and coming in the clouds of heaven, to execute judgment upon this wicked race. See Matthew 24:30. Our Lord appears to refer to Daniel 7:13: One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, &c. This may also refer to the final judgment.

Verses 62-64. And the high-priest arose, (Mark, stood up in the midst,) and said, Answerest thou nothing? — When the high-priest found that Jesus took little notice of the things which the witnesses alleged against him, he rose from his seat in a passion, supposing that our Lord intended to put an affront upon the council, and desired him to give the reason of his conduct. But finding this in vain, in order to cut the trial short and insnare him, he adjured him, or required him to answer upon oath, whether or not he was the Christ. I adjure thee — Exorkizw se. “This appears to have been the Jewish manner of administering an oath. The Hebrews [ykch, which in the Old Testament is commonly, by our interpreters, rendered, to make one swear, is justly translated by the LXX. orkizw, or exorkizw. Thus, Genesis 24:3, where we have an account of the oath administered by Abraham to his steward, which is rendered in our Bible, I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, &c., is thus expressed in the LXX., exorkiw se Kurion ton Qeon tou ouranou, &c. I adjure thee by Jehovah, the God of heaven and earth. After such adjuration by a magistrate, or lawful superior, the answer returned by the person adjured was an answer upon oath: a false answer was perjury; and even the silence of the person adjured was not deemed innocent.” He was under the necessity of giving an explicit answer, and of speaking the whole truth without disguise. Compare Exodus 22:11; Leviticus 5:1; and Proverbs 29:24. See Campbell. “The craft of the question lay in this, that if Jesus answered it in the affirmative, they were ready to condemn him as a blasphemer; but if in the negative they proposed to punish him as an impostor, who, by accepting the honours and titles of the Messiah from the people, had deceived them.” Jesus saith, Thou hast said, that is, as Mark expresses it, I am. Being put upon oath, or, according to Jewish customs, adjured by the magistrate, he no longer declines answering. And he adds, Nevertheless, Gr. plhn, moreover, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man — He speaks in the third person, modestly, yet plainly: sitting on the right hand of power — That is, of God: and coming in the clouds of heaven — As he is represented by Daniel 7:13, 14. Our Lord looked very unlike that person now! But nothing could be more awful, more majestic, and becoming, than such an admonition in such circumstances! The sending down of the Holy Ghost, the wonderful progress of the gospel, the destruction of Jerusalem, of the temple, and of the Jewish state, were unquestionable proofs and demonstrations shown forth by Jesus Christ of the infinite power wherewith he was invested at the right hand of God.

64. Thou hast said — The same in sense is given by Mark: “I am.” This was a solemn moment. The titular high priest of the Jews, and their eternal High Priest, are now face to face. the substance is arraigned before the judgment bar of the shadow. One is the representative of the Jewish nation; the other is its Messiah and its true king. The representative, in whom for the time being the nation is embodied, puts the great question, “Are you the Messiah?” The Messiah “witnesses a good confession.” He pronounces the solemn affirmative, “I AM.” And he is REJECTED. The great act is consummated. Well might the high priest rend his clothes. Not because his prisoner had spoken blasphemy, but because himself had denied the Lord that bought him.

Nevertheless — Should rather be moreover. Hereafter — Through all the circumstances of his humiliation, Jesus foresaw with unwavering faith the day of his own exaltation. Shall ye see — Ye who now see me your prisoner will then see me your Judge. The Son of man — He does not say me, but speaks of himself by that title which the Old Testament ascribes to the Messiah.

Sitting on the right hand of power — That is, of Omnipotence. Coming in the clouds of heaven — The words are taken from Daniel 7:13. The prophet is describing Christ’s coming into the presence of his Father to be invested with all power. Its true fulfilment took place at the resurrection. (See on Matthew 28:18.) But as the same Lord will come at the judgment day in that same glory, so the words that describe that same glory are well used, although in a different transaction. The glory wherewith Christ was invested at his resurrection, though mostly unseen by mortal eye, was the same glory as that with which he will be visibly invested at his second coming.

Verse 64. Thou hast said. — This is a Hebrew form of assent or affirmation, equivalent to, “It is truly so as thou hast said;” I am the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Nevertheless I say unto you. — Plhn ought here, as the connection shows, to be rendered not nevertheless, but moreover; for Christ in addition to this confession uttered a solemn prediction of his coming in glory to judge the world.

The right hand of power. — That is, the right hand of God; for in the language of the Jews God is sometimes called POWER. St. Luke has “the power of God.” The meaning is, at the right hand of the powerful or almighty God.

The clouds of heaven. — This phrase not only marks the majesty and glory of Christ’s advent, making as it were “the clouds his chariot, and riding upon the wings of the wind;” but shows that he referred to the celebrated prophecy in Dan. vii, “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like unto the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom,” &c. This prophecy our Lord applied to himself, and declared that as THE SON OF MAN, as well as THE SON OF GOD, having received this universal kingdom, they who now sat as his judges should see him invested with its glories, and armed with its sovereign authority; and that thus his claims both as the CHRIST, and THE SON OF GOD, should be established, to the confusion and punishment of those that rejected him.

V. 65. Then the high priest rent his clothes-Though the high priest was forbidden to rend his clothes (that is, his upper garment) in some cases where others were allowed to do it, Leviticus 21:10; yet in case of blasphemy or any public calamity, it was thought allowable. Caiaphas hereby expressed, in the most artful manner, his horror at hearing such grievous blasphemy.

Verse 65. The high priest rent his clothes] This rending of the high priest’s garments was expressly contrary to the law, Leviticus 10:6; 21:10. But it was a common method of expressing violent grief, Genesis 37:29, 34; Job 1:20, and horror at what was deemed blasphemous or impious. 2 Kings 18:37; 19:1; Acts 14:14. All that heard a blasphemous speech were obliged to rend their clothes, and never to sew them up again. See Lightfoot.

He hath spoken blasphemy] Quesnel’s note on this is worthy of notice. “See here a false zeal, a mask of religion, and a passionate and seditious way of proceeding, tending only to incense and stir up others, all which are common to those who would oppress truth by cabal, and without proof. By crying out, ‘heresy, blasphemy, and faction,’ though contrary to all appearance, men fail not to stir up those in power, to gain the simple, to give some shadow of authority to the ill-disposed, to cast devout but ignorant people into scruples, and thereby to advance the mystery of iniquity, which is the mystery of all ages.” This was the very plan his Catholic brethren adopted in this country, in the reign of Queen Mary, called the bloody queen, because of the many murders of righteous men which she sanctioned at the mouth of her Catholic priesthood.

Verse 65. Then the high-priest rent his clothes — Though the high-priest was forbidden to rend his clothes, (that is, his upper garments,) in some cases, where others were allowed to do it, (Leviticus 10:6; and 21:10;) yet in case of blasphemy, or any public calamity, it was thought allowable, 2 Kings 19:1; 1 Mac. 11:71; Caiaphas, therefore, by this action, expressed in the strongest and most artful manner, his horror at hearing so mean and vile a person as he thought Jesus to be, claiming the sovereignty over Israel, and a seat at the right hand of God, and this when adjured upon oath on so solemn an occasion.

65. The high priest rent his clothes — ”This was not contrary to the law of Leviticus 21:10; for that referred either (but improbably) only to the sacred vestments at the time of sacrifice, or (more properly) only to lamentation for the dead. We see in 1 Macc. 11:71, and in several passages of Scripture, that high priests rent their garments; indeed Sepp tells us that it was prescribed to them actually that they should rend them from below upward.” — Stier.

Spoken blasphemy — In claiming to be the Son of GOD and Judge of mankind. The skill of the high priest is successful in eliciting some ground of charge against JESUS. But it is at a terrible cost, for he fairly makes issue with the Judge of the earth! Jesus Christ affirms himself in the presence of the Jewish nation to be the Messiah, and they pronounce him worthy of death for the claim. What a commentary is all subsequent history upon the issue of that moment!

Verse 65. Rent his clothes. — The high priest was forbidden by the law to rend his garments; but this appears to be intended only of funeral occasions. Upon the hearing of blasphemy the Jewish canons of more modern times obliged every Israelite to rend his clothes, as a token of indignation, astonishment, and grief; and the judges of a court, upon a trial for blasphemy, were enjoined, upon hearing the words of the blasphemy, as repeated by the witnesses, to stand up and rend their garments. In this, therefore, Caiaphas probably followed the custom of his age, or else, by this affectation of peculiar and passionate indignation, gave rise to it in future times. The dress of the high priest out of the temple was not different from that of other Jews, so that the proper pontifical garments were not on this occasion rent.

Blasphemy. — That species of blasphemy which consisted, not in denying God’s attributes, or using reproachful and irreverent language against him, but in attributing to himself, deemed by them a mere man, the majesty and glory peculiar to God.

Verse 66. He is guilty of death.] enocov qanatou esti, he is liable to death. All the forms of justice are here violated. The judge becomes a party and accuser, and proceeds to the verdict without examining whether all the prophecies concerning the Messiah, and the innumerable miracles which he wrought, did not justify him. Examination and proof are the ruin of all calumnies, and of the authors of them, and therefore they take care to keep off from these two things. See Quesnel.

66. What think ye? — He presses his advantage to an immediate vote. Guilty of death — His crime is blasphemy; that is the charge. He is worthy of death; that is the penalty. And the verdict is unanimous. Now why did not immediate execution follow? The obstruction is a formidable one. The Jews are under the Roman government. The Romans have taken from them the power of life and death. Besides, the Scriptures require that he should suffer death from Gentile hands, a reason of which they are unaware.

Verse 66. He is guilty of death. — He is eiocov, obnoxious, liable to death; that is, he deserves to die. This is to be considered as the sentence of the council, to whom, as the president, the high priest put the case, artfully, however, endeavouring to influence their suffrages, by assuming that he had spoken blasphemy, and that there was now no need of witnesses. In all civil cases the power of life and death had been taken away from the Jewish courts by the Romans; but in matters of their religion they had still the power to inflict capital punishments, yet the sentence of the sanhedrim was to be confirmed by the Roman governor before it could be executed. The proper punishment of a blasphemer by their law was stoning; but they were anxious to have our Lord crucified, which was a Roman punishment: they therefore not only sought from Pilate a confirmation of their sentence; but set themselves to induce Pilate to treat him also as an enemy to Cesar, and a seditious opposer of the Roman government, in order that the Roman soldiery might have the charge of his execution. Their motive probably was the fear lest the populace, who favoured him, should, upon seeing him led out to be stoned, accompanied only by a civil force, attempt to rescue him; which they dared not attempt when the Roman garrison was under arms to carry his crucifixion into effect. But in this the overruling providence of God was manifest: for he was to endure the most shameful and torturing death, and to fulfil the words of Scripture, “Cursed is every one that is hanged on a tree.”

Two questions may now be briefly considered: What was the alleged blasphemy for which our Lord was condemned? and in what did the guilt of his judges consist? As to the first, nothing can be more plain than that he could not be condemned simply for professing to be the Messiah, against which there was no law; and it would have been most absurd for a people who were anxiously waiting from age to age for the appearance of Messiah, to have made it capital for any one to profess himself to be the Messiah. Nor was he condemned because, professing to be the Messiah, he failed to prove himself so, and was therefore “a deceiver;” for no proof was demanded, no trial of his claim established; but from his own simple confession of what he was, not even with reference to the deposition of the two witnesses respecting his threatening to destroy the temple, he was adjudged “guilty of death.” If then it was not because he said, I AM THE CHRIST, that he was so condemned, it follows that it was because he added to this the profession that he was the Son of God, and would be demonstrated as such by the dignity and glory of his second coming in the clouds of heaven. And as we find that on having previously professed himself to be the Son of God, the Jews took up stones to stone him as a blasphemer, it is clear that they understood that this profession implied an assumption of Divinity; which our Lord himself never treated as a mistake, by explaining the phrase in any lower sense than they understood it in, either on the occasions referred to, or on his trial. This then was the alleged blasphemy for which our Lord was sentenced to death by the sanhedrim: and this was acknowledged by the Jews themselves, who urged his death, and mocked him upon the cross, “because he said he was the Son of God.” Thus our Lord witnessed to this great truth before his judges, not only that he was “the Son of man,” and the Messiah; but also, as implying the lofty claim of Divinity, that he was THE SON OF GOD. As to the second point, the guilt of his judges, it may indeed be said that, believing him to be a mere man, and yet hearing him assume to himself a claim and a title of Divinity, on their own principles and views they could do nothing less than convict him. But this plausible palliation has no foundation. The trial was for an alleged spiritual offence, and involved therefore theological principles to be determined solely by their own scriptures. Our Lord professed to be the Messiah; there could be no blasphemy simply in that: and if he added to that the claim of “Son of God,” and declared also that he would come “in the clouds of heaven,” their own scriptures had entitled the Messiah “the Son of God,” as in the second Psalm; and had declared that he should come in the clouds of heaven, as in the prophecy of Daniel, to which our Lord referred. Both these passages their most ancient commentators, authorities in their own Church, refer to the Messiah; and the whole question, therefore, between the sanhedrim and Jesus, had his trial been conducted with any thing like honesty and fairness, was whether he had given, or could give, sufficient proofs of his being the Messiah; for if so, the rest, according to their Scriptures, the only law they could follow in this case, necessarily followed: he was the Son of God, according to David; and he would come in the clouds of heaven, according to Daniel. Instead, however, of proceeding in this manner, they closed their eyes upon all the proofs he had given of his being the Messiah, — upon the evidence especially of that stupendous miracle which he had so lately wrought in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, the raising of Lazarus; of which, indeed, it is probable that some of the council had been witnesses, and of which none could be ignorant: nor did they seek on the occasion of his trial any new or more satisfactory proof; but surrendering themselves at once to their prejudices and hatred, first assumed that he was an impostor, then suborned witnesses to substantiate a charge of blasphemy, and finally determined his own confession to be blasphemous; which it could not be, provided he was the Messiah, — the grand point on which the whole turned, but which they determined not to investigate. Thus justice could not be more violently outraged by a court; and the fierce determination with which they sought his death is the strongest proof that the truth of his professions, and consequently his innocence, was a subject on which they not only did not desire information, but on which these blood-thirsty persecutors determined to admit none. The circumstances of the case also demonstrated this: their bargaining with one of his disciples to betray him; their apprehension of him secretly in the night, although he was, as he himself alleged, daily in the temple; and the indecent haste with which they proceeded on so important a trial, beginning and completing it in the night, contrary to the Jewish canons, which enjoined that “capital causes should be tried in the day, and finished in the day;” and, finally, the tumultous manner in which they resisted all the efforts of the Roman governor to save him, — preferring the liberation of a notorious and pestilent robber, to one who had gone about doing good, and against whom they could find no consistent accusation.

V. 67. Then-After he had declared he was the Son of God, the sanhedrim doubtless ordered him to be carried out, while they were consulting what to do. And then it was that the soldiers who kept him began these insults upon him.

Verse 67. Then did they spit in his face] This was done as a mark of the most profound contempt. See Job 16:10; 30:10; Isaiah 50:6; Micah 5:1. The judges now delivered him into the hands of the mob. And buffeted him] Smote him with their fists, ekolafisan. This is the translation of Theophylact. kolafizein, says he, means, “to beat with the hand, the fingers being clenched. sugkamtomenwn twn daktulwn, or, to speak more briefly, to buffet with the fist.”

Smote him with the palms of their hands] errapisan. rapizw, says Suidas, means “pataxai thn gnaqon aplh th ceiri, to smite the cheek with the open hand.” Thus they offered him indignity in all its various and vexatious forms. Insults of this kind are never forgiven by the world: Jesus not only takes no revenge, (though it be completely in his power,) but bears all with meekness, without even one word of reply.

Verses 67, 68. Then did they spit in his face, &c. — Spitting in the face was the greatest contempt and disgrace which could possibly be shown. See Numbers 12:14. Buffeting, or striking a person with the fist on the temples, was esteemed one of the most disgraceful punishments by the Greeks, from whom the Romans might have adopted it. Smiting with the open palm of their hands, was such a dishonour as none but a slave ought to endure. “Because Matthew here says, that they who condemned Jesus spit in his face, and buffeted him: and Mark 14:65, mentions the indignities which the servants in particular put upon him; it appears that he was smitten, blindfolded, and buffeted even by some of the council; who, to ridicule him for having pretended to be the great prophet foretold by Moses, bade him exercise his prophetical gift in guessing who it was that struck him; Prophesy unto us, thou Christ — It was hardly possible for those miscreants to invent any thing more expressive of the contempt in which they held our Lord’s pretensions to be the Messiah. Thus was the Judge of the world placed at the bar of his own creatures, falsely accused by the witnesses, unjustly condemned by his judges, and insulted by all. Yet, because it was agreeable to the end of his coming, he patiently submitted, though he could with a frown have made his judges, his accusers, and those who had him in custody, all to drop down dead in a moment, or to shrivel into nothing.” — Macknight.

67. Then did they spit in his face — Probably upon the retirement of the high priest the apprehenders of Jesus (Luke 22:63) and the crowd proceeded to these insults, He who had at his first arrest plentifully demonstrated his absolute power over his adversaries, now bows his head in complete abandonment to all which their rage pleases to inflict. Buffeted him — Struck him with the clenched fist, and then with the palms or flat hands.

Verse 67. Spit in his face. — This, in all nations, has been held to be an expression of the utmost contempt and abhorrence. The persons who inflicted this and other indignities were probably the officers and creatures of the sanhedrim, then in attendance, to whose rudeness he was surrendered as soon as the sentence of guilty had been pronounced. Buffeted him; and others smote, &c. — Kolafizein signifies to smite with clenched fist; rapizein, to strike with the palm of the hand. And to blows, no doubt severe, they added derision of his prophetic character; for, having blindfolded him, they said, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is it that smote thee? Such is the first affecting scene of our Lord’s humiliation and passion: and yet in these minor circumstances of contumely and insult, with what astonishing particularity were the words of prophecy fulfilled, and that by the perfect free agency of these violent men! “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair. I hid not my face from shame and spitting.”

Verse 68. Prophesy unto us, thou Christ] Their conduct toward him now was expressly prophesied of, by a man whose Divine mission they did not pretend to deny; see Isaiah 50:6. It appears that, before they buffeted him, they bound up his eyes, See Mark 14:65.

Verses 67, 68. Then did they spit in his face, &c. — Spitting in the face was the greatest contempt and disgrace which could possibly be shown. See Numbers 12:14. Buffeting, or striking a person with the fist on the temples, was esteemed one of the most disgraceful punishments by the Greeks, from whom the Romans might have adopted it. Smiting with the open palm of their hands, was such a dishonour as none but a slave ought to endure. “Because Matthew here says, that they who condemned Jesus spit in his face, and buffeted him: and Mark 14:65, mentions the indignities which the servants in particular put upon him; it appears that he was smitten, blindfolded, and buffeted even by some of the council; who, to ridicule him for having pretended to be the great prophet foretold by Moses, bade him exercise his prophetical gift in guessing who it was that struck him; Prophesy unto us, thou Christ — It was hardly possible for those miscreants to invent any thing more expressive of the contempt in which they held our Lord’s pretensions to be the Messiah. Thus was the Judge of the world placed at the bar of his own creatures, falsely accused by the witnesses, unjustly condemned by his judges, and insulted by all. Yet, because it was agreeable to the end of his coming, he patiently submitted, though he could with a frown have made his judges, his accusers, and those who had him in custody, all to drop down dead in a moment, or to shrivel into nothing.” — Macknight.

68. Prophesy unto us — He who claims to be chief of prophets should now give us a specimen of his prophetic powers. Matthew omits to tell us that he was blindfolded, so that they were here putting his prophetic powers to a mock test. Compare these insults before the Jews, which alluded to his claims of Messiahship, with the insults by the Romans, which alluded to his political claims. See note on Matthew 27:26-30.

Thursday, Midnight.

Verse 69. A damsel came unto him] A maid servant, paidiskh. See this translation vindicated by Kypke.

Thou also wast with Jesus] What a noble opportunity had Peter now to show his zeal for the insulted cause of truth, and his attachment to his Master. But, alas! he is shorn of his strength. Constables and maid servants are no company for an apostle, except when he is delivering to them the message of salvation. Evil communications corrupt good manners. Had Peter been in better company, he would not have had so foul a fall.

Verses 69, 70. Now Peter, &c. — Our Lord’s trial in the high-priest’s palace, and Peter’s denying him, being contemporary events, either of them might be related first, as the historian might think most proper. Matthew and Mark describe the trial first, as being the principal fact, but Luke introduces it after Peter’s denials. John has preserved the exact natural order, for he begins with the first denial, because it happened immediately after Peter entered the palace; then gives the history of the trial, as the principal fact, and concludes with the subsequent denials. The apostles, no doubt, were in great consternation when their Master was apprehended, as appears from their forsaking him and fleeing. Some of them, however, recovering out of the panic that had seized them, followed the band at a distance, to see what the end would be. Of this number was Peter, and another disciple, whom John has mentioned without giving his name, and who, therefore, is generally supposed to have been John himself, it being his manner to speak of himself in the third person. See John 13:23; 21:10. “Matthew and Mark seem to differ in the account which they give of the place where Peter first denied his Master. Matthew’s words are, Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, &c. Mark says, Mark 14:66, the denial happened as Peter was beneath in the palace. To reconcile this difference, some suppose that the high- priest’s palace was built so as to form a court; that the fire at which the servants sat was lighted in the court; and that Jesus was examined in the porch, called by Matthew pulwn, and by Mark proaulion. Accordingly they think persons in the court might be said to have been (exw) without, in the palace, that is, without in respect of the covered buildings; and (katw) beneath in the palace with respect to the porch, which was higher than the level of the court. But it appears from John 18:25, that Peter was with the servants at the fire when he denied his Master the third time; and from Luke 22:61, that Jesus looked upon Peter just as he was pronouncing the words of the third denial. Our Lord, therefore, and his disciple, were not, the one in the court and the other in the porch of the palace during his trial, but they were together in one room, Jesus with his judges at the upper end of it, and Peter with the servants at the fire in the other. According to this disposition, Peter might be said to have been without in the hall, that is, without in relation to the crowd of judges, witnesses, and soldiers around Jesus; but in relation to the place where the council sat, he was beneath in the hall, a way of speaking common even in our own language. Further, John says, verse 18, that Peter, after the first denial, stood with the officers at the fire; whereas Matthew and Luke tell us, when he first denied his Master he sat by the fire. It seems, the maid’s words had put him into such confusion, that before he answered her he rose from the seat which the servants had given him on his first coming in.” — Macknight. According to John, the maid who attacked Peter, was the damsel who kept the door. It seems, after having admitted him, she followed him to the fire, and spoke to him in an angry tone, having been informed that it was he who had cut off her fellow-servant’s ear, see John 18:26. Thou also wast with Jesus — She meant when he was apprehended in the garden. This blunt attack threw Peter into such confusion, that he flatly denied his having any thing to do with Jesus, saying, I know not what thou sayest — I do not understand what thou meanest by speaking to me in this manner. Here we see that apostle, who had formerly acknowledged his Master to be the Messiah, who was honoured with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and who had most confidently boasted of fortitude, and a firm attachment to him in the greatest dangers, proved a very coward upon trial.

§ 133. — PETER’S DENIAL AND REPENTANCE, 69-75.

Matthew now suspends the narrative in regard to Jesus, and, out of the precise chronological order, gives the sequel in regard to Peter. When the multitude led Jesus to Caiaphas he followed afar off. And when, according to John, they stopped by the way at the house of Annas, while the Sanhedrim were assembling to Caiaphas, he went to the door and was admitted by the porter, through the interference of John, who was known to the high priest. While our Saviour was within the apartment of Annas undergoing examination, (not while he was before Caiaphas,) the events of the three denials are taking place without.

To understand the transaction we must figure to ourselves the ancient mode of building. The Eastern houses are not like ours, built many stories high. They extend in lengthened oblong rooms on the ground; and these oblongs are so built as to enclose a square yard or court in the centre. The entrance through the street door into the porch leads either through into the court, or into the side rooms. It was in such a court that the fire was made when Peter uttered his first denial; while our Lord may be supposed to be in the reception and business room opposite, that is farthest from and parallel to the street, which must be reached from the porch by crossing the court.

PETER’S FIRST DENIAL. The place, in the court at the fire.

69. Now Peter sat without in the palace — Or open court, He was without the apartment in which Jesus was examined. The Greek word here rendered palace, means the court or square yard enclosed by the building. Mark does not mention the making of the fire; but it is curious to note that he presupposes it by saying that Peter was warming himself when the damsel spoke to him. Mark 14:67.

Thou also — There is a similar fact in regard to this little word also. Matthew states nothing by which we are able to solve its meaning. Why also? But John tells us that he (John) had just introduced Peter to this damsel (who was the portress) and gained admittance for him. Also means, then, as well as John. We may add that the fact of John’s safety would seem to show that Peter was in little danger. Perhaps the only ground of fear was the fact that he had taken the sword and cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. So that Peter’s extra bravery then is the cause of his extra cowardice now.

Verse 69. A damsel came to him. — This female servant was the portress of the gate, the same who had let in Peter through the intercession of John who was already in the court: this circumstance probably made the woman conclude that Peter as well as John was a disciple of Christ; for if John obtained admission, he was “known to the high priest,” John 18:15; and it could scarcely be unknown that for several years he had been in attendance upon Christ. St. Matthew makes the damsel directly charge Peter with being a disciple: St. John speaks interrogatively; but the interrogation there is not to be understood as used for inquiry, but as a stronger mode of putting an affirmation.

Verse 70. But he denied before them all] So the evil principle gains ground. Before, he followed at a distance, now he denies; this is the second gradation in his fall.

Verses 69, 70. Now Peter, &c. — Our Lord’s trial in the high-priest’s palace, and Peter’s denying him, being contemporary events, either of them might be related first, as the historian might think most proper. Matthew and Mark describe the trial first, as being the principal fact, but Luke introduces it after Peter’s denials. John has preserved the exact natural order, for he begins with the first denial, because it happened immediately after Peter entered the palace; then gives the history of the trial, as the principal fact, and concludes with the subsequent denials. The apostles, no doubt, were in great consternation when their Master was apprehended, as appears from their forsaking him and fleeing. Some of them, however, recovering out of the panic that had seized them, followed the band at a distance, to see what the end would be. Of this number was Peter, and another disciple, whom John has mentioned without giving his name, and who, therefore, is generally supposed to have been John himself, it being his manner to speak of himself in the third person. See John 13:23; 21:10. “Matthew and Mark seem to differ in the account which they give of the place where Peter first denied his Master. Matthew’s words are, Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, &c. Mark says, Mark 14:66, the denial happened as Peter was beneath in the palace. To reconcile this difference, some suppose that the high- priest’s palace was built so as to form a court; that the fire at which the servants sat was lighted in the court; and that Jesus was examined in the porch, called by Matthew pulwn, and by Mark proaulion. Accordingly they think persons in the court might be said to have been (exw) without, in the palace, that is, without in respect of the covered buildings; and (katw) beneath in the palace with respect to the porch, which was higher than the level of the court. But it appears from John 18:25, that Peter was with the servants at the fire when he denied his Master the third time; and from Luke 22:61, that Jesus looked upon Peter just as he was pronouncing the words of the third denial. Our Lord, therefore, and his disciple, were not, the one in the court and the other in the porch of the palace during his trial, but they were together in one room, Jesus with his judges at the upper end of it, and Peter with the servants at the fire in the other. According to this disposition, Peter might be said to have been without in the hall, that is, without in relation to the crowd of judges, witnesses, and soldiers around Jesus; but in relation to the place where the council sat, he was beneath in the hall, a way of speaking common even in our own language. Further, John says, verse 18, that Peter, after the first denial, stood with the officers at the fire; whereas Matthew and Luke tell us, when he first denied his Master he sat by the fire. It seems, the maid’s words had put him into such confusion, that before he answered her he rose from the seat which the servants had given him on his first coming in.” — Macknight. According to John, the maid who attacked Peter, was the damsel who kept the door. It seems, after having admitted him, she followed him to the fire, and spoke to him in an angry tone, having been informed that it was he who had cut off her fellow-servant’s ear, see John 18:26. Thou also wast with Jesus — She meant when he was apprehended in the garden. This blunt attack threw Peter into such confusion, that he flatly denied his having any thing to do with Jesus, saying, I know not what thou sayest — I do not understand what thou meanest by speaking to me in this manner. Here we see that apostle, who had formerly acknowledged his Master to be the Messiah, who was honoured with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and who had most confidently boasted of fortitude, and a firm attachment to him in the greatest dangers, proved a very coward upon trial.

70. I know not what thou sayest — So far from being guilty of your charge, I do not even know what it means.

PETER’S SECOND DENIAL. The place, the porch.

Verse 70. Denied before all. — Before all the officers of justice, and others who were in the court, and that in the most explicit manner: I know not what thou sayest, being a common form of denying any knowledge of a fact or person. The publicity of this denial was a great aggravation of Peter’s sin.

Verse 71. Unto them that were there] Instead of legei toiv ekei\ kai, more than one hundred MSS., many of which are of the first authority and antiquity, have legei autoiv\ ekei kai, she saith unto them, this man was THERE also. I rather think this is the genuine reading. toiv might have been easily mistaken for autoiv, if the first syllable au were but a little faded in a MS. from which others were copied: and then the placing of the point after ekei\ instead of after autoiv\ would naturally follow, as placed after toiv, it would make no sense. Griesbach approves of this reading.

Verses 71, 72. When he was gone out into the porch — Or portico, as Dr. Doddridge renders it, who observes, “I apprehend that the word proaulion, (used by Mark here.) most exactly answers to the Latin word vestibulum, by which many interpreters render it. And, considering the magnificence of the Jewish buildings at this time, it is reasonable to conclude that this, which belonged to the high-priest’s palace, was some stately piazza, or colonnade; and therefore I choose rather to render it, portico, than porch, a word applicable to the meanest buildings of that kind.” Another maid saw him, and said, This fellow was also with Jesus — Whatever he may pretend to the contrary, and how positively soever he may deny it. And again he denied with an oath — A sin to which possibly he was not unaccustomed before our Lord called him. Saying, I do not know the man — Jesus was so public a person, and so well known to thousands, not at all in his interest, that this additional falsehood was most unnecessary; and, as it frequently happens when people allow themselves to transgress the bounds of truth, it was more likely to entangle and discover him than to clear him. A learned divine conjectures, that Peter was suffered to fall more foully than any of the rest of the apostles, except Judas the traitor, and to make more remarkable mistakes in his conduct, that we might thus be cautioned against that extravagant regard which would afterward be demanded to him and his pretended successors. How must these people, before whom Peter denied his Lord, be surprised when they saw, as no doubt some of them did, this timorous disciple, within the compass of a few weeks, when he was brought with John before the council, not only maintaining the cause and honour of Jesus, but boldly charging the murder of this Prince of life on the chief men of the nation, and solemnly warning them of their guilt and danger in consequence of it. Acts 4:5-12. Perhaps when it is said there, verse 13, that they took knowledge of Peter and John that they had been with Jesus, the meaning may be, that some of them, or their attendants, remembered Peter and John as the two persons who had followed Jesus thus far, when the rest had forsaken him. See Clarke’s Seventeen Sermons, p. 236, and Doddridge.

71. Gone out into the porch — As soon as he was able, Peter withdrew in fear from the scene of the charge. But it was only to encounter at the door a similar hazard. By comparing with Mark and Luke, it appears that two maidens and a man at that place recognized him at once. To them all he denies with an oath, a very convincing proof that he has not been a disciple of Jesus!

PETER’S THIRD DENIAL. The place, probably in the court after a while. There is nothing to indicate clearly the time. But the morning was now approaching, for the cock soon crew.

Verse 71. And when he was gone out into the porch. — The porch, pulwn, was the vestibule or hall in which the trial of our Lord was conducted, and opened into the interior court in which Peter was, at the fire, with the servants. In this place and company he still was at his second denial, John 18:25; and St. Matthew’s words, exelqonta de auton eiv ton pulwna, eiden auton allh, may indicate no more than that he was in the act of going, or gave indications of his intention to go, into the hall where the court sat, when a second maid challenged him with being a follower of Jesus of Nazareth. From Peter’s reply, as recorded by St. Luke, “MAN, I am not,” it may be presumed that the maid’s challenge was taken up by the bystanders, in whose presence it was made, and to whom the information was indeed given, and by one of the men it was pressed more eagerly than the rest, and to him therefore Peter’s denial of the maid’s allegation was directed. This denial was, however, accompanied by an oath: he denied meq’ orkou, thinking, no doubt, that a second accusation needed to be rebutted by a solemn appeal to Heaven; his fears and a carnal policy hiding, for the moment, from his conscience the enormity of the foul crime of a direct perjury.

V. 72. He denied with an oath-To which possibly he was not unaccustomed, before our Lord called him.

Verse 72. And again he denied with an oath] This is a third gradation of his iniquity. He has told a lie, and he swears to support it. A liar has always some suspicion that his testimony is not credited, for he is conscious to his own falsity, and is therefore naturally led to support his assertions by oaths.

Verses 71, 72. When he was gone out into the porch — Or portico, as Dr. Doddridge renders it, who observes, “I apprehend that the word proaulion, (used by Mark here.) most exactly answers to the Latin word vestibulum, by which many interpreters render it. And, considering the magnificence of the Jewish buildings at this time, it is reasonable to conclude that this, which belonged to the high-priest’s palace, was some stately piazza, or colonnade; and therefore I choose rather to render it, portico, than porch, a word applicable to the meanest buildings of that kind.” Another maid saw him, and said, This fellow was also with Jesus — Whatever he may pretend to the contrary, and how positively soever he may deny it. And again he denied with an oath — A sin to which possibly he was not unaccustomed before our Lord called him. Saying, I do not know the man — Jesus was so public a person, and so well known to thousands, not at all in his interest, that this additional falsehood was most unnecessary; and, as it frequently happens when people allow themselves to transgress the bounds of truth, it was more likely to entangle and discover him than to clear him. A learned divine conjectures, that Peter was suffered to fall more foully than any of the rest of the apostles, except Judas the traitor, and to make more remarkable mistakes in his conduct, that we might thus be cautioned against that extravagant regard which would afterward be demanded to him and his pretended successors. How must these people, before whom Peter denied his Lord, be surprised when they saw, as no doubt some of them did, this timorous disciple, within the compass of a few weeks, when he was brought with John before the council, not only maintaining the cause and honour of Jesus, but boldly charging the murder of this Prince of life on the chief men of the nation, and solemnly warning them of their guilt and danger in consequence of it. Acts 4:5-12. Perhaps when it is said there, verse 13, that they took knowledge of Peter and John that they had been with Jesus, the meaning may be, that some of them, or their attendants, remembered Peter and John as the two persons who had followed Jesus thus far, when the rest had forsaken him. See Clarke’s Seventeen Sermons, p. 236, and Doddridge.

§ 133. — PETER’S DENIAL AND REPENTANCE, 69-75.

Matthew now suspends the narrative in regard to Jesus, and, out of the precise chronological order, gives the sequel in regard to Peter. When the multitude led Jesus to Caiaphas he followed afar off. And when, according to John, they stopped by the way at the house of Annas, while the Sanhedrim were assembling to Caiaphas, he went to the door and was admitted by the porter, through the interference of John, who was known to the high priest. While our Saviour was within the apartment of Annas undergoing examination, (not while he was before Caiaphas,) the events of the three denials are taking place without.

To understand the transaction we must figure to ourselves the ancient mode of building. The Eastern houses are not like ours, built many stories high. They extend in lengthened oblong rooms on the ground; and these oblongs are so built as to enclose a square yard or court in the centre. The entrance through the street door into the porch leads either through into the court, or into the side rooms. It was in such a court that the fire was made when Peter uttered his first denial; while our Lord may be supposed to be in the reception and business room opposite, that is farthest from and parallel to the street, which must be reached from the porch by crossing the court.

PETER’S FIRST DENIAL. The place, in the court at the fire.

69. Now Peter sat without in the palace — Or open court, He was without the apartment in which Jesus was examined. The Greek word here rendered palace, means the court or square yard enclosed by the building. Mark does not mention the making of the fire; but it is curious to note that he presupposes it by saying that Peter was warming himself when the damsel spoke to him. Mark 14:67.

Thou also — There is a similar fact in regard to this little word also. Matthew states nothing by which we are able to solve its meaning. Why also? But John tells us that he (John) had just introduced Peter to this damsel (who was the portress) and gained admittance for him. Also means, then, as well as John. We may add that the fact of John’s safety would seem to show that Peter was in little danger. Perhaps the only ground of fear was the fact that he had taken the sword and cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. So that Peter’s extra bravery then is the cause of his extra cowardice now.

V. 73. Surely thou art also one of them, for thy speech discovereth thee-Malchus might have brought a stronger proof than this. But such is the overruling providence of God, that the world, in the height of their zeal, commonly catch hold of the very weakest of all arguments against the children of God.

Verse 73. Thy speech] Thy manner of speech, h lalia sou, that dialect of thine-his accent being different from that of Jerusalem. From various examples given by Lightfoot and Schoettgen, we find that the Galileans had a very corrupt pronunciation, frequently interchanging a h t and [, and so blending or dividing words as to render them unintelligible, or cause them to convey a contrary sense.

Bewrayeth thee.] dhlou se poiei, maketh thee manifest, from the Anglo-saxon [Anglo-Saxon], to accuse, betray; a word long since lost from our language.

Verses 73, 74. And after a while came they that stood by, &c. — When the servants at the fire heard Peter deny the charge, which John has mentioned, they drew near and supported it by an argument drawn from the accent with which he had pronounced his answer: Surely thou art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee. H lalia sou dhlon se toiei, thy manner of speech (meaning the Galilean dialect or pronunciation) maketh thee manifest — Or, as Mark expresses it, Thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto. Peter, being thus pressed from different quarters, and having now quite lost the reins, the government of himself; in order to give his lie the better colour, he profaned the name of God by swearing, and wished the bitterest curses on himself if he was telling a falsehood. Perhaps he hoped by these acts of impiety to convince them effectually that he was not the disciple of the holy Jesus. And immediately the cock crew — All the evangelists say, that the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words of the third denial, which they themselves have related. But upon comparing the things said when this third attack was made, it appears that the speeches, at least which John has recorded, did not come from the persons mentioned by the other evangelists. Wherefore the third denial was occasioned by different attacks made in succession; unless the men spoke all at once, which is not very probable. It is more natural to think, that when Peter denied his Master to them who first attacked him, the others, who stood by, supported the charge, with an argument drawn from his dialect or pronunciation, which proved him to be a Galilean. However, as in either case the succession of his answers must have been very quick, the veracity of the evangelists remains unshaken, because thus the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words which they have severally related. Thus through the mere fear of man, a principle from which have sprung many denials of Christ and his truth in different ages, Peter denied his Master three sundry times with many aggravating circumstances, forgetting the vehement protestations he had made a few hours before. He was permitted to fall in this manner to teach mankind several important lessons: as, 1st, That no dependance can be placed on any mere human strength, or on any resolutions man can form, without supernatural aid. 2d, That whatever a person’s attainments may have been formerly, if once he give way to temptation, so as to commit known and actual sin, he frequently, perhaps it may be said commonly, proceeds from bad to worse, one sin naturally drawing on another; for which reason the very least appearance of evil ought always to be dreaded, and the greatest humility and self-diffidence maintained. 3d, The goodness wherewith Jesus treated his fallen apostle, teaches us that no sinner whatever needs to despair of mercy who truly repents.

73. After a while — John says an hour. Thy speech bewrayeth thee — Peter had ventured to utter some remark which brought out his Gallilean brogue, and the bystanders noticed him. Bewrayeth — Detecteth.

Verse 73. They that stood by. — Peter, according to St. Matthew and St. Mark, was the third time charged with being a follower of Jesus, by those “that stood by;” but as all did not probably speak at once, but having observed, no doubt, something peculiar, in Peter’s manner, as was natural, considering his circumstances, they prosecuted their scrutiny into the strongly suspected fact, by putting one forward to urge their suspicions upon him. St. Luke therefore relates generally that another man now charged him; and St. John, with greater particularity, tells us that this man was the kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off. From St. Luke we learn that about an hour elapsed between Peter’s second and third denial: yet that space had not brought him to any due sense of the great fault which he had committed; for he now began to curse and to swear, I know not the man. The charge had indeed been brought so close to him, that he probably thought that only the most desperate course could extricate him from present danger, the fear of which absorbed every other consideration. What indeed could he say? “Truly, thou art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee;” his most intimate followers are known to be Galileans, and thy speech shows that thou art a Galilean; and besides, did I not see thee in the garden with him? — a shrewd hint that he suspected him to be the man who had cut off the ear of his relative; and this no doubt increased Peter’s terror. Thus was this once bold but frail man placed in circumstances in which he must take the risk of suffering and dying with his Lord, or of sinning in a high and almost desperate degree. He failed again in the trial; for no man gains strength to resist greater evils by complying with the lesser, but is, on the contrary, the more powerfully disposed to add one offence to another. On the first charge he simply though explicitly denies; on the second, he appeals by an oath to God; on the third, he adds violent and gross profaneness to perjury: Then began he to curse and to swear, to accompany his appeals to God with imprecations upon himself if he spoke falsely, when he declared, I know not the man. Katanaqematizein is to declare any one to be katanaqema, accursed and execrable, and therefore liable to the greatest punishments in this and the future world; and when used of a man’s own self, is, under same condition, to imprecate the Divine vengeance upon himself. — Many MSS. read kataqematizein, but the sense shows that a mistake must have occurred in transcription; for the softer import of this word not only does not agree with the swearing which is also ascribed to him, but is contrary to Mark 14:71: “But he began anaqematizein kai omnuein, to curse and to swear;” as in the text, only without the intensive kata. Omnuein is to swear by the name of God. So deep and shameful was the fall of Peter! It is recorded by all the evangelists; and is both a striking proof of their integrity, and a lasting admonition to all to beware of the two fatal evils, self confidence and unwatchfulness. “Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.”

Thy speech bewrayeth thee. — Bewray is an Old English word, which signifies to reveal or discover. Thus Spenser: —

“Man by nothing is so well bewray’d

As by his manners.”

St. Mark has it, “Thou art a Galilean; and thy speech agreeth thereunto;” the dialect of Galilee being more rude than that of Judea. Hence the Talmudists say, “The law was confirmed in the hands of the men of Judah, who were careful of their language; but not in the hands of the men of Galilee, who were not careful of their language.” — Peter was therefore known to be a Galilean by his style and pronunciation, just as the men of Ephraim were detected by the test word Shibboleth.

V. 74. Then began he to curse and to swear-Having now quite lost the reins, the government of himself.

Verse 74. Then began he to curse and to swear] Rather, Then he began positively to affirm-kataqematizein, from kata intensive, and tiqhmi, I lay down, place, affirm. But the common reading is katanaqematizein, which signifies to wish curses on himself. The former reading is supported by almost every MS. of value, and is, beyond dispute, the true reading, and has been received by Griesbach into the text. The business is bad enough, but the common reading makes it worse. In Matthew 26:72, Peter is said to deny with an oath; here, he positively affirms and swears, probably by the name of God, for this is the import of the word omnuein. This makes the fourth and final gradation in the climax of Peter’s fall. From these awful beginnings it is not unfair to conclude that Peter might have gone almost as far as Judas himself, had not the traitorous business been effected before. Yet all this evil sprung simply from the fear of man. How many denials of Christ and his truth have sprung since, from the same cause!

The cock crew] This animal becomes, in the hand of God, the instrument of awaking the fallen apostle, at last, to a sense of his fall, danger, and duty. When abandoned of God, the smallest thing may become the occasion of a fall; and, when in the hand of God, the smallest matter may become the instrument of our restoration. Let us never think lightly of what are termed little sins: the smallest one has the seed of eternal ruin in it. Let us never think contemptibly of the feeblest means of grace: each may have the seed of eternal salvation in it. Let us ever remember that the great Apostle Peter fell through fear of a servant maid, and rose through the crowing of a cock.

Verses 73, 74. And after a while came they that stood by, &c. — When the servants at the fire heard Peter deny the charge, which John has mentioned, they drew near and supported it by an argument drawn from the accent with which he had pronounced his answer: Surely thou art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee. H lalia sou dhlon se toiei, thy manner of speech (meaning the Galilean dialect or pronunciation) maketh thee manifest — Or, as Mark expresses it, Thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto. Peter, being thus pressed from different quarters, and having now quite lost the reins, the government of himself; in order to give his lie the better colour, he profaned the name of God by swearing, and wished the bitterest curses on himself if he was telling a falsehood. Perhaps he hoped by these acts of impiety to convince them effectually that he was not the disciple of the holy Jesus. And immediately the cock crew — All the evangelists say, that the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words of the third denial, which they themselves have related. But upon comparing the things said when this third attack was made, it appears that the speeches, at least which John has recorded, did not come from the persons mentioned by the other evangelists. Wherefore the third denial was occasioned by different attacks made in succession; unless the men spoke all at once, which is not very probable. It is more natural to think, that when Peter denied his Master to them who first attacked him, the others, who stood by, supported the charge, with an argument drawn from his dialect or pronunciation, which proved him to be a Galilean. However, as in either case the succession of his answers must have been very quick, the veracity of the evangelists remains unshaken, because thus the cock crew immediately after Peter pronounced the words which they have severally related. Thus through the mere fear of man, a principle from which have sprung many denials of Christ and his truth in different ages, Peter denied his Master three sundry times with many aggravating circumstances, forgetting the vehement protestations he had made a few hours before. He was permitted to fall in this manner to teach mankind several important lessons: as, 1st, That no dependance can be placed on any mere human strength, or on any resolutions man can form, without supernatural aid. 2d, That whatever a person’s attainments may have been formerly, if once he give way to temptation, so as to commit known and actual sin, he frequently, perhaps it may be said commonly, proceeds from bad to worse, one sin naturally drawing on another; for which reason the very least appearance of evil ought always to be dreaded, and the greatest humility and self-diffidence maintained. 3d, The goodness wherewith Jesus treated his fallen apostle, teaches us that no sinner whatever needs to despair of mercy who truly repents.

74. Curse and to swear — No doubt he first swore, to show that he belonged not to the prophet of Nazareth; but now a real and insane rage seems to have complete mastery, and Satan is sifting him like wheat. But it was in this very depth of abandonment that the voice of convicting mercy reached him. It was the time for the monitory cock to crow for Peter, and he crew.

At this moment of gross denial and profanity Peter was in a state of mortal sin and condemnation. He had fallen from grace; and death, in his present impenitent condition, would have consigned him to remediless woe. Luke tells us that “the Lord turned and looked upon Peter,” and that Peter thereupon reflected upon his Lord’s warning. Probably our Lord cast this glance as he was led from Annas to Caiaphas. Or at this third denial the door of the apartment where Jesus and Annas were may have been opened upon the court, and Peter may have painfully found himself denying and swearing under his Lord’s glance. That glance doubtless was turned full upon him with a significance that called Peter to his recollections. It does not appear that Peter came into the examination room or was present with his Lord.

Verse 74. And immediately the cock crew. — And at the fulfilment of this signal, we learn from St. Luke that “the Lord turned and looked upon Peter.” The interior of the vestibule or hall in which our Lord was enduring his trial was within view of those who were in the court, so distant that they could not hear distinctly what was said, but near enough for our Lord to convey by his look to Peter that he KNEW what had occurred, that he FELT that he had committed the sin against which he had warned him, and to fix his attention upon the crowing of the cock as the accomplishment of his prediction. This was the last cock crow, or about three in the morning.

Verse 75. Peter remembered the word of Jesus] St. Luke says, Luke 22:61, The Lord turned and looked upon Peter. So it appears he was nigh to our Lord, either at the time when the cock crew, or shortly after. The delicacy of this reproof was great-he must be reproved and alarmed, otherwise he will proceed yet farther in his iniquity; Christ is in bonds, and cannot go and speak to him; if he call aloud, the disciple is discovered, and falls a victim to Jewish malice and Roman jealousy; he therefore does the whole by a look. In the hand of Omnipotence every thing is easy, and he can save by a few, as well as by many.

He went out] He left the place where he had sinned, and the company which had been the occasion of his transgression.

And wept bitterly.] Felt bitter anguish of soul, which evidenced itself by the tears of contrition which flowed plentifully from his eyes. Let him that standeth take heed lest he fall! Where the mighty have been slain, what shall support the feeble? Only the grace of the ALMIGHTY God. This transaction is recorded by the inspired penmen, 1st. That all may watch unto prayer, and shun the occasions of sin. 2dly. That if a man be unhappily overtaken in a fault, he may not despair, but cast himself immediately with a contrite heart on the infinite tenderness and compassion of God. See the notes on John 18:27.

I have touched on the subject of our Lord’s anointing but slightly in the preceding notes, because the controversy upon this point is not yet settled; and, except to harmonists, it is a matter of comparatively little importance. Bishop Newcome has written largely on this fact, and I insert an extract from his notes.

BISHOP NEWCOME’S ACCOUNT OF THE ANOINTING OF

OUR LORD.

“The histories of Jesus’ unction, in Matthew, Mark, and John, are accounts of the same fact. Hoc fixum maneat, eandem ab omnibus historiam referri. Calv. Harm. p. 375.

“The following objections to this position occur in Lightfoot, Whiston, Whitby, and Macknight.

1st. “The unction recorded by St. John happens six days before the passover; but the other unction is fixed to the second day before that feast.

“Ans. The day of the entertainment related John 12:2, is not restrained to the sixth day before the passover. Quo die factum illi fuerit convivium, in quo a Maria unctus est, Johannes non exprimit. Calv. Harm. Johann. p. 144. John 12:12, 13, much people are said to meet Jesus on the day after his arrival at Bethany, not on the day after his unction. See John 12:9. St. John has recorded events on the sixth and on the fifth day before the passover; and then, John 13:1, he proceeds to the evening on which the passover was eaten. On this account he anticipates the history of Jesus’s unction; and he naturally anticipates it on mentioning the place where it happened.

2dly. “The scene in St. John is the house of Martha, or of Lazarus; in the other evangelists, that of Simon the leper.

“Ans. St. John lays the scene in general at Bethany.

“It seems probable that Lazarus would not have been called eiv twn anakeimenwn, if he had been the host.

“Martha, the sister of Lazarus, might show Jesus honour by ministering to him in any house as well as her own. ‘She was Simon’s neighbour, and perhaps his relation,’ Dr. Priestley, Harm. p. 102. Our Lord’s affection for Lazarus and his sister, and the recent miracle wrought on Lazarus, were very sufficient reasons for Simon’s invitation of such neighbouring guests.

3dly. “St. John mentions the feet of Jesus as anointed by Mary, and wiped with her hair; the other evangelists say that the ointment was poured on Jesus’s head.

“Ans. It is no where asserted that the unction was of Jesus’s head only, or of his feet only: both actions are consistent; and St. John, in his supplemental history, may very well have added the respectful conduct of Mary, that, after having anointed Jesus’s head, she proceeded to anoint his feet, and even to wipe them with her hair. 4thly. “In St. John, Judas alone murmurs: in St. Matthew, the disciples have indignation; or, as St. Mark expresses it, some have indignation among themselves.

“Ans. Dr. Lardner says, Serm. vol. ii. p. 316: ‘It is well known to be very common with all writers to use the plural number when one person only is intended; nor is it impossible that others might have some uneasiness about it, though they were far from being so disgusted at it as Judas was. And their concern for the poor was sincere: his was self-interested and mere pretence.’

Grotius’s words are: Reprehensa est hoc nomine mulier ab uno discipulorum; nam ita pluralis accipi solet.

5thly. “The vindications of the woman by our Lord differ so much as to show that the occasions were different.

“Ans. St, John’s words are indeed thus misinterpreted by Baronius: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial, alluding to, Mark 16:1. See Lightfoot, Harm. p. 27. See also Lightfoot, ib. l. 251. ‘She hath kept it yet, and not spent all; that she may bestow it on a charitable use, the anointing of my body to its burial.’

“Whiston also, Harm. 129, gives a wrong sense to the words. She hath spent but little of it now: she hath reserved the main part of it for a fitter time, the day before my delivery to the Jews; making this a prediction of what passed, Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9. It must be observed that John 12:7, there is a remarkable various reading: ina eiv thn hmeran tou

entafiasmou mou thrhsh auto. See Wetstein, and add Codd. Vercell. and Veron. in Blanchini. Of this reading we have a sound interpretation in Mill, proleg. xlv. Sine eam ut opportune usa hoc unguento, velut ad sepulturam meam, jamjam occidendi, illud servasse ostendatur. And likewise in Bengelius ad loc. who observes that the common reading is, Faciioris sensus causta; and adds, Verbum thrhsh servaret, pendet ex praeterito, cujus vis latet in afev authn, i.e. Noli reprehendere hanc, quoe unguentum ideo nec vendidit, nec pauperibus dedit, ut, &c. And the common reading is thus rightly explained by Lightfoot, 2, 588. ‘If Baronius’s exposition do not take, then add this clause:-Let her alone; for this may be an argument and sign that she hath not done this vainly, luxuriously, or upon any delicacy spent so costly an ointment upon me; because she hath reserved it for this time, wherein I am so near my grave and funeral, and poured it not on me before.’ Lardner’s comment, ubi supra, p. 312, is applicable to the three evangelists. If this ointment were laid out upon a dead body, you would not think it too much. You may consider this anointing as an embalming of me. The words are a prediction of Christ’s death, which was to happen on the third day after; and they are a prediction beautifully taken from the occasion. She has done this to embalm me, Matthew. She has anticipated the embalming of me, Mark. She has not sold this ointment, and given it to the poor, that she might reserve it to this day, which is, as it were, the day of my embalming, so soon is my burial to follow, John.

“Dr. Scott, on Matthew, quotes the following passage from Theophylact: eqov hn toiv ioudaioiv meta murwn

entafiazein ta swmata, wv kai oi aiguptioi epoioun, dia to ashpta threisqdi, kai aneu duswdiav. It was a custom among the Jews, as well as among the Egyptians, to embalm the bodies of the dead, as well to keep them from putrefaction, as to prevent offensive smells.

The expressions therefore of the three evangelists agree in sense and substance. I have explained the more difficult in St. John; leaving every one to his own judgment whether it be the true one or not; though I incline to think that the unusual phrase ought generally to be admitted into the text. “6thly. In St. John, Mary anoints Jesus in Matthew and Mark, a woman not named.

“Ans. Lardner says, ubi supra, p. 315. ‘St. John having before given the history of the resurrection of Lazarus, it was very natural for him, when he came to relate this anointing of our Lord, to say by whom it was done. But the two former evangelists having never mentioned Lazarus or his sisters in their Gospels, when they came to relate this action forbear to mention any name, and speak only of a certain woman. Luke 10:38-42, has an account of our Lord’s being entertained at the house of Martha. But he says nothing of this anointing. If he had related it, I make no question that he, like St. John, would have said by whom it was done.’ Upon the whole, there is no solid objection to the hypothesis, that we have three accounts of the same transaction. But it is incredible that there should be two unctions of Jesus, in Bethany, within four days, not plainly distinguished from each other; that the kind and price of the ointment should be the same; that the two actions should be censured in the same manner; and that words to the same effect should be used in defence of the woman who anointed Jesus, within so short a time, in the same place, and among the same persons. See Doddridge on John 12:1. As to the precise time of this transaction, it is natural to conclude from the accounts of Matthew and Mark, that it happened two days before the passover. I had much pleasure in observing that Mr. Jebb, in his Harmony, assigns it the same order as I do. I likewise find in Ward’s Dissertations, p. 112, the following remark. ‘John only mentions the day when Jesus came to Bethany, without specifying the time when he was entertained there by Simon the leper; whereas the other two evangelists acquaint us with the day when that was done, and what followed upon it, with relation to Judas.’ And again, Wall says, Critical Notes, v. 3. p. 52: ‘Wednesday he seems to have stayed at Bethany, and supped there. At which supper, Mary, sister of Lazarus, poured that ointment on his body which he interpreted to be for his burial.’ And on John 12:2: ‘This seems to be the same supper which Matthew and Mark do say was at the house of Simon the leper; for there it was that Mary anointed him. But then we must not take it to be the same night that he came to Bethany, but two days before the passover.’

“That Judas went to the high priests on the evening or night of our Wednesday, may be collected from Matthew 26:14-17, and the parallel places in this harmony; and he seems to have acted partly in disgust at what had passed. This is a good argument for fixing the unction for Wednesday. As it will appear that the other apostles did not suspect his treachery, we may suppose that Judas withdrew himself clandestinely, probably after our Lord had retired to privacy and devotion. Our Lord’s words, Matthew 26:2, may have led Mary to show this respect to Jesus, lest no future opportunity should offer. See Lardner, ubi supra, p. 327. Dr. Priestley thinks that ‘if the verses that contain this story in Matthew 26:6-13, be considered, they will be found to stand very awkwardly in their present situation, where they interrupt an account of a consultation among the Jews about putting Jesus to death.’ Harm. p. 100. But it seems to me that the story has a remarkably apt connection with the preceding and subsequent history. The Jewish rulers consult how they may take Jesus by craft, and without raising a tumult among the people. An accident happens which offends one of Jesus’s familiar attendants; who immediately repairs to Jesus’s enemies, and receives from them a bribe to betray him in the absence of the multitude.” Newcome’s Harmony, Notes p. 39, &c.

I have added the above, not from a conviction that the point is so elucidated as to settle the controversy, but merely to place before the reader both sides of the question. Still, sub judice lis est; and any man may doubt, consistently with the most genuine piety, whether the relations given by the evangelists, concerning the anointing of our Lord, should be understood of two different unctions, at two different times, in two different places, by two different persons; or whether they are not different accounts, with some varying circumstances, of one and the same transaction. I incline, at present, to the former opinion, but it would be rash to decide where so many eminently learned and wise men have disagreed.

The question considered, whether our Lord ate the passover with his disciples before he suffered?

Every candid person must allow that there are great difficulties relative to the time in which our Lord ate the last passover with his disciples. In the Introduction to my Discourse on the nature and design of the Holy Eucharist, I have examined this subject at large, and considered the four following opinions, viz. I. Our Lord did not eat the passover on the last year of his ministry. II. Our Lord did eat it that year; and at the same time with the Jews. III. He did eat it that year, but not at the same time with the Jews. IV. He did eat a passover of his own instituting, but widely differing from that eaten by the Jews. The two first opinions do not appear to be solidly supported. The two last are of the most importance, are the most likely, and may be harmonized. I shall introduce a few observations on each in this place. And I. On the opinion that “our Lord did eat the passover this year, but not at the same time with the Jews.”

Dr. Cudworth, who of all others has handled this subject best, has proved from the Talmud, Mishna, and some of the most reputable of the Jewish rabbins, that the ancient Jews, about our Saviour’s time, often solemnized as well the passovers as the other feasts, upon the ferias next before and after the Sabbaths. And, that as the Jews in ancient times reckoned the new moons, not according to astronomical exactness, but according to the fasiv, or moon’s appearance: and, as this appearance might happen a day later than the real time, consequently there might be a whole day of difference in the time of celebrating one of these feasts, which depended on a particular day of the month; the days of the month being counted from the fasiv, or appearance of the new moon. As he describes the whole manner of doing this, both from the Babylonish Talmud, and from Maimonides, I shall give an extract from this part of his work, that my readers may have the whole argument before them.

“In the great or outer court there was a house called Beth Yazek, where the senate sat all the 30th day of every month, to receive the witnesses of the moon’s appearance, and to examine them. If there came approved witnesses on the 30th day, who could state they had seen the new moon, the chief man of the senate stood up, and cried vdqm mekuddash, it is sanctified; and the people standing by caught the word from him, and cried, Mekuddash! mekuddash! But if, when the consistory had sat all the day, and there came no approved witnesses of the phasis, or appearance of the new moon, then they made an intercalation of one day in the former month, and decreed the following one and thirtieth day to be the calends. But if, after the fourth or fifth day, or even before the end of the month, respectable witnesses came from far, and testified they had seen the new moon in its due time, the senate were bound to alter the beginning of the month, and reckon it a day sooner, viz. from the thirtieth day.

“As the senate were very unwilling to be at the trouble of a second consecration, when they had even fixed on a wrong day, and therefore received very reluctantly the testimony of such witnesses as those last mentioned, they afterwards made a statute to this effect-That whatsoever time the senate should conclude on for the calends of the mouth, though it were certain they were in the wrong, yet all were bound to order their feasts according to it.” This, Dr. Cudworth supposes, actually took place in the time of our Lord; and “as it is not likely that our Lord would submit to this perversion of the original custom, and that following the true fasiv, or appearance of the new moon, confirmed by sufficient witnesses, he and his disciples ate the passover on that day; but the Jews, following the pertinacious decree of the Sanhedrin, did not eat it till the day following.”

Dr. C. farther shows from Epiphanius, that there was a contention, qorubov, a tumult, among the Jews about the passover, that very year. Hence it is likely that what was the real paschal day to our Lord, his disciples, and many other pious Jews who adopted the true fasiv phasis, was only the preparation or antecedent evening to others, who acted on the decree of the senate. Besides, it is worthy of note, that not only the Karaites, who do not acknowledge the authority of the Sanhedrin, but also the rabbins themselves grant that, where the case is doubtful, the passover should be celebrated with the same ceremonies, two days together; and it was always doubtful, when the appearance of the new moon could not be fully ascertained.

Bishop Pearce supposes that it was lawful for the Jews to eat the paschal lamb at any time between the evening of Thursday, and that of Friday; and that this permission was necessary, because of the immense number of lambs which were to be killed for that purpose: as, in one year there were not fewer than 256,500 lambs offered. See Josephus, War, b. vii. c. 9. sect.

3. In Matthew 26:17, it is said, Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, (th de prwth twn azumwn,) the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? As the feast of unleavened bread did not begin till the day after the passover, the fifteenth day of the month, Leviticus 23:5, 6; Numbers 28:16, 17, this could not have been properly the first day of that feast; but, as the Jews began to eat unleavened bread on the fourteenth day, Exodus 12:18, this day was often termed the first of unleavened bread. Now it appears that the evangelists use it in this sense, and call even the paschal day by this name, see Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7. At first view, this third opinion, which states that Christ did eat the passover with his disciples that year, but not in the same hour with the Jews; and that he expired on the cross the same hour in which the paschal lamb was killed, seems the most probable. For it appears, from what has already been remarked, that our Lord and his disciples ate the passover some hours before the Jews ate theirs; for they, according to custom, ate theirs at the end of the fourteenth day, but Christ appears to have eaten his the preceding evening, which was the beginning of the same sixth day of the week, or Friday, for the Jews began their day at sun-setting; we at midnight. Thus Christ ate the passover the same day with the Jews, but not on the same hour. Christ, therefore, kept this passover the beginning of the fourteenth day, the precise day in which the Jews had eaten their first passover in Egypt: see Exodus 12:6-19. And in the same part of the same day in which they had sacrificed their first paschal lamb, viz. between the two evenings, i, e, between the sun’s declining west and his setting, Jesus, our passover was sacrificed for us. For it was the third hour, in the course of between 9 and 12, Mark 15:25, that Christ was nailed to the cross: and in the course of the ninth hour, between 12 and 3 in the afternoon, Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34, Jesus, knowing that the antetype had accomplished every thing shadowed forth by the type, said, “It is FINISHED,” tetelestai, completed, perfected, and, having thus said, he bowed his head, and dismissed his spirit. See on John 19:14,30. Probably there is but one objection of any force that lies against the opinion, that our Lord ate his passover some hours before the Jews in general ate theirs; which is that, if our Lord did eat the passover the evening before the Jews in general ate theirs, it could not have been sacrificed according to the law; nor is it at all likely that the blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar. If, therefore, the blood was not thus sprinkled by one of the priests, that which constituted the very essence of the rite, as ordained by God, was lacking in that celebrated by our Lord. To this it is answered:-First, we have already seen that, in consequence of the immense number of sacrifices to be offered on the paschal solemnity, it is highly probable the Jews were obliged to employ two days for this work. It is not at all likely that the blood of 256,500 lambs could be shed and sprinkled at one altar, in the course of one day, by all the priests in Jerusalem, or indeed in the Holy Land; since they had but that one altar where they could legally sprinkle the blood of the victims. Secondly, we have also seen that, in cases of doubt relative to the time of the appearance of the new moon, the Jews were permitted to hold the passover both days; and that it is probable such a dubious case existed at the time in question. In any of these cases the lamb might have been killed and its blood sprinkled according to the rules and ceremonies of the Jewish Church.

Thirdly, as our Lord was the true paschal lamb, who was, in a few hours after this time, to bear away the sin of the world, he might dispense with this part of the ceremony, and act as Lord of his own institution in this, as he had done before in the case of the Sabbath. At any rate, as it seems probable that he ate the passover at this time, and that he died about the time the Jews offered theirs, it may be fully presumed that he left nothing undone towards a due performance of the rite which the present necessity required, or the law of God could demand.

The objection that our Lord and his disciples appear to have sat or reclined at table all the time they ate what is supposed above to have been the passover, contrary to the paschal institution, which required them to eat it standing, with their staves in their hands, their loins girded, and their shoes on, cannot be considered as having any great weight in it; for, though the terms anekeito, Matthew 26:20, and anepese, Luke 22:14, are used in reference to their eating that evening, and these words signify reclining at table, or on a couch, as is the custom of the orientals, it does not follow that they must necessarily be restrained to that meaning; nor does it appear that this part of the ceremony was much attended to, perhaps not at all, in the latter days of the Jewish Church. The second opinion which we have to examine is this: Our Lord did eat a passover of his own instituting, but widely different from that eaten by the Jews.

Mr. Toinard, in his Greek Harmony of the Gospels, strongly contends that our Lord did not eat what is commonly called the passover this year, but another, of a mystical kind. His chief arguments are the following:- It is indubitably evident, from the text of St. John, that the night on the beginning of which our Lord supped with his disciples, and instituted the holy sacrament, was not that on which the Jews celebrated the passover; but the preceding evening, on which the passover could not be legally offered. The conclusion is evident from the following passages: John 13:1. Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing, &c. John 13:2. And supper, (not the paschal, but an ordinary supper,) being ended, &c. John 13:27. That thou doest, do quickly. John 13:28. Now no one at the table knew for what intent he spake this. John 13:29. For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy what we have need of against the feast, &c. John 18:28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas to the hall of judgment, and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover. John 19:14. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour. Now as it appears that at this time the disciples thought our Lord had ordered Judas to go and bring what was necessary for the passover, and they were then supping together, it is evident that it was not the paschal lamb on which they were supping; and it is as evident, from the unwillingness of the Jews to go into the hall of judgment, that they had not as yet eaten the passover. These words are plain, and can be taken in no other sense, without offering them the greatest violence.

Mr. Toinard, having found that our Lord was crucified the sixth day of the week, (Friday,) during the paschal solemnity, in the thirty-third year of the vulgar aera, and that the paschal moon of that year was not in conjunction with the sun till the afternoon of Thursday the 19th of March, and that the new moon could not be seen in Judea until the following day, (Friday,) concluded that the intelligence of the fasiv, or appearance of the new moon, could not be made by the witnesses to the beth din, or senate, sooner than Saturday morning, the 21st of March. That the first day of the first Jewish month, Nisan, could not continence that thirty-third year sooner than the setting of the sun on Friday, March 20th; and, consequently, that Friday, April 3d, on which Christ died, was the 14th of Nisan, (not the 15th,) the day appointed by the law for the celebration of the passover. All these points he took care to have ascertained by the nicest astronomical calculations, in which he was assisted by a very eminent astronomer and mathematician, Bullialdus. (Mr. Bouilleau.) These two last opinions, apparently contradictory, and which alone, of all those offered on the subject, deserve consideration, may be brought to harmonize. That Jesus ate the passover with his disciples the evening before the Jews ate theirs, seems pretty clearly proved from the text of St. Luke, and the arguments founded on that text.

All that is assumed there, to make the whole consistent, is, that the Jews that year held the passover both on the 13th and 14th of Nisan, because of the reasons already assigned: and that therefore Peter and John, who were employed on this business, might have got the blood legally sprinkled by the hands of a priest, which was all that was necessary to the legality of the rite.

But, secondly, should it appear improbable that such double celebration took place at this time, and that our Lord could not have eaten the passover that year with his disciples, as he died on the very hour on which the paschal lamb was slain, and consequently before he could legally eat the passover, how then can the text of St. Luke be reconciled with this fact? I answer, with the utmost ease; by substituting a passover for the passover, and simply assuming that our Lord at this time instituted the holy EUCHARIST, in place of the PASCHAL LAMB: and thus it will appear he ate a passover with his disciples the evening before his death, viz. the mystical passover, or sacrament of his body and blood; and that this was the passover which he so ardently longed to eat with his disciples before he suffered. This is the opinion of Mr. Toinard, and, if granted, solves every difficulty. Thus the whole controversy is brought into a very narrow compass: Our Lord did eat a passover with his disciples some short time before he died:-the question is, What passover did he eat-the regular legal passover, or a mystical one? That he ate a passover is, I think, demonstrated: but whether the literal or mystical one, is a matter of doubt. On this point, good and learned men may innocently hesitate and differ: but on either hypothesis, the text of the evangelists is unimpeachable, and all shadow of contradiction done away: for the question then rests on the peculiar meaning of names and words. On this hypothesis, the preparation of the passover must be considered as implying no more than-1. Providing a convenient room. 2. Bringing water for the baking on the following day, because on that day the bringing of the water would have been unlawful. 3. Making inquisition for the leaven, that every thing of this kind might be removed from the house where the passover was to be eaten, according to the very strict and awful command of God, Exodus 12:15-20; 23:15; 34:25. These, it is probable, were the acts of preparation which the disciples were commanded to perform, Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:13, 14; Luke 22:8-11, and which, on their arrival at the city, they punctually executed. See Matthew 26:19; Mark 14:16; Luke 22:13. Thus every thing was prepared, and the holy sacrament instituted, which should, in the Christian Church, take place of the Jewish passover, and continue to be a memorial of the sacrifice which Christ was about to make by his death on the cross: for as the paschal lamb had showed forth his death till he came, this death fulfilled the design of the rite, and sealed up the vision and prophecy.

All preparations for the true paschal sacrifice being now made, Jesus was immediately betrayed, shortly after apprehended, and in a few hours expired upon the cross. It is therefore very likely that he did not literally eat the passover this year; and may I not add, that it is more than probable that the passover was not eaten in the whole land of Judea on this occasion? The rending of the vail of the temple, Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45, the terrible earthquake, Matthew 27:51-54; the dismal and unnatural darkness, which was over the whole land of Judea, from the sixth hour, (twelve o’clock,) to the ninth hour (i.e. three o’clock in the afternoon,) with all the other prodigies which took place on this awful occasion, we may naturally conclude, were more than sufficient to terrify and appal this guilty nation, and totally to prevent the celebration of the paschal ceremonies. Indeed, the time in which killing the sacrifices, and sprinkling the blood of the lambs, should have been performed, was wholly occupied with these most dreadful portents; and it would be absurd to suppose that, under such terrible evidences of the Divine indignation, any religious ordinances or festive preparations could possibly have taken place.

My readers will probably be surprised to see the preceding opinions so dissentient among themselves, and the plausible reasons by which they are respectively supported, where each seems by turns to prevail. When I took up the question, I had no suspicion that it was encumbered with so many difficulties. These I now feel and acknowledge; nevertheless, I think the plan of reconciling the texts of the evangelists, particularly St. Luke and St. John, which I have adopted above, is natural, and, I am in hopes, will not appear altogether unsatisfactory to my readers. On the subject, circumstanced as it is, hypothesis alone can prevail; for indubitable evidence and certainty cannot be obtained. The morning of the resurrection is probably the nearest period in which accurate information on this point can be expected. Je suis trompe, says Bouilleau, si cete question peut etre jamais bien eclaircie. “If I be not mistaken, this question will never be thoroughly understood.” It would be presumptuous to say, Christ did eat the passover this last year of his ministry: it would be as hazardous to say he did not eat it. The middle way is the safest; and it is that which is adopted above. One thing is sufficiently evident, that Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed for us; and that he has instituted the holy eucharist, to be a perpetual memorial of that his precious death until his coming again: and they who, with a sincere heart, and true faith in his passion and death, partake of it, shall be made partakers of his most blessed body and blood. Reader, praise God for the atonement, and rest not without an application of it to thy own soul.

ST. MATTHEW

Verse 75. And Peter — Immediately upon hearing the cock crow, remembered the words of Jesus — The crowing of the cock reminding him of them. Thus, at the same time that Jesus predicted his fall, by mentioning that it would happen before the cock crew, he provided the means of his recovery, and by this little circumstance the fallen apostle is awakened and brought to repentance. Such weak and contemptible means does God sometimes use to open the eyes of sinners, and bring them to a sense of their danger and their duty! This, however, was not the only means of Peter’s restoration. Luke informs us, that immediately upon Peter’s denying Christ the third time, and the crowing of the cock, the Lord turned and looked upon Peter, and that, upon his so doing, Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. “The members of the council,” it appears, “who examined Jesus, sat at the upper end of the hall; in the other, were the servants with Peter at the fire. Wherefore, if Christ was placed on some footstool or bench, that his judges, who were many in number, might hear and see him, he could easily look over the heads of those who stood around him, and observe what was doing at the fire; particularly he could see Peter, who was then denying him with imprecations, and in the vehemency of his passion was speaking loud enough to be heard at the upper end of the room. But he had no sooner denied his Master the third time, than the cock crew, and awakened in him the first conviction of his sin; or at least made him look to his Master, in order, perhaps, to see if he were taking notice of what had happened. But at the same instant Jesus, turning about, fixed his eyes on his cowardly disciple. The look pierced him, and with the crowing of the cock, brought his Master’s prediction afresh into his mind. He was stung with deep remorse, and being unable to contain himself, he covered his face with his garment (see note on Mark 14:72) to conceal the confusion he was in, and going out he wept most bitterly;” experiencing that godly sorrow which worketh repentance unto salvation not to be repented of.

Before we dismiss this melancholy subject of Peter’s fall, it may not be unprofitable to notice, as a warning to ourselves, two particulars therein: First, the gradual progress of sin in him, and the various gradations by which it advanced to this depth of wickedness. From self-confidence, which was the source of the whole mischief, he proceeded, 1st, To disbelieve and disregard Christ’s warnings; and therefore: 2d, Neglected to watch and pray. 3d, When alarmed by the unexpected coming of the band to apprehend Jesus, he gave way to his own spirit, and drew his carnal weapon to defend his heavenly Master. 4th, Immediately upon being convinced of his error in this, he passed from rash courage to unreasonable cowardice, and instantly forsook his Master and fled. 5th, When, recollecting himself, he followed, it was afar off. 6th. Having unthinkingly ventured into the company of Christ’s enemies, when he had the fairest opportunity of confessing his Master, and an evident call to do it, he denied him, first, it seems, equivocating and shuffling, then telling a plain and direct lie, and confirming it by an oath, and, last of all, to gain it still greater credit, cursing and swearing. The aggravations of his sin are, secondly, deserving of our notice: 1st, He was guilty of this base, cowardly, and false conduct in the presence of Christ’s enemies, the high- priest, scribes, and elders, and their servants, who, doubtless, rejoiced at it; and were confirmed in their unbelief, after witnessing the treachery of one of Jesus’s disciples in selling him for money, to hear another of them denying him through fear. 2d, He thus denied his Master, told these lies, and uttered these oaths and curses within his Master’s view, and in his hearing. 3d, The time when Peter behaved in this manner was a peculiar aggravation of his sin. It was within a few hours after his gracious Master had most solemnly and repeatedly warned him of his danger, and he had been a witness of his conflict and bitter sorrow in the garden: it was when his Lord, of whose transfiguration and glory on the mount he had been an astonished and admiring spectator, was beginning to be most unjustly and cruelly treated by the persecutors of God’s truth, and the enemies of all righteousness, for his unspeakable love to Peter himself, and others of the human race, whom he was about to redeem and save. “The time,” says Saurin, “when Peter denied Christ, makes his crime great indeed! The time of the Lord’s looking at him illuminates his looks! At the very time when Jesus was giving the tenderest marks of his love, Peter discovered the blackest ingratitude to him; while Jesus redeemed Peter, Peter denied Jesus! While Jesus yielded to the bloody death of the cross for Peter, Peter refused to confess him! But — Jesus looks at him! My brethren, what do these looks say? how eloquent are those eyes! Never was a discourse so effectual; never did an orator express himself with so much force! It is the man of griefs complaining of a new burden, while he is ready to sink under what he already bears. It is the beneficent Redeemer of mankind pitying a soul ready to be lost! It is the apostle of our profession preaching in chains! In fine, it is the Sovereign of the hearts of men, the Almighty God of love, curbing the efforts of the devil, and taking his conquest away!”

Ver. 75. He went out and wept bitterly. The consideration of this case is reserved to John 21., where we find the unhappy apostle restored to the love of Christ, and to his ministry.

75. Wept bitterly — Tears are, indeed, of little use that result not in return to duty. Judas wept perhaps, but turned not. Peter wept, and what was better, he returned to Christ and became a faithful apostle. Olshausen thinks that Peter’s denial was so inconsistent with his real bravery as to constitute a true “enigma,” explicable only on the hypothesis that he was under a temptation greater than he could bear. On the contrary, we venture to think it was like the man. He had active bravery, but not steady, passive firmness. Give him a sword, his fellow eleven for comrades, and his Lord for captain, and he would have been ready to storm the fortress of Antonia. But bid him put up his sword and stand the foeman’s shafts, and you take the man out of him. He followed his Lord adventurously, and then denied him shamefully; just as he started to walk upon the waves and then sunk before the blast. Such keeping of character is sure proof of the truth of the Gospel history.

Verse 75. And he went out, &c. — Overwhelmed by remorse and shame, he left the place, going out of the court probably into some secret place, and wept bitterly; the depth of his sorrow, and the abundance of his tears, poured forth from a truly broken and a contrite spirit, answering to the greatness of his offence. St. Mark has expressed this with inimitable pathos and simplicity: “And when HE THOUGHT THEREON, he wept.” See note on Mark 14:72.