[And He Walks With Me] Matthew 26
1-2 Once again, Jesus predicted his death. This time, however, the prediction is tied to the upcoming Passover and therefore explicitly imminent. This is at least the second time Jesus mentioned he was to be crucified (see Matthew 20:19). In all likelihood, this still made no sense to the disciples. It was only Sunday that Jesus arrived in Jerusalem to great fanfare. Granted, his behavior since then had been unexpected: he had not overthrown Rome and pronounced himself king, and he had sparred with the religious leaders on multiple occasions. However, that only compounded the outlandishness of the prediction. The Romans did not crucify people arbitrarily. That form of execution was typically reserved exclusively for rebels, and to their chagrin, Jesus had done nothing worthy of that title.
3-5 Caiaphas is mentioned here and in John 11:49 as the high priest. However, Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6 assign the title to Annas. While this at first seems contradictory, it is explained by historical context. Annas was the high priest prior to 15 CE, when he was deposed by the Roman authorities and replaced by Caiaphas. However, Old Testament law stipulated that a high priest could be removed from office only by death. Therefore, many Jews still considered Annas the high priest. Further, Caiaphas was Annas’ son-in-law, suggesting that, while he possessed the official title, it was Annas who continued to exert the real power.[286]
The actions of the chief priests and the elders of the people reveal some tension. On the one hand, they wanted Jesus gone because he was undermining their authority among the people. On the other hand, they needed to do it in a way that would not cause rioting among the people because unrest would lead the secular authorities to depose them and possibly revoke the significant degree of autonomy Jews enjoyed. Therefore, they conspired… in a treacherous way. The language is an allusion to Psalm 31:13, in which David described the plotting of his unrighteous enemies. By not moving against Jesus during the festival, the accomplished two things: (1) they maintained a semblance of righteousness, and (2) they ensured there would not be as many people in town to become outraged.[287]
6-7 Several details in this verse were shocking to its original readers. First, Jesus was at the house of Simon the leper. In the first century, “leprosy” covered a wide variety of skin conditions, including what is known today as leprosy or Hansen’s Disease. The exact nature of Simon’s condition, therefore, cannot be determined from the text. Regardless of this specific detail, however, the end result was the same: lepers were forced to live outside of town and avoid the general population. The fact that this scene occurred at Simon’s house suggests that he was healed, probably by Jesus.[288] This compels the question of when Simon was healed. Had he already visited the temple to be officially cleared by the priests? Or was he still technically unclean? Second, a woman approached him. It was not normal for a woman to approach a man who was not part of her immediate family. Yet, this woman entered one man’s house and approached another man.
John 12:3 identifies the woman as Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha. Further, some scholars conflate this act with the anointing of Luke 7:36-50, where a Pharisee named Simon invited Jesus and a woman… who was a sinner came and anointed Jesus’ feet. This has led many to believe that Mary Magdalene, who is introduced in Luke 8:1-3, is the same as the sinful woman of Luke 7, the Mary of John 12, and the woman here. Other scholars, however, have deemed this equation unlikely.
Alabaster probably refers to calcite, a common mineral found in sedimentary rock deposits such as those that dominate the region. Calcite can be found in a variety of shades, with some resembling white marble. Because it is soft and easily carved, it was often formed into small flasks and used to store expensive ointments. The flasks were sealed to prevent the ointments from evaporating and would later be broken to release their contents.[289]
According to Mark 14:3 and John 12:3, the perfume Mary used was pure nard. Nard is an oil extracted from the root of the nard plant, which grows only in India. As such, it was extremely expensive and reserved only for special acts of devotion.[290] It may have been saved for the woman’s dowry, or it could have been her inheritance from either her father or husband.[291] Alternatively, it “may have been planned for a funeral, either a future one or one canceled because of Jesus’ healing ministry.”[292]
10-13 These verses record two key tensions between apparently contradictory notions. The first is a theological tension, and the second is a practical tension. The presence of such tensions in the gospels indicate that, sometimes, the answer is not either/or but both/and, and Christ-followers must endeavor to find a balance between the two extremes. Ideally, this will involve constant adjustment, as is required when riding a bicycle. Consequently, it should also involve humility to recognize that each Christ-follower may respond differently depending on their exact situation.
Aware of this hints at an interesting tension that appears throughout the incarnation. On the one hand, Jesus in his divinity possesses omniscience or the knowledge of all things. On the other, Jesus in his humanity has emptied himself of some divine attributes (Philippians 2:7). This does not mean that he no longer possesses those attributes but that he chose while on earth to not exercise them to their fullest extent. Indeed, this is an example where Jesus knew what the disciples were thinking and saying to the woman when Jesus was out of earshot. Other times, however, he was amazed (e.g., Matthew 8:10), which is not possible when one knows all things. Today, this tension manifests itself in the fact that Jesus knows all things but still longs for his people to share with him in prayer. Christ-followers will be eager to spend time in prayer, but they will also trust that, when they do not know what or how to pray, he knows their hearts.
Christ-followers will also recognize a tension between acts of service and acts of devotion. The disciples were frustrated that the woman wasted the expensive perfume by pouring it on Jesus’ head when it could have been sold to help a lot of people. This would have been a beautiful act of service. However, Jesus did not disparage the woman’s actions because he recognized them as acts of lavish devotion. He described it as a noble thing and explained, You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me. It is doubtful that Jesus would have criticized the woman if she chose to sell the perfume and give the proceeds to the poor, but saints will also be mindful of passing opportunities for devotion that must be seized.
21:1-28:15 Matthew’s Holy Week Timeline
| 21:1-13 | Palm Sunday[293] |
| 21:14-26:2 | Monday |
| 26:3-13 | Tuesday |
| 26:14-16 | Wednesday |
| 26:17-75 | Thursday[294] |
| 27:1-61 | Good Friday |
| 27:62-66 | Saturday |
| 28:1-15 | Easter Sunday |
14-16 These verses are probably the only event Matthew recorded on Wednesday. Wilkins suggests Jesus and most of his party remained in Bethany all day, while only Judas went into the city. Consequently, this is sometimes referred to as “silent Wednesday” because there is no record of Jesus’ specific activities on this day.[295]
One of the Twelve is a clear reminder that Judas was one of those chosen by Jesus to be an apostle. That is, he was an insider, even as he went to the chief priests to betray Jesus. This is perhaps the most difficult tension in the Bible and one of the most profound demonstrations of God’s grace. He invites into fellowship those who would betray him, and continues to claim them even as they put their plans into motion.
Most scholars believe the surname Iscariot is a reference to Judas’ hometown of Kerioth in Judea. This would make him the only one of Jesus’ apostles known to have come from Judea rather than Galilee. There is, however, an alternative theory that the surname is a corruption of the Latin word sicarius, meaning “dagger-man.” Proponents of this theory assert that Judas may have been a member of the Zealots, a group which advocated for the active and violent opposition of Roman rule, and the Sicarii, an extremist sect of the Zealots who used daggers to assassinate people in their quest to overthrow Roman control. They further theorize that Judas betrayed Jesus when he realized Jesus would not launch the political and military overthrow of Rome.
Thirty pieces of silver was both the value of a slave (see Exodus 21:32) and symbolic of an insignificant amount. This could reflect the chief priests’ and Judas’ lack of esteem for Jesus, or it may have been a deposit on a larger sum that would be paid upon Jesus’ apprehension. Although the denomination of coin is not specified in the text, it is likely a shekel, which was worth 4 danarii. If this is the case, then thirty pieces of silver was roughly equivalent to four months of wages.[296]
Judas’ reasons for betraying Jesus are often debated. It has been suggested he was driven by greed, jealousy, disillusionment, or even a desire to force Jesus’ hand to reveal himself as Messiah.[297]
In the original Greek, the words for what Judas proposes and agrees to do are παραδώσω (paradoso) and παραδῷ (parado), respectively. Both are different forms of the word παραδίδωμι (paradidomi), which Strong’s defines as “to surrender” or “betray.”[298]
17 The first day of Unleavened Bread refers to the beginning of the Passover festival. According to Exodus 12, the Passover began on Nisan 10 with the selection of an unblemished, male lamb from the flock. This lamb was kept until Nisan 14, when it was slaughtered in the evening. Along with this, Jews were expected to eat unleavened bread for seven days to commemorate their rapid exit from Egypt. It is important to remember that Jews measured days from sunset to sunset, so Nisan 14 began as the sun was going down Thursday evening and continued until the sun was going down on Friday evening. However, the bread had to be made before that. Thus, Thursday was the first day of Unleavened Bread, and preparations had to be made for the Passover meal that was to be eaten that evening.
18-19 In Mark 14:13, the certain man is described as a man carrying a jar of water. While there was nothing unusual about people carrying jars of water through the streets of Jerusalem prior to the advent of indoor plumbing, this was typically the job of women. Thus, a man carrying a jar of water would be highly noticeable.
Jesus’ confidence that the disciples would find a certain man and he would immediately agree to Jesus celebrating the Passover at your place with [his] disciples can be explained in one of two ways. Those who dismiss the notion of supernatural abilities would suggest Jesus pre-arranged the meeting similar to how we might make reservations at a hotel or banquet venue. Thus, the disciples had only to find the man and tell him they were there to prepare, and he would show them the way. However, seems a bit strange. Was the man simply to carry water through the streets until the disciples stumbled upon him? It would seem Jesus had, at the very least, foreknowledge of exactly what this man would be doing when the disciples came upon him. It is therefore not unreasonable to believe the entire thing was supernatural. Perhaps the man had learned through a dream or other supernatural means that the Teacher was coming and what his disciples would say. Do not be quick to dismiss the possibility of the supernatural.
20-21 For the entire company to be reclining at the table was a common posture. People in the ANE did not typically sit in chairs to eat. Rather, they sat on the floor, with their legs out to the side. If a family had a table, it was a slab low to the ground, but most poorer households typically ate on a cloth or skin spread on the floor.[299] Thus, their position was reclined. Moreover, this was a profoundly casual and comfortable setting. This group had been together night and day for three years. They knew and trusted each other and so used this opportunity to relax a bit. And how grateful they were for that chance! After arriving in Jerusalem to shouts of acclamation, waving palm branches, and the expectation that Jesus would finally assume his role as the political/military messiah they were expecting, seeing Jesus squander all of that, watching the crowd dwindle, and seeing the religious elite spar with Jesus must have been profoundly discouraging. They sorely needed to reconnect with Jesus and each other.
Given how much the disciples and co. needed a chance to reconnect with Jesus, the warning that one of you will betray me must have been like a bomb going off in the room.
22-23 Hearing that one of them would betray Jesus, the disciples each rushed to deny having any part in the conspiracy, and Jesus did not help the matter when he said the traitor would be the one who dipped his hand with me in the bowl. Approximately half of a person’s diet consisted of bread and other wheat or barley products.[300] During a Passover meal such as this, the bread would be dipped into common bowl containing one of three things: charoset (a thick paste made from dates, figs, raisins, etc.), a mixture of bitter herbs with saltwater or vinegar, or a common stew-like dish. A similar practice is still common among African cultures today. While John 13:26 would seem to indicate Jesus told Peter alone who the specific traitor would be, the result of the exchange recorded by Matthew was that everyone had dipped their bread with Jesus and was therefore a suspect. And indeed, they would each betray Jesus in some way by morning.
25 Even Judas insisted that he would not betray Jesus. Jesus’ response, You have said it, was apparently not perceived by the rest of the company as an indictment until later when they reflected upon all of the events surrounding the crucifixion.
26-29 In Luke’s account of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19-20), Jesus encouraged the disciples to eat the bread in remembrance of me. Matthew omitted this explicit mandate, but the same idea is clearly implied when Jesus likened the broken bread to my body and the cup to my blood. The body represented the whole of the person, and the blood represented the life. Moreover, bread and wine were staples of the ANE diet. Therefore, when the disciples ate or drank each day, they were to think of who Jesus was and how he lived. This was further reinforced when Jesus described it as my blood of the covenant. In biblical times, a covenant was a familiar concept often likened to a modern contract. In the simplest of terms, it spelled out what was expected of each party if they were to continue in relationship. In the case of Jesus’ covenant, the expectations were spelled out not on paper but in Christ’s blood. How he lived, suffered, and died set the precedent which his people are to follow.
It is crucial to recognize the placement of Matthew’s account of the Lord’s Supper. Immediately before these verses (vss 21-25), Jesus revealed that one of his disciples was going to betray him, but he did not force that disciple to leave the table. Further, this account is immediately followed by Jesus warning that all of you will fall away because of me (vs 31). Jesus knows fully our shortcomings, failures, and sin. Yet, he chooses to remain with us at the table and to invite us to share in his life, suffering, sacrifice, and victory nonetheless.
30 It is interesting that Matthew does not reveal which hymn the disciples sang with Jesus. Perhaps he did not remember, or perhaps he did not want readers to fixate on exactly which songs should be sung or not sung. Regardless, a first-century hymn likely took its lyrics from a Psalm or other passage familiar to Jews which was set to music.
31-35 Judas Iscariot is commonly known as the one who betrayed Jesus, and that description is not false. However, these verses are a poignant reminder that everyone has betrayed Jesus, and those who protest the loudest that they will never fall away are often the worst offenders.
36-39 In Gethsemane, we get a glimpse at one of the more poignant implications of the incarnation. Like all human beings, Jesus’ flesh came with a natural self-preservation instinct. Knowing what the morning would bring, this instinct was expressed here as, for the first time since before the beginning of time, one member of the Trinity questioned the redemptive plan. The implications for prayer are significant. First, God understands the conflict that we face when human instinct does not align with his will. He recognizes that every fiber of our being is programmed to resist some of the things he asks us to do. Second, God welcomes honesty in prayer, even when it does not align with his will for the moment. Telling him what we truly feel and instinctively want will not undermine our relationship with him. Third, the key is that we must resolve that his will must take precedence over our own. Even when we are not “feeling it,” the prayer of the faithful person must ultimately be, Yet not as I will, but as you will.
40-41 The tension between flesh and spirit is again illustrated when Jesus found [the disciples] sleeping. Certainly, there are limits to what the human body can do, but virtually everyone holds something in reserve. That is, the body naturally limits itself as a means of self-preservation. Not having such a reserve is dangerous and will eventually lead to burnout. Conversely, many people hold too much in reserve so that they never achieve their potential. The trick is to set one’s limit at an effective but sustainable rate and then to discern when it is appropriate and necessary to push past that limit into the reserve. For Jesus, Gethsemane was one of those moments, but the disciples failed to recognize it. Christians must be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit to recognize when God needs them to stretch their normal limits to accomplish his purposes.
42-44 Jesus’ prayer in both vss 42 and 44 was essentially the same as what he prayed in vs 39. God has no problem when we pray for our human desires, even repeatedly, as long as they are always subject to his will.
44-46 May there never come a day when Jesus finds something so important but finds me still sleeping and resting!
47-49 Exactly why Judas was paid by the chief priests and co. is unclear in Scriptures, but commentators have different theories. The Expositor’s Commentary, for example, suggests he was paid for “information as to where Jesus could be arrested in a quiet setting with little danger of mob violence.”[301] Matthew Henry speculates the fee was paid to identify Jesus for the Roman soldiers who may not have recognized him.[302]
49-50 Dummelow observes that Jesus allowed Judas to kiss and embrace him rather than push him away. He postulated that Jesus did this for two reasons: “(1) to soften the heart of Judas by his gentleness, if that were possible,” and “(2) in the words of St. Hilary, ‘to teach us to love our enemies, and those who we know to be bitter against us.’”[303] This notion is supported by Jesus’ gentle response, in which he addressed Judas as Friend and asked simply, why have you come? Matthew does not record a verbal response, but one can imagine that Jesus’ question stirred many things in Judas. For instance, it reminded him of how Jesus had never done anything to hurt Judas and actually welcomed him into the band of disciples and even table fellowship. It also compelled Judas to articulate, even if silently, exactly what he was hoping to accomplish by betraying Jesus.
51 Luke 22:35-38 reveals how the disciples came to have a sword in the garden. John 18:10 reveals that the disciple who wielded the sword was Simon Peter. Fortunately, Luke 22:50-51 identifies the victim as the high priest’s servant and provides the added closure that Jesus healed his ear before the soldiers took him into custody.
52-54 Rather than allowing his disciples to respond to this egregious abuse with force, Jesus stopped the violence begun in vs 51. If there was any lingering doubt that Jesus’ kingdom would operate under a different paradigm than the typical earthly kingdom, this put it to rest. This is not to say that there is not a time and place for a Christ-follower to defend themselves. Rather, it is to say that the Christian’s response to the world’s abuses must not be more abuse.
55-56 Jesus’ response here challenged everything about what was happening. If he was so terrible, why were there no charges specified against him? If his teachings were so wrong, why did they not arrest him in the temple where he was sharing them? If the crowd was so righteous, why did it come under cover of night to a remote place where the general public would not see? Real righteousness does not avoid transparency or accountability.
56 Just hours after the disciples, and especially Peter, insisted that they would never fall away from him (see vss 31-35), Jesus’ prediction came true. Beware overconfidence.
57-68 The meeting of the Jewish ruling council described in the succeeding verses is problematic. Romans allowed subjected people a significant degree of autonomy in trying their own legal matters, but they reserved for themselves the authority to intervene in any case and, especially, to execute a person. Thus, the Jewish council needed to formulate a case that appeared (a) reasonably legitimate so the Romans would not step in and (b) severe enough for the Roman governor to approve the execution.
The irregularity of this meeting has been observed by scholars throughout history. According to Mishnaic procedures (namely, m. Sanh. 4-7), the Jewish council should meet during the day and in the temple courts, but this meeting was held at night and at the high priest’s home. It also was held on the eve of a major festival, skipped over arguments for acquittal, included false and conflicting witnesses, and confirmed the conviction on the same day rather than waiting until after a night’s sleep. For some scholars, these irregularities have been perceived as reason to doubt the veracity of the gospel account. However, it should be noted that the Mishnaic procedures were not documented until the turn of the third century CE. It is therefore unclear how many of these practices were standard during Jesus’ time. So also, the Mishnah was formulated by Pharisees, but this trial was officiated by a Sadducean high priest who would likely ignore Pharisaic policies. Moreover, the fact that this meeting defied normal policies may be precisely the point of the gospel account. The council wanted Jesus silenced before the Passover festival officially began, and they were willing to violate their own procedures to accomplish that goal.[304]
57 For Caiaphas, see note on vss 3-5. The home of the high priest was nothing short of a palace. Archaeological evidence suggests that Caiaphas’ mansion was likely large enough to house offices for both Caiaphas and Annas, as well as a courtyard large enough for the seventy members of the Sanhedrin.[305]
60 There are any number of reasons they could not find any false testimony that would warrant the death penalty. First, they needed false testimony that was believable. This involved finding a credible witness who would tell a story that was both reasonable and consistent with itself. Second, they needed false testimony that was substantive. That is, it could not be presented as hearsay (e.g., “I heard…”), and it had to be of acts severe enough to warrant the death penalty. Third, they needed at least two witnesses saying the same thing. The hasty nature of the assembly and the need for at least a semblance of legitimacy made it impossible to coach the witnesses on exactly what to say. Therefore, the council struggled to find witnesses that satisfied all of these requirements.
61 The closest things Jesus said to this were in Matthew 24:2 and John 2:19. Thus, there was a nugget of truth in this testimony, but that nugget was certainly twisted. In Matthew 24:2, Jesus never claimed he would rebuild the temple in three days. And in John 2:19, he never asserted that he would destroy the temple and then rebuild it. By tweaking the truth, these witnesses did two key things. First, they portrayed Jesus as hostile to the temple and, by extension, to the Jews and God. Second, they painted the assertion that he would rebuild the temple in three days as tantamount to a claim of deity. This was especially poignant because the temple had been under construction for nearly 50 years by this time, and archaeologists have estimated that the construction workforce was approximately 10,000 people, plus another 1,000 priests trained as masons.
64 Superficially, Jesus’ statement here is innocent enough. Son of Man was a familiar messianic title, and there was nothing particularly offensive about saying the Messiah would be seated at the right hand of Power or coming on the clouds of heaven. The problem arose in that Son of Man was also one of Jesus’ favorite titles for himself. Therefore, this was construed as a claim that he was the Messiah and deity. Of course, Jesus was the Messiah and deity, but his words here were chosen carefully to leave just enough ambiguity that he could not be legitimately convicted of blasphemy.
65 The high priest tore his robes as a traditional sign of grief and outrage. Jewish tradition dictated that such a response was mandatory in the case of blasphemy. However, calling what Jesus said in vs 64 blasphemy was a stretch. The only way Caiaphas could construe Jesus’ words as blasphemy was if Jesus “associated himself with God in a way that diminishes God’s honor.”[306] This was the religious equivalent of an NBA player throwing himself on the floor and rolling around as if in agony in response to a minor touch in order to draw the foul call.
67 The sort of abuse recorded in this verse was not typical of Jewish trials.[307]
73 The Hebrew and Aramaic languages include guttural sounds which are pronounced in the throat and therefore sound relatively harsh compared to typical English. Judean Jews were particular about the way these sounds were pronounced and looked down upon anyone who did not pronounce them the same way. In particular, they viewed Galileeans and their pronunciation as backward.[308]
[286] Barker and Kohlenberger 2004, Matthew 26:3-5
[287] Barker and Kohlenberger 2004, Matthew 26:3-5
[288] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 26:6-13
[289] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 26:7
[290] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 26:7
[291] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 26:7
[292] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 26:7
[293] Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts indicate that Jesus drove the merchants, etc. from the temple Sunday afternoon after the Triumphal Entry. However, Mark’s account clearly places this temple cleansing on the next day, i.e., Monday. The discrepancy could be explained if Jesus arrived at the temple just before sunset and drove out the merchants, etc. just after sunset, since ancient Jews considered sunset to be the end of one day and beginning of the next.
[294] This timeline is generally set according to the modern understanding of when days begin and end (i.e., at midnight). The exception is Thursday, when Jesus was kept up all night by the various hearings and such. These overnight proceedings are all counted as Thursday.
[295] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 26:14-16
[296] Powell, 1. Wilkins 2004, Matthew 26:14-16
[297] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 26:14-16
[298] “G3860 – paradidōmi – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (kjv)”, n.d.
[299] Vos 1999, 1108
[300] Vos 1999, 1114
[301] Barker and Kohlenberger 2004, Matthew 26:47
[302] Henry 1994, 1758
[303] Dummelow 1936, 713
[304] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 26:57-68
[305] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 26:57-68
[306] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 26:65
[307] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 26:67
[308] Keener and Walton 2016, Matthew 26:73