Bible Commentaries

Matthew 26:1-5; Matthew 26:14-16), Jesus'

anointment by Mary ( Matthew 26:6-13), the last Passover supper and institution of

the Lord's Supper ( Matthew 26:17-35), Jesus' prayers in the garden ( Matthew 26:36-46), the

betrayal by Judas and accompanying arrest ( Matthew 26:47-56), the appearance before

Caiaphas and the council ( Matthew 26:57-68), and Peter's denial as foretold by

Jesus ( Matthew 26:69-75).

POINTS TO PONDER

* The events leading to the arrest of Jesus

* The institution of the Lord's Supper

* Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1) What are the main points of this chapter?

- The plot to kill Jesus - Matthew 26:1-5; Matthew 26:14-16

- Jesus anointed at Bethany - Matthew 26:6-13

- The last supper - Matthew 26:17-35

- The garden of Gethsemane - Matthew 26:36-46

- Betrayal and arrest - Matthew 26:47-56

- Before Caiaphas and council - Matthew 26:57-68

- Peter denies Jesus - Matthew 26:69-75

2) Who plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him? ( Matthew 26:3-4)

- The chief priests, scribes, elders, along with Caiaphas the high

priest

3) What did Jesus say would be done for Mary who anointed Him? ( Matthew 26:13)

- Her kind deed would be proclaimed throughout the world as a

memorial to her

4) For how much did Judas agree with the chief priests to betray Jesus?

( Matthew 26:14-15)

- Thirty pieces of silver

5) What did Jesus institute while eating the Passover? ( Matthew 26:26-28;

cf. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34)

- The Lord's Supper

6) What did Jesus predict would happen that night? ( Matthew 26:31-35)

- All His disciples would stumble, Peter would deny Him three times

7) What did Jesus pray for three times in the garden of Gethsemane ( Matthew 26:39,

Matthew 26:42; Matthew 26:44)

- "let this cup pass from Me, nevertheless not as I will, but as You

will"

8) What claim was Jesus willing to accept at His trail? ( Matthew 26:63-64)

- That He was the Christ, the Son of God

9) After Peter denied knowing Jesus three times, what did he do? ( Matthew 26:75)

- He went out and wept bitterly

Matthew 26:1-75

, Matthew 26:1-75

THE PLOT TO KILL JESUS THE PRECIOUS OINTMENT THE BARGAIN OF JUDAS THE BETRAYAL AND SEIZURE THE TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN PETER's THREE DENIALS

And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these words, he said unto his disciples ... (, Matthew 26:1)

The teachings of Christ to Israel at this point were concluded. The atonement for the sins of all men was the next order of his divine will.

Verse2
Ye know that after two days the passover cometh, and the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified.

Christ related the crucifixion to the passover, rather than to the ordinary sabbath (see notes on Matthew 10:40). The passover always came at sundown on the14th day of Nisan, which means that it came on a different day of the week each year. In this place Christ named the kind of execution he would receive: crucifixion. His use of the prophetic tense, "is delivered up," makes the present stand for the future tense, as in all the prophets; and in this case, Christ is truly that prophet.

Of great significance is the sharp divergence between Christ's word and that of the chief priests and elders. Christ here placed his crucifixion as an event that would occur "after two days," and that it would take place during the passover festivities. Yet at the very time Christ revealed this to the disciples, the chief priests decided otherwise. They decided that he should die by subtlety (that is, secretly, by assassination or murder), and that it should not be done during the feast ( Matthew 26:5), thus clearly postponing his death for at least a week. However, THEY were not the architects of our Lord's death. As the Master said, he would lay down his life of his own accord; and Christ, not the priests, would choose the hour and the manner of his doing so.

Verse3
Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people, unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.

The court of the high priest was his palace; and the high priest mentioned here, Caiaphas, or Joseph Caiaphas, a son-in-law of Annas, had been named to that position by Valerius Gratus prior to26 A.D., and was deposed by Vitellius in37 A.D. The synoptics omit the first trial before Annas. The New Testament references to two high priests at the same time should not be confusing. Annas was appointed high priest in7 A.D. by Quirinius, governor of Syria. John 10:18). Not having the right to invoke the death penalty without the assent of the governor, they decided to murder Jesus. It would have been good for their reputations if that could have been accomplished. In such an event, Christ would merely have disappeared; and, all innocence and charm, they would have disclaimed any knowledge of it; but Christ simply would not allow them to get away with such a deed. His case, at the instigation of his will, would have a hearing, in fact, six hearings, before both Jews and Gentiles; and he would compel them to go on record, and the record would last for all ages to come. Moreover, the true reason for their hatred would be duly set forth in the imperishable record for the information of thousands of generations of men. The truly providential manner in which the murderous plan of the priests was thwarted and the whole case aired in the highest tribunals of the land is clearly discernible in the amazing events that began rapidly to unfold.

Verse5
But they said, Not during the feast, lest a tumult arise among the people.

But they said ... How futile was what THEY said. The true order of the deeds to be done was already determined, and there was nothing they could have done to the contrary. See notes under Matthew 26:2. Naturally, with people present for the passover from all over the ancient empire, they shrank from murdering a popular and noble person like Jesus was known to be, lest their deed should lose some of the popular support which they enjoyed from the multitudes. Thus, caution dictated that they wait until the feast was over. That, however, was not to be. According to ancient prophecy, one of the Messiah's intimates would betray him, and that unhappy event appeared precisely on schedule. The incident that precipitated Judas" shameful deed took place that very evening at a feast in the house of Simon the leper.

Verse6
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto him a woman having an alabaster cruse of exceeding precious ointment, and she poured it upon his head, as he sat at meat.

Simon the leper refers to a Simon who had been cured of leprosy, not to one who was at that time stricken with that disease. Since Christ alone was able to cure that malady, this means that Christ had healed Simon, and probably out of gratitude, Simon held this dinner in his home for Jesus. The woman mentioned was Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha who were also present at that dinner. Lazarus was a guest, Martha as usual was helping with the serving, and Mary, also as usual, was blessed with a deeper insight into the spiritual realities of the occasion.

A. T. Robertson's clear word on this incident removes any chance of confusing it with a similar event recorded in Luke 7:36 ff which occurred in the home of Simon the Pharisee. Robertson wrote:

This anointing has nothing in common with that given by Luke, except the fact of a woman anointing the Saviour's feet, and the name Simon, which was common. The former was in Galilee; this is at Bethany near Jerusalem. There the host despised the woman who anointed; here, her brother is one of the guests, and her sister an active attendant. There the woman was a sinner, a notoriously bad woman; here it is the devout Mary who "sat at the Lord's feet and heard his words," months before. There the host thought it strange that Jesus allowed her to touch him; here the disciples complained of the waste. There the Saviour gave assurance of forgiveness, here of perpetual and world-wide honor. Especially notice that here the woman who anoints is anticipating his speedy death and burial, of which at the former time he had never distinctly spoken. In view of all these differences, it is absurd to represent the two anointings as the same, and outrageous on such slender grounds to cast reproach on Mary of Bethany. 1 Kings 17:13).

Verse12
For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.

It may appear difficult to know what is meant by this verse. Some believe that Mary, purely out of love and affection for Jesus, made this costly gesture without being aware of the construction Jesus placed upon it in this verse. The view is that Christ accepted it, first on the loving basis upon which Mary offered it, and that he then extended the meaning of it to encompass his approaching death and burial. However, in view of the fact that Mary of Bethany is known to have been particularly attentive to the words of Christ for months and that she often sat at his feet to hear him, the more natural assumption is that she, at least, of all those present in the house of Simon the leper, had fully understood and appreciated his words regarding the approaching passion. She believed him. Therefore, it must be allowed that she did this remarkable thing with a full understanding of its significance. Christ said, "She did it to prepare me for burial."

Verse13
Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

Who but God (in Christ) could have had such thoughts and made such promises as contained in these words? Condemned though he stood by the rulers of his people, betrayed by a friend, and facing shame upon the cross, the Saviour, far from being intimidated by such realities, was thinking of the sweeping triumph of the gospel "in the whole world"! His prophecy of the world-wide honor that should accrue to the name of Mary in perpetuity showed how completely his mind was focused upon the impending victory he would achieve upon the cross. The Lord during those dark hours saw not the shame, the agony, or horror of death, but the universal victory of the true and the everlasting glory of them who would love and appreciate it. "Who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" ( Hebrews 12:2). Neither Mark nor Matthew mentioned Mary's name, notwithstanding Jesus" promise. Plummer said:

The reason may be that when they wrote, she was still alive, and would not desire to have her name published. When Luke and John ( John 12:2-8) wrote, she may have been deceased. Matthew 26:1-5. Plummer wrote, "Evidently we are to suppose that the proposal (of Judas) was a consequence of that incident." Luke 15:11). Such an attitude says, "I"ll take the cash; let the credit go; A bird in the hand's worth two in the bush! Get yours while the getting's good! You"ve got to look out for number one!" Such an attitude betrayed the Son of God, and it is still doing so.

Matthew indicates that Judas proposed the betrayal and that the priests named the amount they would pay. Luke's use of the word "covenanted" ( Luke 22:5) indicates some haggling over the price, which was promptly paid in advance in cash on the spot, once agreement had been reached. It surely seems almost incredible that those priests who were supposed to know so much Scripture could have been so oblivious to the prophecy of Zechariah that they should have exactly fulfilled it, matching to the penny the Messiah's betrayal price as set forth by that prophet! Zechariah wrote:

And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord ( Zechariah 11:12-13).

This is far more than a prophecy; it is a whole constellation of prophecies. Note the following:

1. There will be haggling over the price (if not, forbear).

2. The sum agreed upon will be30 pieces of silver.

3. It will be weighed out.

4. It will be cast unto the potter.

5. "Cast" indicates it will be thrown.

6. The potter will eventually receive it.

7. The recipient will do the casting.

8. The whole transaction will occur in the temple (the house of the Lord).

Even a casual student of the New Testament knows that every detail of that remarkable group of prophecies was fulfilled exactly, not by any of Jesus" friends trying to impose evidence that he was the Messiah, but by his sworn enemies. In fact, most of the wonderful prophecies of Jesus were fulfilled, not by friends, but by his enemies. Who can doubt that a Power above and beyond those evil men shaped their deeds to God's pattern, using their sinful deeds to accomplish his own divine purpose? "Without our being aware of it, our fingers are so guided that a pattern is created when the thread gets caught in the web!" Luke 22:6). Judas, knowing the place where Jesus was accustomed to retire for prayer with his disciples, would have no difficulty in finding such an occasion.

Just what day of the week this was could never be known with positive certainty unless the exact year of the crucifixion could be determined. The first day of unleavened bread was the day before the preparation for the passover, namely the13th of Nisan; and whether the Lord ate his last meal with the disciples on Wednesday or Thursday does not really matter. We do know that, in any case, the day on which he was crucified corresponded to the day the paschal lambs were slain, Christ thus fulfilling, even in his death, the figure of the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Technically, his last meal occurred on the day of his crucifixion, although actually it occurred the night before, a fact derived from the Jewish method of reckoning time and marking the day as beginning at sunset and ending at sunset the following day. Thus, we also are able to understand that the15th of Nisan (first full day of Passover that technically began at sundown on the14th of Nisan) really started at sundown of the day Christ was crucified on the14th. We shall leave it to the scholars to make endless arguments as to the exact day of the week. That Christ was crucified, not on the15th Nisan but on the14th, is plain from these considerations:

1. The15th of Nisan would not be called merely the preparation ( John 19:31). Yet that was the day Christ's body was upon the cross; and the concern of the leaders in hastening his death by the breaking of his legs (as they intended) was precisely for the purpose of preventing his body from remaining upon the cross over the Passover (15th Nisan), which began technically at sundown the day he suffered (14th Nisan).

2. If the day of the crucifixion had been the Passover (15th Nisan), the officers and men who arrested Jesus the night before (after the Passover had legally begun) would not have borne arms on such a high day.

3. If the day of the crucifixion had been the Passover proper, Joseph of Arimathea would not have prepared spices on that day ( Mark 15:46; Luke 23:56).

In view of the above, Christ's last meal, called the Passover, was not actually that. At least, it was not on that Passover day. It preceded the Passover. There is no evidence that a lamb was prepared and eaten by the Lord and his disciples. The true Lamb was present with them, and he would be slain on the morrow of this same14th Nisan, fulfilling the type to the letter. No one should be disturbed by the designation of this last meal as the Passover by the synoptics, for without doubt the term was used in an accommodative sense because it so resembled and so nearly coincided with the actual Passover. John's gospel makes it impossible to believe that it was actually the ordinary Passover. Furthermore, Christ did not refer to it as the Passover until the disciples had suggested it; and even then he referred to "keeping" rather than "eating" it.

Verse18
And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Teacher saith, My time is at hand; I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

Dummelow noted that:

The Last Supper is here called the Passover, because in many respects it resembled it. It is not, however, certain that there was a lamb. Jesus himself was the Lamb; and, as he intended to supersede the type by the reality, it was not absolutely necessary for the type to be present. Exodus 12:11); and the fact that the Jews no longer honored that commandment did not change God's law. We may be certain that Christ never concurred in "making the word of God of none effect" by accepting human tradition in the place of it (see notes, Matthew 15:6 ff). Why should Matthew have mentioned that Jesus was "reclining" at the table, unless this had pertinence and significance? Must we conclude that Christ had thereby consented with the Jews of his generation to eat the Passover lying down, instead of standing up as God's law required; or is it intended that we should see that this is not the Passover at all?

Verse21
And as they were eating, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

Why was this warning spoken? Did our Saviour, by this means and at so late an hour, try to stay the mad progress of Judas on his way to destruction? Was it to impel the heart-searching that immediately followed on the part of them all ? Was it to call attention to another notable prophecy about to be fulfilled? Psalm 41:9 prophesied, "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, Who did eat of my bread, Hath lifted up his heel against me." Judas was pinpointed by that prophecy. He was Jesus" friend, even an apostle; he was trusted, even carrying the bag; he ate of his bread. Characteristically, Christ expanded and extended the prophecy in more detail, noting in the following conversation that it would be one "who dipped his hand" in the dish with Jesus ( Matthew 26:23). Of the Twelve, only one man carried the bag and sat next to Jesus at the table.

The argument that Judas was predestined to the tragic role he played and that he was, therefore, not to blame for his conduct, is false. It was by choice, and by transgression, that Judas fell. God's foreknowledge of it did not require him to commit such a sin. God's knowledge of man's sin (past tense) does not make guilt any less; and, in the same way, God's knowledge of man's sin (future tense) does not mitigate or extenuate it. Judas was not a devil from the beginning; at first he was a noble apostle, receiving from Christ the same commission as the others to heal the sick and cast out demons (see note on Matthew 10:8).

Verse22
And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began to say unto him every one, Is it I, Lord?

In this heartbreaking scene, the earthly fortunes of our Lord were at their lowest ebb. One of his chosen was a traitor with the blood-money already in his bag. The gathering storm would soon break, the darkness deepened, and every man present felt the awful possibility of forsaking and betraying him. How shamefully weak is every man!

Verse23
And he answered and said, He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.

Thus, Jesus plainly identified Judas as the traitor. The other gospels contain interesting details of that event not contained in Matthew.

Verse24
The Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him; but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born.

This was possibly a last-minute effort on the part of Christ to arouse in Judas some desire of repentance. Christ had already indicated to Judas that his treachery was known; and if Judas, convicted of sin, had only confessed it and asked Jesus" forgiveness, he could have been spared participation in the actual delivery of Christ to his foes.

The Son of man goeth ... "probably means `goeth his way to death." The word sometimes has the sense of `going back" or `going home," and that idea may well be included here." John 13:23-30). Judas was admonished, "That thou doest, do quickly" ( John 13:27-28). "Straightway" after receiving the sop, Judas departed from the company.

Why did Christ admonish Judas to do his foul deed "quickly"? One plausible reason is that Christ, about to institute the Lord's Supper, did not desire Judas" attendance upon that solemn night. "After the sop, Satan had entered into Judas; and it was inappropriate that he should participate in the Last Supper, especially that portion of it in which the Lord's Supper was initiated. However, at least some of the apostles did not so understand Jesus" words. John relates that "some thought Jesus meant, Buy what things we have need of for the feast" ( John 13:29). This is more proof that this Last Supper was not the Passover. Some things yet needed to be procured for the "feast" or Passover, legally scheduled for the following evening, and it is virtually certain that one of the things lacking was the lamb itself.

Two expressions in the context are charged with rich symbolical meaning. These are "the sop" and "it was night" (see John 13:27-30). The presentation of "the sop" to Judas is ironic in that he was betraying Christ for a mere pittance, a financial sop, a single mouthful, a trifle, giving up something of infinite value for something of the most trivial worth. "It was night" also carries the deepest implications. How dark was that night when the Saviour's friend betrayed him, the disciples forsook him and fled, and the powers of darkness seized possession of the body of the Christ of God. It was a time of darkness appropriate to the deeds of darkness then afoot.

Verse26
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD's SUPPER

This and through Matthew 26:30 is Matthew's account of the establishment of the Lord's Supper, an event recorded by all three synoptics and by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. The four witnesses to this scene (Paul"s, of course, by direct revelation) are remarkable for variation in the words of Jesus, as separately reported; but this should be understood as the natural result of independent testimonies and is much more convincing than verbatim accounts would have been, for in such a case there would invariably have existed a presumption of some common source. Of course, the accounts perfectly agree and are fully compatible and supplementary, each to the others, making up a graphic and exciting composite of this momentous occurrence.

An age-old controversy, and one that rent Christendom asunder, raged over the meaning of "This is my body." Is the expression a metaphor, or is some mystical meaning implied? The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is grounded here. Yet, when one has read the long and tedious dissertations on this subject, a fresh reading of the whole context will clear the mind and bring sharply into focus the obvious truth. Christ often used metaphor in his teaching, saying, "I am the door," "I am the way," "I am the bread of life," etc. The compulsion to receive "This is my body" as a metaphor comes from the fact that it was not Jesus" literal flesh that they ate. The expression "This is my body" which they were to take and eat, actually focuses attention upon the lamb of the Passover, the type, of which Jesus was the glorious fulfillment. Not in eating an actual lamb, but in living the Word of Christ shall men attain unto salvation (see notes on Matthew 15:20).

Verse27

And he took a cup and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.

Drink ye all means that all of them were to drink of it, not that all of the cup was to be drunk. That "all" are to partake is a mandate for the whole church in all ages, refuting the notion that some, the priests for example, may drink of the cup and that the laity may not. Communion "under one kind" is impossible. The same Lord who said of the bread, "Take and eat," said also of the cup, "Drink ye all"!

Verse28
For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Christ made the Lord's Supper the solemn sign and seal of the covenant for the forgiveness of the sins of his disciples in all ages. Christians who forsake the Lord's Supper are described in the New Testament as having "trodden under foot the Son of God" and as having "counted the blood of the covenant wherewith (they) were sanctified an unholy thing" and as having "done despite" (insulted) unto the Spirit of grace ( Hebrews 10:29).

Of vast significance are the words "unto remission of sins," translated "for the remission of sins" in the KJV. Note that Christ's blood was not shed because men were already forgiven but in order that they might be forgiven. Christ did not die because men were already saved but in order that they might, as a result of his death, receive salvation. The application is binding on the identical expression, "remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 : "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS." Whatever the expression means in one place it must also mean in the other. Thus, the familiar heresy that baptism is not related to forgiveness of sins is refuted, incidentally but devastatingly, by Christ's use of the key phrase in this verse. This expositor has never seen an exposition, version, commentary or translation in which the identical words (unto remission of sins) in Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28 were not identically translated. Both passages in the Greek text, and as far as is known in all translations, are identical in form and meaning. Therefore, if Christ's pouring out of his blood was a prerequisite in the procurement of human forgiveness, then also baptism is a prerequisite action in the procurement of that same forgiveness on behalf of his disciples. He must have shed his blood; we MUST be baptized. Nor does this equate one action with the other. Christ's atonement was the ENABLING ACT man's baptism is but human compliance with one of the conditions upon which men are privileged to participate in it, but that human compliance is necessary too; hence, baptism is "unto remission of sins."

Verse29
But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Christ in this verse referred to the cup which he had just blessed as "the fruit of the vine"! That, of course, is what it was BEFORE he blessed it; and this is divine testimony to the fact that that is exactly what it was AFTER he blessed it: "the fruit of the vine." The superstition of the Dark Ages relative to transubstantiation founders upon this text. Does anyone actually believe that there are men on earth today who can do what Christ did not do, and who can bless the "fruit of the vine" in such a manner that it becomes the "actual blood" of Christ? Could their blessing in any way accomplish what the Lord's failed to accomplish?

When I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Scholars have held this to mean that Christ will again partake of the Supper with his disciples only in the days of the "everlasting kingdom" ( 2 Peter 1:11), or that he will do so in a figure at the "marriage supper of the Lamb." It seems that both views overlook the fact that, in a sense, Christ always partakes of the Lord's Supper with his disciples, since "Where two or three are gathered together" in his name, Christ is spiritually present with them ( Matthew 18:20).

Acceptance of the words in their obvious and literal sense is not merely possible but quite illuminating. Three conditions prerequisite to his partaking of the fruit of the vine with his disciples were spelled out: (1) it would be "new" wine; (2) it would be with his disciples; and (3) it would be "in" the kingdom. Perhaps this accounts for the fact that Christ refused the wine mingled with gall when he was crucified. In that case, (1) the wine was not new, (2) it was not with his disciples, and (3) the kingdom had not at that time been set up.

Verse30
And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

Matthew's account might lead one to suppose that immediately after the institution of the Lord's Supper, the Lord and his disciples departed from the room where the sacred scene occurred; but from John's account it is learned that several very important discourses were made by Jesus on that same occasion, extending the meeting for a considerable time. John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26 records the following as having taken place at that time: (1) the farewell discourse, (2) concerning the Comforter, (3) I am the true vine, (4) Christ's intercessory prayer, and other significant teachings. At least a part of these extended words of Christ might have been, and certainly could have been, spoken on the way to Gethsemane.

The singing of a hymn is significant. Singing, and not instrumental music, was always associated with Christ and the apostles. The presumption with which people have loaded the worship of Christ with their own devices is reprehensible. The New Testament affords no example of such innovations, but repeated references to singing are recorded ( Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19, etc.).

Verse31
Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

PETER's DENIAL WAS FORETOLD

The prophecy cited in Matthew 26:31 is Zechariah 13:7, and Christ's quotation of it sheds new light upon its meaning. It is God who will smite the shepherd. The Lord will lay upon him the iniquity of us all ( Isaiah 53:7). Thus, the crucifixion is God's doing. Christ will be the architect of his own death, as revealed in the conversation with Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration. Satan and evil men will be used, not as designers, but as instruments of the divine purpose. The most comprehensive statement of this fact is in Isaiah 53:1-12, where, in addition to the foregoing, it is said that "It pleased the Lord to bruise him"; "He hath put him to grief"; and "Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin."

The Lord's revelation in this verse that all the disciples would be offended in him is a commentary on the general weakness and defenselessness of men apart from Christ. In the approaching hours when the Son of man would be among the slain, his disciples could not be strong. The Lord would be no longer with them. They would be cast upon their own resources, without his sustaining love and presence, and would quickly fall. So would any person; so would all people. The inference in this passage, then, is not the relative weakness of his disciples as compared with others, but the awful weakness of all people apart from their only Saviour and Redeemer.

Verse32
But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee.

Who but God incarnate could have done a thing like this? Christ here calmly made an appointment to rendezvous with his disciples after his death and resurrection! He even named a specific hill or mountain where the meeting would occur ( Matthew 28:16). Where, in all history, has there ever been an event to match this? Christ made an appointment to meet his disciples after his death, and then kept it!

Verse33
But Peter answered and said unto him, If all shall be offended in thee, I will never be offended.

One's sympathy lies with Peter here, although he was wrong. His error was threefold, in that he: (1) contradicted Jesus" words, (2) rated himself superior to others, and (3) relied upon his own strength alone. Furthermore, he did not realize that the strength and righteousness he had were not his own, but were only the reflected strength and righteousness of Christ. Many "righteous" people today make the same mistake. Peter's estimate of his own power, based on the character and endowment received from the Lord, was a profound miscalculation in that it failed to recognize Christ and not Peter as the fountain of it. Any "righteous person" who has been kept back from gross sin should thank not himself but the Lord for his victory. Peter's blindness to this truth made it necessary for Christ to teach him through bitter experience that all of man's righteousnesses are as filthy rags.

Verse34
Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

The cock crow refers to the time of the morning in which that event occurs, a time marked not by a single blast from Chanticleer's bugle, but by many crowings of those feathered harbingers of the day. Mark mentioned the cock's crowing twice before the denial, but that is not a difficulty. Matthew often mentioned one where Mark mentioned two; and besides, the cock crow (in a place like Jerusalem was at that time) always began with one or two, then swelled into a mighty chorus of hundreds or even thousands of roosters uniting to produce that phenomenon called simply the cock crow. Efforts of quibblers to limit such an event to initiation by only one or two cocks and to engage a debate on whether it was one or two are ridiculous. Anyone who has ever heard a cock crow (and I don"t mean one bird) in a populous place with an abundance of chickens knows exactly what was meant!

Verse35
Peter said unto him, Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

Not merely Peter, but all the disciples affirmed their intention to die with Christ and rejected any thought that they would forsake him; and yet it was Peter who took the lead, involving the others in his contradiction of Christ's words, and therefore he is the more to blame. Thus, attention focuses upon him in the narrative. That Peter meant it all in good faith does not extenuate his presumption in contradicting his Lord.

Verse36
Then cometh Jesus with them to a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto his disciples, Sit ye here, while I go yonder and pray.

IN THE GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE

What irony! Whereas the disciples were so sure they would not fail, even the Christ approached the cross with "strong cryings and tears" ( Hebrews 5:7). It was the humanity of Christ that was in ascendancy from that hour and until death came upon him. As a man (and he was perfect man), he shrank from the ordeal of Calvary; and the common view that Christ wept only for the sins or sorrows of others is not correct. As the stark ugs and utter horror of the cross loomed before him, his sorrow could be measured only in maximum dimensions.

Verse37
And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and sore troubled.

Christ often prayed alone; but in the crisis of that agonizing hour, he desired the companionship of his apostles. The need of Jesus for human support and companionship in that dark and critical hour was genuine and indicated the fullness of the Lord's human nature, no less entire and complete than his heavenly nature. Although admonished to watch with Jesus, the apostles were not invited to pray for him. There is no record of any man's ever having been invited to pray for Christ, for he is not the subject of our prayers but their master. People must pray TO him, not FOR him.

Peter, James, and John, the three chosen for the more intimate view of Christ's agony, had previously enjoyed a closer proximity than the others at the raising of Jairus" daughter, and upon the mount of transfiguration.

Verse38
Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: abide ye here and watch with me. And he went forward a little and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup, pass away from me: Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.

This prayer is remarkable for many reasons. The use of "MY Father is significant because, whereas Christ taught his disciples to pray "Our Father," he himself used the first person possessive singular, "My"! God is the Father of Christ uniquely. Christ who said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," did not lose any of his divinity even while suffering the humiliation of agony and death. Even in that extremity there was seen at every instant some overwhelming evidence of his divinity. The one purpose of Christ's coming into the world was to make an atonement, through death, for man's sin; but as the agony approached, his human nature found the ordeal abhorrent and repulsive. This very human prayer gives an insight into the sufferings of Christ and should enhance human appreciation of his unselfish deed. Even in that chilling scene in Gethsemane, Christ prayed, "Not as I will, but as thou wilt." This clearly shows that the humanity of Christ, for the moment, was not fully in tune with the will of the Father, through the weakness of all flesh; but it was quickly brought into complete harmony by means of the prayers in Gethsemane.

If it be possible! Are not all things possible with God? Yes, and no! It was possible, of course, for God to take away the cross; but to have done so would have taken salvation away from humanity. The dreadful, soul-shaking truth is that not even God could redeem man without the sacrifice of himself (in the person of Christ) to pay the penalty of man's redemption. God had "passed over" the sins of countless generations, knowing what he at last would do; but then the time had come for God to "show his righteousness" ( Romans 3:25-26) in having so done. Satan marshaled every possible force to thwart God's purpose. Having found it impossible to murder the Lord, which he had repeatedly attempted, there remained only two means of possible victory for the evil one. These were: (1) he might cause Christ to sin, and (2) he might induce Christ to refuse the cross. In this latter means lies the explanation of the utter repulsiveness of the death which confronted Christ on Calvary. Satan exhausted diabolical cunning in that awful event, foretold from the beginning ( Genesis 3:15), in which he would bruise the heel of the seed of woman. No refinement of sadistic lust or barbarous cruelty was overlooked. Christ was to die the worst death any being ever suffered on earth. Would the Saviour, rather than endure it, renounce his mission? To have done so would have been, in a sense, honorable as far as Christ was concerned; but the race of men would have been lost. Only his great eternal love for man brought him through the depth of humiliation and temptation that swept over him in that chilling scene in Gethsemane.

Verse40
And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?

The Lord was not yet through the crisis, and his finding the apostles asleep only added to his sorrow. It should be particularly observed that Christ did not repeat this triple prayer over and over in rote fashion; but on the other hand, after each heart-breaking petition, he paused, sought companionship, and waited for God's answer. What is meant by the "hour"? Such a brief prayer would have required only a moment. Thus it must be concluded that for a much longer period, "one hour," our Lord was in a deep agony of spirit.

Verse41
Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Always solicitious for the welfare of his disciples, Christ attributed their failure to watch with him to weakness of the flesh but repeated the admonition. Nor is it proper to limit the words regarding the weakness of the flesh to its application to the apostles. In a sense, even his flesh was weak. He had been in an agony of temptation and had felt the awful conflict in his soul. How much more then would be the pressure of darkness upon the apostles, his spiritual children, so sure of themselves, so naively unaware of the overwhelming fires of discouragement and sorrow through which they were so soon to pass, and yet, at the moment, wasting their opportunity by sleeping instead of preparing for the coming ordeal. It has already been noted that Christ did not seek prayers from the twelve on his behalf. Rather, one sees the God-man, sorely tried and tempted, and yet beyond the aid of any mortal, for he is above man.

Verse42
And again a second time he went away, and prayed, saying, My Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done.

The words of Plummer are very perceptive regarding this prayer. He said:

Why did he repeat his prayer in Gethsemane? We may reverently suppose that he himself knew that the first utterance of the prayer had not been complete in its success. His human will was not yet in absolute unison with the will of his Father; and, in this way, we may trace progress between the first prayer and the second. In both cases, the prayer is made conditional; but in the first the condition is positive; in the second it is negative. "If it be possible" has become "If it be not possible"; and there is no longer any petition that the cup be removed. We may believe that in the third prayer, even if the same words were used, the "if" has become equivalent to "since": "since this cup cannot pass from me, thy will be done." Luke 22:46), and he mentioned the great drops of blood falling to the ground. That detail was of special interest to Luke the physician. "Commentators give instances of this blood-sweat under abnormal pathological circumstances." Luke 22:43).

The blood-sweat, a portent of immediate and impending death, is thought by some scholars to be "the cup" which Jesus prayed to be removed, thus referring it primarily to the agony of that hour and not to the crucifixion. Supporting that view is the fact that no angel on the morrow was required to minister to him on the cross, whereas such supernatural power was required in Gethsemane. L. S. White, pioneer preacher of the gospel and profound expositor of the Scriptures, held this view, affirming that Christ, sweating the blood-sweat, and knowing that he was about to die in Gethsemane rather than upon the cross, prayed for the cup to pass. In this view, God answered the Saviour's prayer for the cup to pass, not by removing the cup, but by sending an angel to strengthen him. One may only wonder at the agony which produced such a phenomenon. Perhaps it was not meant for mortals to know the full story of that hour.

But none of the angels ever knew How deep were the waters crossed, Or how dark was the night our Lord passed through Ere he found the sheep that was lost!

ENDNOTE:

Matthew 26:46). Dummelow viewed it as reproachful irony, "`You have slept through my agony; sleep also through my betrayal and capture."" Matthew 26:1-5), but now they decided to move against him boldly with a public arrest and trial. The great company of the arresting party showed that at that time, for better or for worse, the religious hierarchy was irrevocably committed to the more open tactic. That of course was in harmony with God's will and was a fulfillment of Jesus" prophecy to that effect ( Matthew 26:2). As a result of this change, men of all ages would be able to declare, as Paul did before Festus, "This hath not been done in a corner!" ( Acts 26:26).

Just what human considerations moved this change are not completely known, but one likely possibility is that the treason of one of the Twelve led the chief priests to suppose that Christ no longer had his former hold upon the people. They also may have thought that, through Judas, and from information they might logically have expected Judas to provide, they would be able to establish a legitimate charge against Christ and murder him under the frames of legality. Strong evidence that such was actually their purpose came to light when suborned witnesses perjured themselves before the Sanhedrin.

It has already been noted that that great multitude bearing arms that night eliminates any supposition that Passover Day had begun at sunset that same night. The temple guard, under the command of the high priest, would not have borne arms on such a high day.

Verse48
Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; take him.

Who but Satan could have thought of such a sign as that? To betray with a kiss has come to signify the ultimate in infamy. It was as base as it was gratuitous, the need of any sign at all being contra-indicated. It was not that difficult to tell Christ from his disciples (nor is it now!). The employment of so perfidious a device was grounded in the misassumption that Christ would attempt to conceal his identity. The repulsive betrayal kiss, therefore, was a gratuitous personal insult, conceived in hell, instigated by Satan, and bestowed in blindness. It was effectively designed to augment the shame of the cross to which it would lead.

The impudent audacity of Judas has been a marvel ever since. How could he dare to pollute the face of Christ with such a kiss? Face to face with the Saviour, he did not relent nor feel the sting of conscience, as Peter did when Jesus looked upon him. Caffin said of the kiss:

The Greek word seems to imply that he did it with an affectation of earnestness, with much warmth of manner; perhaps he thought, in his madness and folly, that he might be able to conceal his sin, thus deceiving Christ and his fellow-apostles into thinking that he was coming simply to rejoin them, and that he had no connection with the arresting band that followed. Matthew 20:13 and Matthew 22:12 this term is applied to those who, nominally righteous, were yet at variance with the divine will. "Companion" Judas certainly was; friend he was not. Matthew 26:50)."> John 8:34). Balaam could not turn back when the journey became threatening and dangerous ( Numbers 22:34). He even attempted to do so, but over against him in the way stood an angel of Jehovah with a drawn sword, saying, "Go with the men!" Christ's words to Judas in this passage had the same implications for the traitor. There was then left for Judas no place of repentance, no point of return. "Do that for which thou art come!"

The entire scene of the arrest is instructive. The "great multitude" was according to prophecy. "How are mine enemies increased! Many are they that rise up against me" ( Psalm 3:1). In the arresting multitudes were combined many factions: Jews, soldiers, Romans, the rabble, Pharisees, and all parties, united in a common front against the Lord. It even included the false apostle. And why all that show of force? It reminds one of the United States Navy bearing down on Guantanamo to turn the water off! As Matthew Henry put it:

When a butcher goes into the field to take out a lamb for the slaughter, does he raise the militia, and come armed? No, he needs not; yet is there all this force used to seize the Lamb of God. Matthew 26:50)."> Matthew 26:50).

Romans 13:4). In this scene there were two swords, that of the authority and that of Peter. Christ recognized both the legitimate authority of the first and the potential need and place for the second.

Our Lord's merciful healing of Malchus" ear was a marvelous evidence of his power and divinity that went unnoticed in the excitement and stress of that moment. One cannot help wondering about Malchus and the memories which he thenceforth carried from his contact with the healing touch of Jesus. The necessity for this miracle rose from the prospect that Peter's action might have drawn a warrant from the authorities and resulted in a trial which could only have confused and complicated the higher issues of Jesus" own approaching trials.

Verse53
Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shalt even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?

The mention of at least36 ,000 holy angels is a revealing glance into the mysteries of the eternal world above. Also, the mention in this context of the possibility of Jesus" being rescued by angelic interposition strongly suggests that he had considered that very possibility and rejected it. But the very fact that he had thought of it (else, he could not have mentioned it) raises the speculation of "How close did the Lord come to such a decision?" Since Christ rejected such a suggestion, it is evident that Satan's cause would have been served if he had done so. This shows how near to success the evil one might have come in his frenzied efforts to harass, humiliate, and demean the Lord to such a degree that Christ would terminate his mission of salvation short of his goal, namely, the goal of providing an atonement for the sins of the whole world. Admittedly, these are deep waters; but the Christ's mention of the twelve legions of angels and the possibility of their rescuing him shows that such a termination of his earthly mission had been contemplated by Jesus. Only his redeeming love for man enabled him to reject it. On the ministry of angels, see under Matthew 1:20.

Verse54
How then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? In that hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me? I sat daily in the temple teaching, and ye took me not.

Jesus" emphasis was ever upon the fulfillment of God's word. It is not merely the death of Christ, but the death of Christ "according to the scriptures," that constitutes the true gospel ( 1 Corinthians 15:3 ff). The Scriptures were the only weapon on which Christ relied in his encounter with the prince of evil ( Matthew 4:4, which see). The thesis of his life was "and the scriptures cannot be broken" ( John 10:35). As for the expression "thus it must be," see notes on Matthew 18:7.

Christ's mention of sitting daily in the temple, teaching, confirms the existence of an extensive ministry of Christ in Jerusalem. Dummelow noted that,

This cannot merely refer to two, or at the most three days" ministry during Holy Week, but indicates a more extended ministry at Jerusalem, at an earlier period, as the fourth gospel relates. Luke 22:66). Luke's arrangement of the details is more chronological. Matthew's topical summary naturally includes portions of the narrative out of chronological sequence. However, it is plain that Peter's triple denial took place at the long night-trial, at which only a part of the Sanhedrin was present, and during which Christ was mocked, taunted, smitten, and abused throughout the night by the soldiers. Presumably, during this long travesty on judicial procedure, Caiaphas and his aides were trying to formulate some pattern of the charges they would prosecute before the whole Sanhedrin at daybreak.

ENDNOTE:

John 18:13). Other preconditions that led to Peter's fall are seen in that he: (1) contradicted Jesus" word, (2) relied on his own strength, (3) turned to carnal weapons, (4) sustained the Lord's rebuke, (5) followed afar off, (6) accepted a place in the company of Christ's enemies, and (7) warmed himself at their fire.

Verse59
Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death.

Having changed their strategy from murdering Christ secretly to the more open method of seeking a legal execution, the high priests and their followers worked throughout the long night to put together some kind of case that would stand up against Christ. This frenzied endeavor on their part continued all night and into the third trial and was the consuming passion at both the second and third trials. It is evident that considerable consternation came upon that evil company as the long night wore on. Things were not going according to plan. False witnesses indeed came, but their testimony was so absurdly false and unconvincing that it was unusable. Furthermore, if they had thought that Judas would provide the inside details needed to sustain a capital charge against the Lord, they were utterly confounded when Judas returned the money, confessed his own sin, and proclaimed the innocence of the Master. Those wily hypocrites were caught in their own net. They would not be able to extricate themselves until the whole sorry business, and their

REAL reasons for seeking Jesus" death would be spat out in public before the Roman governor. It must have been a long night for Caiaphas, as well as for Jesus!

Verse60
And they found it not, though many false witnesses came. But afterwards came two and said, This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

If such a tale as these words of the false witnesses was all they had to report, one must be amazed at the plight of the evil men who had relied on it. This was nothing more than a garbled version of what Christ had said, not of the temple but of himself, who is the greater Temple ( John 2:19). After searching all night that was all they had, and no one knew any better than Caiaphas that it was not enough for their purpose. Matthew's "afterwards" indicates that that weak and inconclusive charge was all that could be culled from a whole night of coaching and hearing false witnesses. It was hardly enough to justify convening the entire Sanhedrin, as Caiaphas" subsequent actions proved.

THE THIRD TRIAL

This trial was the formal arraignment and prosecution before the whole Sanhedrin and immediately following the all-night circus in the house of Caiaphas, where it may be assumed that Christ made limited answers if any at all. He well knew the preliminary trial was only a fishing expedition and that the issue would be decided before the whole council after daybreak. The night runners had fanned out over the dark city, and the emergency meeting of the most sacred court of the Hebrews got under way very early, perhaps by four o"clock in the morning, as the first rays of morning light brightened the summit of the Mount of Olives. The trial began, Caiaphas presiding; the arraignment was made; the suborned witnesses came on with their lie re: "destroying the temple and building it in three days"! Much to the discomfiture of Caiaphas, Jesus did not even reply. Why? It was not necessary. Nothing stated even by the suborned and lying witnesses could be made the grounds for demanding of Pilate the death penalty for Christ. Caiaphas stood up. The judicial bench had suddenly become a very hot seat for him. The whole wretched business was badly out of hand, and they were at their wits" end to know how to get out of it. Little did they dream that at the precise moment decided by Christ, he would stand forth in all his solemn majesty and hand them, of his own volition, the key to his crucifixion; but it would not be upon their terms, but upon his!

Verse62
But Jesus held his peace.

He held his peace until the full import of the impasse in which the Sanhedrin found itself was apparent to all of them. Without him, they could do nothing. It was true of them no less than of Pilate, to whom Christ said, "Thou wouldst have no power against me except it were given thee from above" ( John 19:11). Christ could surely have escaped execution at the hands of that court, merely by continuing to be silent. They were already defeated.

Then came the climax of that third trial, like a stroke of lightning!

Verse63
And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

That was the very instant toward which Christ had unerringly moved from the very first moment of his public life to that precise moment. At last, there was no danger of being misunderstood as a seditionist; there, before the assembled elders of his nation, in solemn convocation, before the sacred Sanhedrin, the high priest placed the Christ upon judicial oath, lifting his hands over his own head after the customs of Israel, and intoning the solemn oath, "I adjure thee by the living God, tell us whether thou art the Christ," the Son of God. The answer of Jesus as recorded by Mark ( Mark 14:62), while more satisfactory to English ears, is not so dramatic as Matthew's before the Hebrew court where it was delivered. Both accounts record the dramatic shock with which Jesus" words were received.

From Mark ( Mark 14:62): "And Jesus said, I am, and ye shall see the Son of Man, sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Verse64
Thou hast said. Nevertheless, I say unto you, Henceforth, ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven:

Both Christ and his enemies understood this as a claim to be the divine Messiah.

Verse65
Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: What further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy.

It seems never to have occurred to that Satan-blinded court that Christ's words were true and not blasphemous: The blasphemy they imputed to Jesus, on the basis of his answer, was not from the mere claim that he was the Messiah. It was not a capital offense to claim to be the Messiah; but it was, for making himself the DIVINE MESSIAH, as they viewed it; this led to the charge of blasphemy. In John 19:7, "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God!" ( Leviticus 24:16).

Commentaries are filled with dissertations on the violations of accepted judicial procedure committed by that august body in its rash, unprincipled, and biased handling of the trial of Jesus Christ. Can anyone imagine the judge forsaking the judicial robes to come down and usurp the role of prosecutor? Any night trial of a capital offense was illegal; and, whereas an acquittal could be announced in a single day, no death penalty could be pronounced until three whole days had elapsed. These and many other judicial amenities were violated by the Sanhedrin.

Verse66
What think ye? They answered and said, He is worthy of death.

Amazingly, if Christ's claim as the divine Messiah was untrue, that verdict was altogether proper and correct. Thus, at the very beginning of the innumerable confrontations of Christ made by men in all climes and generations, the dreadful dilemma, the frightening "either or" with reference to Christ is apparent.

Without calling further witnesses, not even Christ; without waiting for an instant, let alone the legally required three days, the judge put the question to the court, and the predetermined verdict was promptly given. The failure of justice is always sad; but when such a failure occurs at the highest and most sacred level of judicial responsibility, it is doubly tragic. The highest court of the Hebrews, the sacred and hallowed Sanhedrin, was in this case clearly guilty of judicial murder. The next three trials would move into the courts of the Gentiles, but justice would fail there also. In all history, the Hebrews were the leaders in religious thought, and the Romans were leaders in the fields of law and government. How unspeakably tragic that humanity could so wretchedly fail that Roman justice and Hebrew religion should alike concur in sentencing the Son of God to die for testifying under oath to the truth of that sublime fact that he was actually the Son of God.

Verse67
Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?

Matthew omitted the detail supplied by Luke that they blindfolded him ( Luke 22:64); but the fact is implied by the questions of those who asked him to identify those who struck him. We pass over this repugnant scene without elaborating its shameful and repulsive details. Every possible humiliation that evil men, instigated by Satan, could contrive was heaped upon our Lord. Satan was still trying to get Jesus to call it off, abort the mission, bail out, and call for the legions of angels!

Verse69
Now Peter was sitting without in the court: and a maid came unto him saying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean.

C. E. W. Dorris noted:

That the fall of Peter is recorded by all the evangelists is high proof of the honesty and candor of our sacred historians. They were willing to mention their own faults without attempting to appear better than they were. An uninspired historian would have omitted the fall of Peter and mentioned only his good qualities. This shows the difference between an inspired and an uninspired historian and is strong evidence that the Bible is from God. Acts 12:1-25 and John 20:1-31).

The additional details that a fire had been kindled and that Peter was warming himself are given by Luke ( Luke 22:55).

ENDNOTE:

John 21:15 ff).

Somehow, the sad failure of this great, impetuous man of the outdoors, who forsook his fishnets to become a fisher of men, endears rather than repels. He was so like all men that every man can see himself in Peter's place. Like Peter, may every man who through some lapse has offended his Saviour, turn again and wipe out failure with a new beginning. Peter never faltered again. The tradition that he at last was martyred for the blessed Jesus is supported by the Scriptures ( John 21:18-19), and thus this most lovable of all the apostles, despite his mistakes, at last made good" his promise that he was willing to go both to prison and to death for the Lord!

The words "and he went out and wept bitterly" are a fitting close to this chapter. Matthew portrays with chilling realism the terror of that awful darkness which surged against the True Light; and it must ever be a source of unfailing wonder that the "darkness overcame it not"!

All these sayings refers to the speeches Jesus made to his disciples following his last visit to the temple. His work on earth was about to come to an end and he turned his attention to the events that were soon to come.

The passover was a feast of the Jews that was instituted in Egypt on the night of the slaying of the firstborn of the Egyptians ( John 18:28 records a statement that shows the Jews had not yet eaten of the pass-over, although it was the day after Jesus and his apostles had eaten theirs. There was a reason for his observing it at this time for he knew that he was to die the next day and hence would not get to partake of it if he waited for the established time. This should not confuse us any in view of the emergency, and also the authority of Jesus. Chapter12:8 states that the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath, and he certainly is Lord of other days also.

Then assembled means a gathering of the members of the Sanhedrin, the highest court of the Jews in the time of Christ. The word is usually rendered "council" in the New Testament, but it is sometimes referred to as an assembly as it is in this verse. The word is from the Greek, SUNEDRION which Thayer defines, "Any assembly (especially of magistrates, judges, ambassadors), whether convened to deliberate or to pass judgment; in the Scriptures1. any session of persons deliberating or adjudicating [judging]. 2. specifically, the Sanhedrin, the great council at Jerusalem." He follows his definition with the following information. "Consisting of seventy-one members, viz., scribes and elders, prominent members of the high priestly families (hence called . . .), and the high-priest, the president of the body. The fullest periphrasis [wordy description] for Sanhedrin is found in Matthew 26:3; Mark 14:43; Mark 14:53. The more important causes were brought before this tribunal, inasmuch as the Roman rulers of Judea had left to it the power of trying such cases, and also of pronouncing sentence of death, with the limitation that a capital sentence pronounced by the Sanhedrin was not valid unless it were confirmed by the Roman procurator• [an agent]. The Jews trace the origin of the Sanhedrin to Numbers 11:16." All of this information from Thayer-is important, and the reader should make a note of it for ready reference, for the subject will be mentioned several times in the New Testament study.

We have learned in the preceding paragraph that the Sanhedrin could not lawfully put anyone to death. That is the reason the Jews had this consultation to devise some plot to kill Jesus by a trick of subtilty.

The Jews were not concerned about disturbing the holy feast, but wished to avoid any conflict with the people. In other words, they were acting on policy more than on principle and wished to retain their popularity.

The writer now goes back a few days to relate some incidents that happened while Jesus was in Bethany. In chapter21:17 is the account of his going out to that village nearby where he lodged over night. In John's account (John 12:1-2) we are told that when he was there a supper was made in his honor, which our present verse says was in the house of Simon the leper•. The law of Moses required a leper to dwell apart from society (Leviticus 13:46), hence we should conclude that Simon had been miraculously cured by the Lord, and he was designated "the leper" to distinguish him from several other men with the same name.

According to John 12:3 this woman was Mary a sister of Lazarus. Funk and Wagnalls Standard Bible Dictionary says the following of this box. "Alabaster (origin of the word unknown): Mineral carbonate of lime. A white stone much used in antiquity to ornament buildings and for vases and small bottles for holding precious ointment." Mark 14:3 says the woman broke the box and poured the ointment on his head. No reason is given for breaking the box, but at least it shows she intended to use all the ointment.

According to John 12:4-6 it was Judas who made the complaint. And the same passage explains his motive to have been a selfish one. John calls him a thief and Jesus calls him a devil in John 6:70, all of which accounts for his conduct.

It was true that such a product was costly (about fifty dollars" worth) to be used in what might have been considered an unprofitable way. But it was not really his thoughts of economy that caused Judas to make his remark. He was a covetous man and it hurt him to see that much value bestowed upon another.

Good work is used in the sense of a good act or deed, not so much as a manual effort which we know it was not. What constituted this a good deed will be explained in the comments on verse12.

Jesus did not criticize the idea of giving something to the poor. He instructed the rich young man (chapter19:21) to give his possessions to the poor. Neither did he question the motive of Judas in making his complaint. He left that subject for-some other to do as John did in the passage cited at verse8. But he made a statement that pertained to the subject of using present opportunities that are soon to pass. He was to leave the world in a short time and that would stop all chances of doing him a bodily favor, while they would never cease to have. the opportunity of helping the poor.

For my burial. It was an old custom to anoint the dead and use spices at the time of burial. (See 2 Chronicles 16:14; John 19:40; Luke 23:56). Mark 14:8 quotes Jesus as saying, "She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying." Since it was customary to bestow such treatment on the human body it would be regarded as a good deed to perform it. Mary evidently believed that she would not have as good an opportunity for this service if she waited until after the death of Jesus. However, whether this tells the motive for her coming aforehand or not, the mere desire to do honor to the body of her Lord was regarded favorably. This subject furnishes us with some suggestions concerning an inquiry often heard as to whether the use of flowers and other items on funeral occasions is right. Of course all good things are liable to abuse, and the extravagant spending of money for flowers is wrong. But we have convincing proof that it is proper to give respectful attention to the body because it is made in the image of the Creator. Any unnecessary mutilation of the body, therefore, would be wrong, which would condemn the desecrating act of cremation.

This means that the deed of the woman would become a part of the Gospel record and hence would be mentioned wherever the sacred book went.

The covetous heart of Judas was evidently stirred by the "waste" of something that would have brought in a goodly sum of money, and since it was bestowed upon Jesus, the thought occurred to him that he could recover some of it by betraying him to the Jews for money.

He asked the priests to make him an offer for which he would carry out the wicked deed. They covenanted (contracted) to give him thirty pieces of silver. According to the Oxford Cyclopedic Concordance it would be about twenty dollars today.

Immediately after the bargain was made, Judas watched for an opportunity to fulfill it by pointing Jesus out in the way stated in verse48.

Matthew resumes his history at the place where he left it at verse5. Feast of unleavened bread. The14th day of the first month was the time of the passover (Exodus 12:6), and it was to be eaten with unleavened bread (verse8). And the seven days following were also days in which they were to eat unleavened bread (Leviticus 23:5-6). For more details about these days of unleavened bread, see the comments at Exodus 12:15 and Leviticus 23:6-7 in volume1of the Old Testament Commentary. Jesus and his apostles ate their pass-over two days before the regular time

(verse2), and hence all the other items as to dates were set back correspondingly. The entire eight days beginning with the14th came to be referred to as the feast of unleavened bread, so that the day of the passover (14th) would be called the first day of unleavened bread as we see it here; hence these italicized words apply to Christ and his apostles only in this place and the like statements in the other Gospels accounts. This being a special date for them, the disciples wished some instructions where to arrange for the passover, knowing Jesus would not eat it in any public place with the Jews.

Jesus directed them to go to a certain man in the city and deliver the request of their Master to him. Notice Jesus called it my time; that is, his time of crucifixion was at hand and he needed to eat the pass-over that evening. Also, since it was a special date, he wanted to eat it in a private house and hence made the request for the use of this man's house to be occupied by him and his apostles.

Made ready the passover. Jesus and his disciples were under the law of Moses and of course they made this preparation according to the directions recorded. Exodus 12:5-9 has its fist application in Egypt which was before the law was given from Sinai, but the same regulations were followed afterward. That means the disciples prepared the animal as directed, and also procured a supply of unleavened bread.

One of the great advantages of having more than one account of the life of Christ is the fact that the same details are not given in all of them. The things that happened on this last night of Christ before his death are not given in strict chronological order. For the convenience of the reader I shall write a list of references, and if he will read them in exactly the order as given he will have a connected record of what took place on that night. Luke 22:14-18; Luke 21-23; John 13:23-30; Luke 22:19-20. It is important that the passages be read just as the references show, not taking in a single verse not indicated nor leaving out one. I shall now comment on the verses of this chapter in their order. Even is from OPSIOS and has a somewhat indefinite meaning as to any exact hour, but all lexicons agree that it means toward the end of the day.

Jesus had divine knowledge and hence was aware of the intentions of Judas.

They were exceeding sorrowful. This was a sincere sorrow on the part of all except the guilty one, for he could not have any sorrow (at this time) for something that he was wanting to do.

The apostles had asked Jesus who was going to betray him but he did not answer them all. According to John 13:22-26 John was leaning on Jesus" bosom and hence was near him. Peter beckoned to him to ask Jesus who it was, and when Jesus told him, Judas did not hear the answer. The answer was accompanied with the act of dipping a piece of bread in the dish containing the flesh and its broth. Jesus reached into the dish at the same time that Judas did, which was the sign to the other apostles that answered their question of who was to be the betrayer.

Son of man goeth. The last word is from HUPAGO which Thayer defines at this place, "To withdraw one's self, to go away, depart." Jesus knew that it was destined for him to leave the world through the treachery of one of his professed friends (Psalm 41:9). However, this decree against him was not to relieve the perpetrator of the deed from the guilt of wrong doing. We have learned that Judas was called a thief and a devil before he had ever performed this evil deed (John 6:70; John 12:6), hence it did not change his character in the least for God to use him as the agent in the necessary act. Woe to that man. Why pronounce a woe upon Judas if he was selected as this agent, is a natural inquiry. It was because of his motive in doing it, which was to obtain some money to gratify his covetous heart. Another thing, even this deed would not need to have caused him to be lost. The Jews on the day of Pentecost were accused of murdering Jesus, yet they were given the opportunity of obeying the Gospel for the remission of their sins. If Judas who was guilty only of betraying Christ, had repented from a godly sorrow and obeyed the Gospel he could have been saved also. But Jesus knew he would not do this, hence he made the prediction of this verse.

Judas could not have asked the question for information, for he had already contracted with the chief priests to betray his Lord. All of the others had asked the same question and if he kept silent it would be so conspicuous that his guilt would be manifest to all in the group.

Blessed is from EULOGEO and Thayer defines it in this passage, "To praise, celebrate with praises." We should understand, therefore, that it does not mean to bestow some miraculous quality upon the bread. The conclusion is strengthened by the giving of thanks for the cup, and we know that the cup is as important as the bread. If the bread required some miraculous quality to be given to it to produce the desired effect on the communicants, then surely the cup would have also required something more than the simple act of thanksgiving. Brake is from KLAO which is defined by Thayer, "To break," and he then adds the comment, "used in the New Testament of the breaking of bread." He also cites Matthew 14:19; Matthew 15:36, and other places where we know it refers to the act of dividing a loaf so that more than one person could properly partake of it. Thus we see the word has no religious significance, but states what is a physical necessity in order that the communicants could eat of it which is the only religious phase about the handling of the bread. This is my body. The Ro-manists insist that this statement must be taken literally and not to be understood in the sense of the bread as only a representation of his body. That reasoning would make nonsense of the other passages where the language is just as direct. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 10:4 where Paul is speaking of the Israelites in the wilderness and of their drinking of a rock, he says "that rock was Christ." The record of that event is in Exodus 17:6 where Moses literally smote a literal rock and thus provided drinking water for the congregation. We know that rock was only a piece of material, so that the statement of Paul means it was a type or representation of Christ who furnishes water of spiritual life. On the same principle, the bread represents the body of Christ because his body had to be given to provide spiritual food for mankind.

It might be asked why the cup was not "blessed" if it is as important as the bread; it was. The definition of "blessed" is, "to praise, celebrate with praises," as may be seen in comments on the preceding verse. In thanking God for the cup one would thereby be praising it. Matthew uses the two terms, blessed and thanks, as being the same in principle. Drink ye all of it means for all of them to drink of it. The priests of Rome insist on doing the drinking tor the others, which is a contradiction of the instructions that Jesus gave to his disciples.

Blood of the New Testament. Under the Old Testament the blood that was shed was that of beasts, but the blood of the New was that of the Lamb of God. Shed for many. None but the Jews received the benefit of the blood shed in the animal sacrifices, while the blood of Christ offers benefits to the whole world (Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2), which includes Jews and Gentiles without distinction.

The passages cited at verse20 show that when Jesus spoke the words of this verse they were kill in the passover feast, and hence he said them before verses26-28 of the present chapter. Therefore, when the fruit of the vine was served in the institution of the Lord's supper he did not partake. That would be appropriate, for that supper was to celebrate the death of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:26), and a man would not be expected to memorialize his own death. Until I drink it new in my Father's kingdom. Yes, Jesus does partake of the cup, but it is in a spiritual sense only. When disciples are eating and drinking of the Lord's supper he is present in spirit even as he promised that he would be (Matthew 18:20).

According to Thayer and Robinson this hymn was one of the Psalm of David. The mount of Olives was the site of Gethsemane which will be explained at verse36.

While on their way to the mount of Olives Jesus said many things to his apostles. Chapters14 , 15 , 16,17 of John were spoken as they were going, but Matthew records only what is in verses31-35. Shall be offended or be caused to stumble. It means that something was going to happen that would cause them to falter in their devotion to Christ. This lack of devotion was to be manifested by the fact of their deserting him and fleeing. Jesus said it was written and we may read the prediction in Zechariah 13:7.

After I am risen explains what Jesus meant in the preceding verse by being smitten. The stroke was to be so severe that it would cause his death, but he predicted that he was to rise from the dead.

Peter was a man of an impulsive temperament and inclined to make rash statements and to perform rash acts, such as that recorded in John 18:10. The emphatic statement recorded here, therefore, is not surprising or should not be.

Jesus made a specific prediction of what Peter would do; not only specific as to the act but also as to the time of the night in which it would occur.

Even the pointed predictions of Jesus did not calm the rash spirit of Peter, but he repeated his declaration with an added item, that he would die before he would betray Jesus. His enthusiastic vows seemed to affect the other disciples for they all repeated his declaration.

The journey from the upper room and the passover to the garden of Gethsemane was ended. When they reached the border of the garden Jesus instructed the group to be seated while he went on farther to pray. I shall quote from Smith's Bible Dictionary on the item of Gethsemane. "A small "garden," Matthew 26:36; Mark 14:32, situated across the brook Kedron, John 18:1, probably at the foot of Mount Olivet, Luke 22:39, to the northwest and about one-half or three-quarters of a mile English from the walls of Jerusalem, and100 yards east of the bridge over the Kedron. There was a "garden" or rather an orchard, attached to it, to which the olive, fig and pomegranate doubtless invited resort by their hospitable shade."

Leaving the most of the group at the place where they first paused, Jesus took with him Peter and the sons of Zebedee (James and John), and went on into the garden with them. The humanity in his nature now began to manifest itself which caused him to be sorrowful and heavy hearted.

Jesus expressed his feelings to the three disciples and told them to tarry there while he stepped aside to pray. Sorrowful, even unto death. This is a highly colored figure of speech, meaning that he felt sad enough to die.

Having asked the three disciples to tarry and watch, Jesus wished to be alone with his Father and hence went a little farther away from them before beginning his prayer. He prayed that this cup might pass from him if it was the will of his Father. A common error in the comments heard today is to apply this cup to the suffering and death on the cross. Jesus rebuked Peter for thinking he could rescue him from that cup (John 18:11), saying that the cup of death was necessary to fulfill the scripture. He certainly would not ask the Father, then, to save him from it. No, the cup to which he referred was this cup, meaning the present agony through which he was going. That cup of agony is forcefully described in Luke 22:40-44. Jesus only asked that he be spared the terrible nervous agitation which he was at that time enduring. But it was not God's will to spare his Son even that much, so he was compelled to go through with it, until his agony brought out the great drops of sweat that was likened to thickened blood.

After his first prayer Jesus came back to the three disciples and found them asleep. We might wonder why he did not rebuke them more severely, but Luke 22:45 says they were "sleeping for sorrow." Even that should have been overcome by the spirit of watchfulness, but at least we are pleased that it was not from. indifference.

Watch and pray denotes the two sides of the scheme of salvation, the human and the divine. Watching is a duty of man in order that he may not be overtaken or surprised by temptation. (See Galatians 6:1.) While doing what is humanly possible, it is proper to look for help from God if man goes to Him in prayer. Spirit and flesh are the two parts of a human being; the first is the inner man and the other is the outer. The first is inclined to the better way of life and the other is more inclined to evil. A good picture of these two is presented in Romans 7:15-25.

Notice Jesus says this cup which denotes something present with him then. See the comments on the subject at verse39.

The eyes of the disciples were heavy with the fatigue of sorrow.

Jesus prayed three times and each time his prayer was on the same subject. His persistence was on the principle that faith should be enduring and not inclined to give up easily. See the teaching on this subject in Luke 18:1-8. It should be noted that each of the prayers was made on condition that they were as God willed.

Jesus perceived the depressed condition of his disciples and decided to let them sleep undisturbed for a little while since the critical hour was about on hands. Is betrayed is in the present tense as to grammatical form but really means "is to be betrayed." Yet it is put in this form to indicate the event was very near.

We do not know how much time passed between this and the preceding verse. It could not have been long, yet there was enough time for the disciples to get a short but undisturbed nap. Jesus saw Judas and the crowd with him approaching, and roused the disciples from their sleep.

Jesus was concluding his speech to the disciples when Judas arrived in his immediate presence. To avoid confusion as to why he was not with the group of disciples that Jesus left at the border of the garden, the reader should see the passages, cited at verse20. He should particularly note from John 13:30 that Judas left them while the passover was still taking place, hence he was never near them again until the present verse. Staves is from a Greek word that means "clubs," and the possession of such weapons indicated an attitude of cruelty and disrespect. Even an ordinary policeman usually refrains from using his club (billy) unless there is resistance, but Jesus had never even indicated that he would "resist arrest" as a guilty lawbreaker might do. No wonder he asked them (Luke 22:52) if they thought they had to deal with him as they would a thief.

Hold him fast. Judas had no doubt of the ability of Jesus to escape from the hand of the mob and really expected him to do so. Then if the priests complained of their loss and demanded the recovery of the money on a pretense of fraud, he could remind them of his warning and thus reject their complaint. Had things turned out as he expected, Judas would have procured the money which his covetous heart craved, and at the same time Jesus would not have been any worse off.

Verse49. Hail means a salutation that comes from a Greek word denoting a friendly greeting that includes good wishes. It is as if Judas had said, "Master, I give you my good wishes for your happiness," and then pretended to verify his wishes by a kiss.

Friend is from ETAIROS which Thayer defines, "a comrade, mate, partner." Wherefore is from some Greek terms that virtually mean "for what purpose." The verse denotes as if Jesus said, "Judas, we have been comrades for over three years, then why is it that you come to me in this manner?" Just then the mob took charge of Jesus.

John 18:10 tells us it was Peter who made this attack on the servant.

Some people use this verse to condemn capital punishment, but instead of condemning it the opposite is true. To take the sword under the circumstances where Peter did is the act of a private, unofficial man. Had he gone to the limit in his act it would have caused the death of the servant and that would have made him a murderer since he did not represent the law. And if that had occurred, Jesus said that he should himself have perished with the sword, that being one of the means of lawfully executing a murderer under the criminal law of the land.

Had it been right to defend Jesus with force, he could have prayed his Father who would have sent him twelve legions (about72 ,000) of angels.

But if that had been done it would have prevented the scripture prophecies of his death from being fulfilled. Jesus knew all through his life that he was to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, to replace the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic system and make one offering for all time (Hebrews 10:1-5).

Jesus rebuked the mob for coming out against him armed as if he were a thief. He reminded them of former opportunities of taking him and they did not do so nor even try to. All this showed their evil motive in the present movement.

Matthew is making the statements in this and the following verses. He is telling us that the deeds of this crowd were done in fulfillment of the predictions in the scriptures. The rebuke that Jesus gave Peter, also his submission to the attacks of the mob, seemed to dishearten all the disciples so that they forsook him and fled. By that act they fulfilled the predictions in Isaiah 53:3 and Zechariah 13:7.

Led him away to Caiaphas. John 18:13 says they led him to Annas first who was the father-in-law of the high priest. Just what official position (if any) this Annas had at this time is a disputed point. But he was a former high priest and perhaps as a preliminary hearing Jesus was taken before him through respect for his former position, and in view of his relation to Caiaphas.

Peter's curiosity prompted him to follow Jesus as they led him away to the officers. But he also began to show the cowardice which he afterward displayed in the court by following Jesus afar off. He wanted to be near enough to see what was going on but not so near as to be suspected of being connected with him in any way that might be embarrassing or endanger his own life and liberty.

The persons referred to here were leading men of the Jews who composed the council (Sanhedrin). The description of this court and the extent of its powers may be seen at verse3. Before they could obtain any action from the Roman court, the Sanhedrin must first try and condemn the prisoner. Sought false witness is very significant. They knew that nothing could be said truthfully against Jesus, hence they would have to rely on witnesses who were willing to give false testimony.

But found none. That is, no man was willing to testify to any act on the part of Jesus that would have made him guilty of a capital offence under the law of Moses. However, at last two witnesses came forward who said they had something to offer the court about the prisoner.

The testimony of these had nothing to do with" any capital offence. Had Jesus said what they claimed, it still would not have made him guilty of anything serious, but only a claim as to what he said he could do if he chose. But even this was false, for he never said anything like what they affirmed. Another thing, according to Mark 14:59, even these two witnesses disagreed with each other, and that would have thrown their testimony out of court had it been even on the subject of capital offences. According to Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15 there must be at least two witnesses who testify to the same thing before a man could be condemned to death.

6:62. The high priest was surprised that Jesus did not make any reply to the testimony of these witnesses. He tried to get him to say something or other but failed.

But Jesus held his peace. There is a familiar rule that "silence gives consent" which would mean that if a man refused to deny a charge made against him it was taken as an admission of guilt. Under most circumstances that would be true, but Jesus knew he was bound to be condemned to die regardless of whether he replied or not. Besides, the pretended testimony was so ridiculous and contradictory that he considered it as beneath his dignity, hence he treated their statments with silent contempt. For an officer to adjure another person means to place him under oath. The high priest did this to Jesus and placed him under oath by the living God. Having bound Jesus with such an oath he asked him whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. This introduced another subject, different from the one for which he was supposed to be brought into the council. The question pertained to his divinity and hence was a vital one, being the central fact of the entire system that Jesus was introducing into the world. Of course he would not be silent on that and his answer will be given in the next verse.

Thou hast said is an affirmative answer to the question of the high priest. Nevertheless is used in the sense of "moreover, furthermore," etc. It thus is not a restriction on or modification of what was just said, but introduced additional thoughts. Jesus did not stop with merely answering the question about his divinity, but announced some things that were to happen because of his divine Sonship with God. Ye shall see agrees with Revelation 1:7 which says that every eye shall see him when he comes to the earth again. The prediction was a blow to the pride of the high priest, not because he was told that he would see Jesus when he comes, but because it predicted that he (Jesus) was to occupy a throne of glory. The high priest was at that very hour presiding in a meeting that was prejudiced against the prisoner, and he as president had manifested his sympathy with the accusers.

Decisions of the Sanhedrin were to be made by the vote of the members who should be uninfluenced by any interested person. The high priest violated the rules of justice by announcing a conclusion ("he hath spoken blasphemy") before they had voted.

With such a breach of justice to influence them, it is no wonder that the assembly answered the question of the high priest as they did. It was all the more to be expected when their own personal sentiments were previously set against the prisoner because of his frequent rebukes of their wicked lives. He is guilty of death means that he is guilty of a crime that calls for the death penalty. Under the law of Moses a man who was guilty of blasphemy against God was to be put to death (Leviticus 24:16). Jesus was not guilty, but the high priest had pronounced him so, hence the way was opened for the assembly, which was overwhelmingly moved by the spirit of a mob, to agree with the decision of the president and condemn the prisoner.

The Sanhedrin could pronounce a sentence of death but it could not execute it, hence they gratified their wicked hearts by this contemptible treatment of Jesus. According to Numbers 12:14 and Deuteronomy 25:9 it was regarded as a disgrace to have another spit in one's face. Thayer says to buffet means "to strike with the fist, give one a blow with the fist," which would be intended to cause pain. To smite with the open hand was not so much to cause pain as it was to treat with contempt.

Prophesy is from PRO-PHETEUO which Thayer defines at this place, "To utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known by divine revelation." In a crowded condition no one person would be distinctly visible so that the belittling act of slapping with the hand could be done without its being seen as to who really did it. (See Mark 5:27-31.) This act was an unmanly challenging of Christ's knowledge.

Sat without in the palace We should remember that the present session of the Sanhedrin was held in the headquarters of the high priest (verse57). Palace is a somewhat indefinite word in the Bible, but a common view of it is a building surrounded with an uncovered court. Sometimes the word is used to designate the building only, and at others it means the courtyard around it; the session of the Sanhedrin was held in the building. Peter sat without in the palace means he was out in the courtyard of the palace. The text does not tell us why the damsel asked Peter the question, but the same thing was asked him by another damsel, and still one of the crowd asked this question. All of them received the same negative answer, hence it is reasonable to conclude it was a part of the Lord's plan to bring about the threefold denial that was predicted in verse34. This question about Peter's being with, Jesus and the cowardly denial is significant, and shows that the fact of association with another makes him a partaker of whatever he is doing. (See Romans 1:32.) Of course Jesus was not doing anything wrong, and if Peter had been true to his profession so strongly expressed in verses33-35 , he would gladly have admitted his friendly association with the Lord and rejoiced in sharing in his persecutions. (See Acts 5:41.)

Peter not only denied being an associate of Jesus, but uttered a falsehood by saying he did not know him. The fear of sharing in the persecutions of Jesus caused him to say this and thus added another sin to the ones previously committed.

This porch was a place a little further away from the main building. The statement of the first damsel alarmed him and he was induced to move farther away. But even at this place his presence was noticed and a maid connected him with Jesus.

Peter emphasized his denial this time with an oath.

We are not told which person did the speaking this time, only that it was someone of the group standing near. The statement was made in an argumentative mood which shows they had heard his former denials (verse70). Bewrayeth is the same as saying his speech "gave him away" or proved him to be what they were saying. Different communities and groups had their own dialects or brogues in their conversation. These people knew the dialect of Jesus and recognized that of Peter as being the same.

This time Peter thought he should make his denial still more emphatic than he had the first two instances. Curse is from KATANATHE-MATIZO which Thayer defines, "to call down direct evils on, to curse vehemently." Swear is from OMNURUI and the same lexicon defines it, "to swear; to affirm, promise, threaten, with an oath." The sentence means that Peter expressed the wish that some great misfortune would come to him if what he said was not true. And to give force to his declaration he made an oath in connection with it. As soon as he had concluded his statement the cock crew. Mark 14:30 says the cock would crow twice, but that Peter would make his third denial before the second crowing. Verse72of that chapter says the cock crew the second time after this third denial.

And Peter remembered the word of Jesus. Luke 22:61 says that the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. The place where Jesus was being tried was so arranged that he could be seen from the space outside where Peter was. Jesus hence cculd be seen by the apostle, and when the cock crew the third time he turned and gave him an accusing look that reminded him of what was said in verse34. This brought him to his better thinking and filled him with genuine sorrow (Godly sorrow, 2 Corinthians 7:10); his immediate reaction was to go out from the crowd to himself and weep bitterly.