Chapter Twenty-Six

1–5. The deliberation about betraying Christ to death. – 6–13. His anointing in Bethany with precious ointment. – 14–16. Judas’s betrayal. – 17–19. Preparation of the Passover supper. – 20–25. Exposure of the betrayer. – 26–30. Institution of the Sacrament of Communion. – 31–35. Prediction of Peter’s denial. – 36–46. In Gethsemane. – 47–56. Arrest. – 57–68. Trial and mockery. – 69–75. Peter’s denial.

Matthew 26:1. When Jesus had finished all these words, He said to His disciples: It is to be supposed that this was on Tuesday of Passion week, that is, on the same day when the speeches set forth in chapters 24 and 25 were spoken. The words Luke 21:37-38 can be looked upon as a brief outline of the preceding history. But it is scarcely possible to consider them an introduction to the further speech of the evangelist. Beginning to recount the last days of Christ’s earthly life, Matthew uses instead of the customary ‘then’ a Hebrew turn of phrase. Literally: ‘and it happened that when Jesus finished’ and so on. This formula is repeated by Matthew five times (Matt 7:28), each time at the end of the speeches of Jesus Christ; by Mark – 4 times, by Luke – 43 times, in Acts – 18 times. Here in Matthew the formula can be considered a precise indication of the time of the speaking of the further words of verse 2. But if the evangelist in the citations indicated above says simply: ‘and it happened that when Jesus finished his words’ or ‘teaching,’ ‘parables’ – then here to the expression ‘these words’ there is added πάντας – ‘all these words.’ This means that the Savior has now finished all His preaching to the people. In the further account of the synoptists until the Resurrection, indeed, no long speeches of Christ to the people are recorded. The long speech set forth in John in chapters 14–17 is addressed only to the disciples. The first verse of the chapter examined relates most closely, of course, to the speeches set forth in chapters 24–25, but one can also interpret the verse in a more general sense: that the teaching activity of Christ has now ended, and this coincided with the beginning of His priestly ministry. Omnia dixerat, quae dicenda habuerat (He said all that needed to be said). ‘Although He often suffered from the plots of the Jews, yet they could not do Him harm, because the devil departed from Him for a time; He could not suffer, until He had finished all His speeches that He intended to deliver to His disciples’ (Origen). Compare Deut 31:1.

Matthew 26:2. ‘You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.’ (Compare Mark 14:1; Luke 22:1; John 13:1). Mark and Luke point only to the approaching Passover two days away, and their words can be considered an introduction to the following events and a precise designation of their time. Matthew agrees with Mark and Luke in determining the time, but adds the words of the Savior, which they do not have. In John there is a general and indefinite designation of time – ‘before the festival of Passover’ – relating to the Last Supper. The verse being examined of Matthew provides a mass of difficulties in interpretation. First of all, it is unknown whether both subordinate clauses should be placed in dependence on ‘you know,’ or only the first one. One can translate: ‘you know that after two days the Passover is coming and that the Son of Man and so on,’ or as in the Russian translation. The latter should be considered correct. Christ could say to the disciples that they know when the Passover will be, but it is doubtful that He could say that they also know about His impending crucifixion precisely at the time of Passover. The meaning of Christ’s words, according to the Russian translation, is that Christ, pointing to the day of Passover, connected with this festival another thing – the delivery of Him to death: you know that after two days the Passover is coming, and I tell you that on this same day the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified. Grammatically one can also translate οἴδατε imperatively: ‘know!’ But such a translation cannot be accepted logically, because Christ had no need to command the disciples to know what, of course, was well known to them. The main difficulty lies in the expression ‘after two days,’ because it can be understood variously (from the Greek – ‘after’ or ‘following’ two days). When were these words spoken? A day and a half or two days before? If we assume that the words were spoken by Christ on Tuesday after noon, then His prediction can be understood either in the sense that He will be crucified on Friday (Wednesday and Thursday – two days), or – on Thursday (Tuesday and Wednesday – two days). The synoptists in the present case not only do not help in interpreting the Gospel of Matthew, but, on the contrary, only complicate the matter. Mark says that after two days was (ἦν – in the Russian translation – ‘would be’) the festival of Passover and unleavened bread, and Luke speaks of the festival of unleavened bread called Passover. Because of this it was objected that Passover and the festival of unleavened bread – not one, but two different festivals. Hence there are numerous vacillations in the interpretation of all these expressions. Origen interpreted the expression of Matthew in the sense that it pointed not to the festival of the Jewish Passover, but to the new Passover. The Savior did not say that ‘after two days the Passover would be or come,’ not wishing to point to the impending legal Passover, but that there would be (such) a Passover as had never been before, and by it the ancient Passover would be abolished.’ Hence it is evident that Origen does not concern himself with precise interpretation of the Gospel words and expresses himself vaguely in general. Some newer exegetes thought that Christ was crucified on Thursday. Some supposed that the expression of Matthew contains an error, originally made by Mark and depending on a mistaken translation of two Aramaic words, one of which means ‘after,’ and another – ‘two.’ According to this interpretation, the expression of Matthew should be translated ‘after a few days,’ and not ‘after two days.’ Not entering the reader into various complicated and confused questions on this subject, we will say beforehand that the order of the last events on Passion week was as those indicated in our church services on Passion week. If the reader agrees with this without preliminary explanations, then much will be clarified for him in advance in the extremely complicated and difficult subsequent Gospel accounts. Thus, without any proofs, we advance beforehand the assumption that Christ was crucified in the morning on Friday, the Last Supper was the eve of this day, the night of Thursday to Friday. The words set forth in the verse being examined were spoken by Christ in the evening on Tuesday, after the speeches set forth in chapters 24 and 25. Such an order is accepted at present time by all the best exegetes. As for the indication of two festivals (Passover and unleavened bread) and their bringing together, it appears very doubtful that they were distinguished in popular speech as strictly as many critics would wish. That in the ‘biblical sense’ Passover and the festival of unleavened bread were closely connected, this is clear to anyone who takes the trouble to read Exod 12:1-8. Luke clearly does not separate both festivals, according to his words ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων was ἡ λεγομένη πάσχα (Luke 22:1). Passover was the main festival of the Jews, established in memory of their exodus from Egypt and their liberation from Egyptian slavery. “Will be delivered,” literally – “will be delivered,” – an impersonal statement without indication of who will deliver.

Matthew 26:3. Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the courtyard of the chief priest named Caiaphas, Only Matthew provides these details. The words ‘and the scribes’ are absent in the best codexes and should be omitted. “Then” – probably a precise designation of time. It is possible that the deliberation in the house of Caiaphas also took place on Tuesday. This was not the first deliberation. The decision to deliver Christ to death had already been made before (see Matt 21:45-46). As is usually the case, important decisions are not always carried out immediately. It is necessary not only to make a decision, but also to think about the means of carrying it out. The activity and speeches of Christ throughout this Passion week increasingly strengthened the hatred of His enemies and made the decision once made by them irreversible. By ‘courtyard’ here is meant not the palace of the chief priest in which he lived, but the space in the courtyard itself with buildings arranged on its sides, perhaps presenting something like a covered tent. More likely, this was simply an open place in the courtyard. It is supposed that the courtyard of the chief priest was divided into two halves, one of which was lower than the other (Mark 14:66), and the deliberation took place in the inner place, farther from the entrance. Among the Hebrews according to law there was only one chief priest. Matthew and Mark mention in their Gospels only Caiaphas, but Luke (Luke 3:2), John (John 18:13), as well as the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 4:6), mention also Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. The chief priest Annas, who was replaced by procurator Valerius Gratus (Josephus “Jewish Antiquities,” XVIII, 2, 2), was, so to speak, a retired chief priest, but nevertheless continued to remain a chief priest and, apparently, had considerable influence, probably because of his relationship by marriage with the successor Caiaphas (25–36 A.D.; according to Schürer and others – 18–36 A.D.). The name Caiaphas was not his own; his real name was Joseph (Josephus, “Jewish Antiquities” XVIII, 2, 2). As Schürer shows (Geschichte, II, p. 271, note 12), the chief priest was called Caiaphas, not Caifa (Cephas). Caiaphas was removed from office by procurator Vitellius (Josephus, “Jewish Antiquities,” XVIII, 4, 3). Besides the former and present chief priest, heads of priestly courses might have been present at the deliberation, who in the Gospels are also called archpriests or chief priests. The deliberation evidently took place without any participation of Judas, about whom the assembled ones knew nothing as yet.

Matthew 26:4. and they plotted to arrest Jesus by cunning and kill Him; (Compare Mark 14:1; Luke 22:2.) All synoptists speak about the same thing, but all in different expressions. Συνεβουλεύσαντο – not deliberated, but decided, resolved in the deliberation (in Greek – aorist). The Russian translation is correct. The verb is placed in the middle voice to express reciprocity or interaction. Those deliberating decided not to go directly, but to use cunning, as it were, an ambush. This was necessary, because they did not want to act openly – ‘they feared the people’ (Matt 21:46), who considered Christ a prophet. Not about taking Christ, but how to take Him – this was now the subject of their deliberations.

Matthew 26:5. but they said, “Not during the festival, so that there will not be a tumult among the people. (See Mark 14:2; Luke 22:2). Matthew narrates the whole of this history more fully than the other synoptists, yet in substantial agreement with them. The particle δέ in Matthew (ἔλεγον δέ) Mark replaces with γάρ. In either case the sense differs. According to Matthew, Christ’s enemies would have wished to put Him to death immediately, but (δέ) with this were expressed concerns lest tumult should arise among the people. Mark, however, emphasizes the word “by cunning” (Mark 14:1) and in the next verse explains (γάρ, incorrectly rendered “but” in Russian) why it was needed for this undertaking. Those deliberating tried to avoid not so much tumult among the people as simply “uproar” in general (the proper meaning of the word θόρυβος). Noiseless actions are always safer; cautious people always strive to act so that no uproar occurs. In making such a decision, those assembled apparently gave no thought to delivering Christ precisely to crucifixion. That execution would have been public and could have caused great popular disturbance. They deliberated about simply catching Jesus Christ somewhere in secret and by surprise, and killing Him. Only the rapidly following events made clear to them that there was no need to resort to any cunning; they understood that they could act openly and deliver Christ to public crucifixion. Therefore, the intention of Christ’s enemies to avoid Him “not during the festival” in no way justifies the conclusion adopted by many exegetes that Jesus Christ was crucified not on the very day of Passover. It often happens that both individual people and entire societies suddenly and quickly change their former decisions upon the occurrence of favorable circumstances. Some supposed that those deliberating wished to put Jesus Christ to death before the Passover festival arrived. Such an opinion has no basis. By “festival” one should understand not the first day of the festival, but the whole week during which it continued. During the Passover festival in Jerusalem a multitude of people assembled. However much the desire existed to rid themselves of a mortal enemy as soon as possible, it was unthinkable. Let the people celebrate the festival and depart to their homes in different places and cities. Then the hands of the authorities would not be bound by anything. Harboring such fears, Christ’s enemies acted under the guidance of an external force. “The Devil did not wish that Christ suffer at Passover so that His suffering would not become known; but they—so as not to cause disturbance. See how they fear not the wrath of God and not that the festival time might increase their evil deed, but everywhere—dangers from people” (St. John Chrysostom). Similar postponements of made decisions were not without precedent in the subsequent history of Christianity. When Agrippa killed James the son of Zebedee, the brother of John, “seeing that it pleased the Jews, he also seized Peter—then were the days of unleavened bread—and, having arrested him, put him in prison...intending after Passover to bring him out to the people” and, of course, execute him (Acts 12:3-4).

Matthew 26:6. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, (See Mark 14:3; John 12:1). First of all, the question of when this took place. It must be determined on the basis of John’s account (John 12:1-8). True, the first verses of that account (John 12:1-4) do not at all coincide with the account of Matthew and Mark, but in John 12:5 (see Matt 26:9; Mark 14:5) there is striking agreement, which is also evident in John 12:8 (see Matt 26:11; Mark 14:7). This gives full warrant for considering the history narrated by the three evangelists as identical (Luke says nothing about the anointing of Christ in Bethany). If so, we must refer the event narrated in Matt 26:6-13; Mark 14:1-9 to an earlier time, “six days before Passover,” to which John points. The anointing took place on the eve of Christ’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark do not preserve here chronological sequence of events, which is observed elsewhere as well, especially in Matthew’s Gospel. Why? Apparently because both evangelists wish to express another thought. The particle δέ, employed by Matthew at the beginning of verse 6, indicates a contrast with what was reported earlier (verses 3–5). Christ’s enemies deliberated to seize Him by cunning and kill Him, but did not wish to do so during the festival, because they feared the people. From the high priest’s house the evangelist immediately transports us to a peaceful house in Bethany. There—enmity, hatred, treachery, malice, fear of the people. Here—those who loved Christ, friends devoted to Him, are already preparing Him for burial. The former act consciously, knowing what they do, while here everything appears unintentional and unconscious, and in this sense is explained by Christ. There they wish to turn Christ’s living body into a stinking corpse, while here, on the contrary, they wish that His body would be fragrant. There—callousness, treachery, malice of inveterate evildoers; here—tender and sensitive love of a devoted woman, who, without fully reckoning with it, only senses that something evil awaits her Teacher and Lord. Thus, chronological sequence is replaced in Matthew and Mark by logical connection and relation of Christ’s anointing to the schemes of His enemies and His approaching death. All of this is so simple, comprehensible, and natural that we have no reason whatsoever to reproach the two first evangelists for not endeavoring to preserve chronological sequence. The only consideration that could be advanced against identifying the two synoptic accounts with the Gospel of John (John 12:1 and following) is that if Christ’s anointing falls on the preceding sabbath, then Wednesday leaves too little of the events narrated by the synoptists. But this objection is entirely removed if we suppose that Wednesday was a day of rest for the Son of Man before His crucifixion and death, and was spent by Him completely quietly among friends. With this understanding Matthew’s account is brought into relation not with Tuesday and Wednesday of Passion week, but generally with all the events set forth throughout Matt 21:1-26:5 (Zahn). Augustine understood the present account somewhat like this. “It may seem a contradiction,” he says, “that Matthew and Mark, after reporting that Passover will come after two days, then speak of Jesus Christ’s stay in Bethany and tell of His anointing there with precious ointment, while John recounts this anointing six days before Passover. But those who are troubled by this do not understand that Matthew and Mark could have placed the account of the anointing in Bethany exactly here. Neither of them, after saying that Passover will come after two days, made such an addition: ‘after this, when (Christ) was in Bethany.’ Who Simon the leper was, nothing is known. Theophylact says that ‘some consider Simon the leper the father of Lazarus; the Lord cleansed him of leprosy and was entertained by him.’ This is merely an unfounded supposition. Meyer even supposes that one cannot prove by anything the connection of Simon with Lazarus’ family. This is an exaggeration. Simon had some unknown relation to Lazarus’ family if we consider the accounts of the synoptists and John as identical. Regarding the fact that Matthew and Mark do not mention either Lazarus or Martha and Mary, but only Simon, the following opinion was expressed. The evangelists do so because it was dangerous to speak of Lazarus and his sisters at the time when the synoptic Gospels were written. Therefore the name of Lazarus does not appear at all in the synoptists, while the name of Simon the leper does not appear in John. Martha and Mary are not mentioned at all by Matthew and Mark. John (and perhaps in part Luke as well) did not have such fears when writing his Gospel, and therefore mentions both Lazarus and his sisters.

Matthew 26:7. There came to Him a woman with an alabaster jar of precious ointment and poured it on His head as He reclined. (See Mark 14:3). In John 12:1-3 it is said that “six days before Passover” in Bethany “they made” for Christ “a supper and Martha served” (see Luke 10:40), “and Lazarus was one of those reclining with Him. Mary” (see Luke 10:39), “taking a pound of pure costly nard, anointed the feet of the Savior and wiped them with her hair” (see Luke 7:38). Matthew and Mark do not name the woman who did this. From their accounts one cannot even infer that this was a woman known to anyone generally, because there is no article before γύνη. Such indefiniteness gave rise to numerous and tangled discussions on this subject among both ancient and modern exegetes. Some, paying attention to Luke 7:38 and following, thought that the Gospels mention four women who anointed Christ. But Origen remarks that there were only three: of one Matthew and Mark wrote (not in any way contradicting each other in one section), of another—Luke, and of still another—John, because the last differs from the rest. Jerome says: “Let no one think that one and the same woman anointed both head and feet.” Augustine considers the woman of whom Luke speaks (Luke 7:36 and following) identical with the one of whom John speaks (i.e., with Mary, sister of Lazarus). The anointing was performed by her twice. Of the first, only Luke speaks; of the second, three evangelists speak equally, namely John, Matthew, and Mark. Thus Augustine distinguishes between two anointings—that which Luke reports (Luke 7:37-39) and that which took place in Bethany six days before Passover, supposing that the woman who anointed was one and the same. Chrysostom sees it differently. “This woman, it seems, is one and the same among all the evangelists; yet in reality not so, but among three evangelists, it seems to me, one and the same woman is spoken of, while John speaks of another certain remarkable woman, the sister of Lazarus.” Theophylact declares: “Some say there were three women who anointed the Lord with ointment, whom all four evangelists mention. Others suppose there were two: one mentioned by John, namely Mary, sister of Lazarus, and another mentioned by Matthew, which is identical with the one mentioned by Luke and Mark.” Zigabenus: “Three women anointed the Lord with ointment. One, of whom Luke speaks, being a sinner...a second whom John speaks of, by name Mary...a third, whom Matthew and Mark equally recount, who approached (Christ) two days before Passover in the house of Simon the leper.” “And if,” says Augustine, “Matthew and Mark say that the woman poured ointment on the Lord’s head, while John—on His feet, then here there is, it seems, no contradiction. We think she anointed not only the head but also the feet of the Lord. Perhaps someone might object in a slanderous spirit that according to Mark’s account she broke the vessel before anointing the Lord’s head, and that in the broken vessel no ointment remained with which she could anoint also His feet. But he who makes such slander should note that the feet were anointed before the vessel was broken, and that enough ointment remained in it when, breaking it, the woman poured out all the remaining oil.” Among later exegetes similar diverse opinions are encountered. Calvin prescribed to his followers to consider the two accounts (one in Matthew and Mark, and another in John) as identical. But Lightfoot says: “I marvel how anyone can confuse both these accounts.” Even Zahn derives from Matthew’s account that “the woman did not live in Simon’s house” (das Weib keine Hausgenossin des Simon war). Other exegetes said that if what is narrated in Matthew and Mark had taken place in Lazarus’ house rather than Simon the leper’s house, then the disciples would not have become “indignant” (ἡγανάκτησαν—ἀγανακτοῦντες; Matt 26:8; Mark 14:4), because that would mean being indignant with one of the hostesses who had received them. An explanation of this will be given in the next verse. For now, on the basis of the grounds presented above, we shall say that the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and John should be considered identical. The contradiction between Matthew and Mark, according to which the woman anointed Christ’s head, and John, that she anointed the feet, is not so great as to deny the identity of their accounts. Both could have happened, with Matthew and Mark reporting on one and John on another. With this there is no need even to suppose that the fourth evangelist intentionally corrected his predecessors or that preference should be given only to his account. One can only affirm that the example of the woman of whom Luke speaks was a precedent and occasioned imitation. But the account in Luke 7:36 and following is entirely distinct from the present. The word ἀλάβαστρον (ἀλάβαστρος, ἀλάβαστος) appears in the New Testament only in three places (Matt 26:7; Mark 14:3; Luke 7:37) and means, properly, alabaster, and then an alabaster vessel, an alabaster jar. Such vessels were used for preserving fragrant ointments. Pliny (Natural History, III, 3) says that unguenta optime servantur in alabastris (fragrant ointments are excellently preserved in alabaster vessels). Among the gifts sent by Cambyses to the Ethiopians, Herodotus mentions an alabaster vessel with ointment (μύρου ἀλάβαστρον, History, III, 20). On the custom of anointing the head see Eccl 9:8. Remarkably, when speaking of Christ’s anointing, Matthew does not mention that the woman poured it (i.e., the ointment) on his head, and omits this word. The construction of the verse is not the same in Matthew and Mark. In the latter—κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς; in Matthew—κατέχεεν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ἀνακειμένου. Mark thus has the ordinary “post-Homeric” construction, simply with the genitive; Matthew has the later construction—with ἐπί. One considers ἀνακειμένου a genitive absolute and separate from αὐτοῦ. This is questionable. Between the two variant readings πολυτίμου (of great value or precious) and βαρυτίμου (the same meaning) the former should be preferred, as it is better attested.

Matthew 26:8. When the disciples saw it, they became indignant and said: “Why this waste? (See Mark 14:4; John 12:4). In John it is said that the disciples became indignant, but only Judas. If in the previous verse, where the woman breaks the vessel, the matter is presented roughly in Mark, then it is presented in the same way in the present verse. This is testified to by ἀγανακτοῦντες (in Matthew—ἡγανάκτησαν)—a harsh expression that completely violates the refinement and harmony of the entire recounted event. John does not speak either of breaking the vessel or of the disciples’ indignation, but only of Judas, with an explanation of the reasons why Judas spoke thus. But the word ἀγανατεῖν appears here not to be as strong as in the Russian and Slavonic translations. It means here simply “to be disturbed,” “to be displeased.” The alabaster vessel with ointment was πολύτιμος—precious or of great value. Judas evaluates the cost at three hundred denarii (John 12:5)—about 60 rubles in our money. In view of the recently taught, well-remembered teachings of Christ Himself to the disciples that help to those hungry, thirsty, etc., was equivalent to help to the King Himself, it becomes fully comprehensible why the disciples could be displeased. Especially displeased was Judas, as one who greatly loved and valued money. It is possible that in the present case his displeasure was contagious even to other disciples. As among people not accustomed to restraint, this displeasure poured outward and was noticeable to the woman herself who was performing the anointing (ἐνεβριμοῦντο αὐτῇ—Mark 14:5). Mary’s feminine love elevated her above the whole society of Christ’s disciples, and what was contrary, perhaps, to the demands of harsh logic and callous reason was fully in accord with the demands of her feminine heart. It mattered not that this required spending as much as was needed not only to feed a crowd of paupers, but also to arrange a good feast for arriving guests. Origen remarks: “If one woman was written about by Matthew and Mark, and another by John, and a third by Luke, then how could the disciples, having once received a rebuke from Christ on account of her deed, not reform and not cease their indignation on account of the deed of yet another woman doing something similar?” Origen does not settle this question or, rather, settles it unsatisfactorily. In Matthew and Mark, he says, the disciples grumble from a good intention (ex bono proposito); in John—only Judas, on account of love of theft (furandi affectu); in Luke no one grumbles. But if in Luke no one grumbles, then from this it is clear that he speaks of a different anointing. And from the repetition of the report of grumbling in Matthew, Mark, and John one can conclude that the history they recount is identical.

Matthew 26:9. For it was possible to sell this ointment for a large sum and give it to the poor. (See Mark 14:5; John 12:5). In John these words are again spoken only by Judas. After the word “this” in the original in Matthew there is no word (placed in the Russian translation) “ointment,” and it is considered here an addition to the original text. But it is genuine in the parallel in Mark, with Mark and John adding that the ointment could be sold “for more than three hundred denarii” (in John simply: “for three hundred denarii”). Was such speech by the disciples correct? It appears correct only in outward appearance. Without doubt, many others reason the same way as the disciples. But in reality hic discipuli non recte utuntur theologia comparativa (the disciples here incorrectly employ comparative theology). Suppose the desire of the disciples had been fulfilled; some wealthy woman had bought Mary’s ointment, and then the money received could be given to the poor. But in this case the woman who repurchased the ointment would in the end act the same way as Mary, would use it for anointing, i.e., would expend it for the same purpose for which Mary spent it. No vessel of ointment can exist forever and serve as a constant source of assistance to the poor. On the other hand, it is possible that the production of ointment was the occupation of poor people. Its purchase from them in itself could be help to them. The reasoning of the disciples was thus erroneous.

Matthew 26:10. But Jesus, knowing this, said to them: “Why do you trouble the woman? She has done a good deed to Me. (See Mark 14:6; John 12:7). In John the Savior’s speech is directed (in the Greek text) to Judas. The Savior understood (γνούς) what the disciples were deliberating about. This deliberation apparently took place at some distance from Him. It is difficult to suppose that all disciples were displeased; those who were displeased took care that the Savior would not hear their words. Only Judas could have spoken the words aloud, within the hearing of Christ, and thus confirm the correctness of his grumbling. “Why do you trouble?”—τί κόπους παρέχετε—“cause difficulty,” “give trouble.” Because (γάρ) if you believe that I am worthy of some good deed on the part of this woman, then you can see what a good deed she has indeed done for Me now. Ἔργον καλόν—not only good, but beautiful in appearance, pleasant, fine (see the commentaries to Matt 5:16). It was all the more beautiful and pleasant because the woman “herself did not know what she was doing,” and “the simplicity of her action only increased its beauty.”

Matthew 26:11. For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me. (See Mark 14:7; John 12:8). Mark adds: “and whenever you want to, you can do good to them.” In other respects the words of Matthew, Mark, and John are fully identical, with only a rearrangement of a few words. Zahn says, questionably, how to read (in Matthew): πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς πτωχούς, as Mark does, or τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ πάντοτε and so on. The words of the Savior have, one might say, an eternal and undeniable sense. However simple the truth that the poor exist and will always exist everywhere, it was stated for the first time only by Him. The truth of His assertion is verified by constant experience. Despite all possible measures to reduce poverty, the poor have always existed and exist. But in contrast to the constant existence of the poor, Christ was not always with people.

Matthew 26:12. In pouring this ointment on My body, she prepared Me for burial. (See Mark 14:8; John 12:7). In John these words are spoken earlier than the speech about the poor and little resembles the expressions of Matthew and Mark. If in verse 7 it was said that the ointment was poured “on the head” of Christ, then here He Himself says it was poured on His “body.” In this expression one can find an allusion to what John 12:3 says, that Mary anointed Christ’s feet. The word ἐνταφιάζειν means not “to bury” but “to prepare for the grave,” “to embalm.” Physicians embalmed Jacob in Egypt before his burial in Palestine (Gen 50:2). The woman “as it were prophesied about the approaching death of Christ” (Zigabenus).

Matthew 26:13. Truly I say to you: Wherever this Gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be spoken of in memory of her and of what she did. (See Mark 14:9—with slight differences). “Pay attention,” says Jerome, “to His knowledge of the future, to the fact that, about to suffer and die after two days, He knows that His Gospel will be glorified throughout the whole world.” For this reason the words of Christ are considered an argumentum pro veritate religionis christianae (an argument for the truth of Christian religion). No monarch, whatever power he possesses, can impart immortality to any of his actions (Bengel). Regarding the reading of the verse, opinions are divided. Some read as in the Russian translation, i.e., with a comma after “in the whole world”; others thus: “Wherever this Gospel is preached, in the whole world it will be said, etc.” Zahn holds the latter opinion. The question is settled by comparison with Mark’s words, where εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον (in the whole world) clearly refers to the preceding κηρυχθῇ (will be preached) rather than to the following λαληθήσεται (will be said). Zahn’s opinion should therefore be considered incorrect. Similar prophetic predictions were made in other instances as well (Jdt 8:32; 1 Macc 3:7; Luke 1:48). To the account of Mary’s anointing of Christ in Bethany, John adds reports (John 12:9-11), which are absent in the synoptists.

Matthew 26:14. Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests (See Mark 14:10; Luke 22:3). If the supper in Bethany, along with the evangelist John, is to be referred to the time before Christ’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem, then we have no information at all about how the Savior spent Wednesday on Passion week. In deciding these questions, we generally do not step outside the realm of mere suppositions. The evangelists do not indicate chronological dates here, and where such indications do occur, they are so tangled and indefinite that to the present time no scholar has succeeded in untangling the labyrinth constructed here, although enormous effort was expended on it, resulting in a vast amount of literature in all European languages. When exactly Judas went to the chief priests cannot be determined with certainty. All evangelists hint that it was after the supper in Bethany. But if it took place before Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, then it appears improbable that Judas would have gone to the chief priests before this last event, because in the subsequent history of the days of Passion week there is no hint by the evangelists of his betrayal. The most probable supposition therefore is that Judas’ betrayal took place either Tuesday evening or Wednesday. For his negotiations about the delivery of Christ, Judas could preferably have chosen night time. The betrayal of Judas is not so much difficult to explain by examining individual features of his character as by the attitude of Christ Himself toward Judas. We have already spoken of this (see commentaries to Matt 10:4). As for the fact of Judas’ betrayal itself, various opinions have been expressed at different times. In our literature there are two works on this; one belongs to L. Andreev, and the other to Professor of Moscow Spiritual Academy M. Muretov. The first was written by a completely ignorant writer for completely ignorant readers, and very naturally is highly valued by them. But it is clear that all victories of Mr. Andreev in this field can equal and only equal his complete defeat. As for Professor Muretov’s work on Judas the traitor, he writes: “The law of moral equilibrium, consisting in the self-retribution of good and evil, or love and egoism, on its negative side is nowhere expressed so briefly and powerfully as in the deeply tragic biblical narratives about Cain and Judas.” Judas Iscariot—seller of the “innocent blood” of the Teacher for the sake of a nationalist-egotistical idea of political pseudo-Judaism, which proved impotent against the terrible truth of delivering innocent blood to the God-man, and within hours of the crime forced the traitor in terrible pangs of conscience to say: “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood”—and go and hang himself (Matt 27:4-5). According to Professor Muretov, “the traitor possessed a character more profound and serious than the many who were seduced by Christ’s harsh word.” It is hardly possible to suppose that this was a psychologically very complex character. If one does not venture into the realm of fancy and unfounded suppositions, and does not step outside the realm of facts, it turns out that the motive of Judas’ betrayal, at least the principal one, was money, to which he felt attachment, not allowing him to easily reconcile himself to the privations and sufferings that constituted one aspect of following Christ. In this case Judas was not some particular person, but resembled thousands of other people who try to extract profit from everything and in case of failure sink into despair and decide on anything. This motive runs like a red thread through the Gospels, especially in John, who says that Judas not only carried the money box but was a “thief” (John 12:6). The same appears in the writings of Church Fathers who wished to explain Judas’ deed, and in our Church hymns (“then Judas the wicked, sickened with love of money, was darkened”; “behold, the lover of possessions” etc.). Pope Leo the Great wrote well about this. Judas “abandoned Christ not out of fear but because of greed for money. For love of money is the basest passion. A soul devoted to gain does not fear ruin and will do anything for it; there is no trace of righteousness in that heart in which love of possession has made its nest. The faithless Judas, intoxicated with this poison, while he thirsted for gain, was so madly impious that he sold his Lord and Teacher.” The word “sickened” employed in our Church hymn sheds more light on the matter than all the “ideological-national, religious-political nightmares” created by Mr. Muretov. Love of money was a spiritual “sickness” of Judas. This sickness could influence all his remaining spiritual structure and cause abnormality in his general thinking. This does not mean that Judas was mad, because in that case he would be not responsible and not subject to any accountability (see Matt 26:24; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22). But undoubtedly he had partial insanity, partial clouding of his mental faculties, which is proven chiefly by his suicide, which, as is known, a person with completely sound and normal reason will not voluntarily commit. Judas’ love of money was apparently at first completely secret, developed and burned like a smoldering fire, and led Judas to temporary self-denial and endurance of all the hardships of life in communion with Christ, with constant hope for future blessings. These hopes turned out in the end to be unrealized and threatened with something completely opposite to any earthly prosperity. If Judas did not endure such a crisis to the end, then this is fully comprehensible. If we mentally placed temptations on one mountain and Judas on another, we would find that Judas’ answers to diabolical temptations would be completely opposite to Christ’s answers. At the devil’s suggestion Judas would not have refused either to turn stones to bread, or to display before the people miraculous power and worship the devil for the kingdoms of the world. But beside this basic motive of Judas’ actions, love of money, in the Gospels appears very subtly, but completely clearly, another, additional motive, which can be viewed as a consequence of the main motive. This is the striving to attach himself to powerful people and their parties. It usually happens that in such cases people do not at all speak of the moral worth of powerful parties and the principles they preach. They snatch up on the wing their wildest, most fantastical ideas and then present them as something given, absolute, not subject to dispute or doubt. Criticism is completely absent. While Judas saw that Christ, as an extraordinary Teacher and Wonder-worker, must come into power, he adhered to Him and did not depart from Him. But when he clearly saw that it was not Christ but the party hostile to Him—the chief priests, elders, and scribes—that was destined to come into power, a party that in Judas’ eyes was to bury all of Christ’s work and His person, then he attached himself to it, and this happened as easily as Herod I easily declared his devotion now to one Roman commander, then to another. The Gospel notes about Judas and in general about the last events of Christ’s earthly life are too brief. We cannot grasp the actual moments when exactly it became clear to Judas that external force was not on Christ’s side but on His enemies’. Christ’s own repeated declarations about sufferings, the Cross, and then the ever-increasing malice of Jewish authorities, generally speaking, clearly showed Judas in time on which side it was more profitable to stand, and he boldly abandons Christ and plunges into the whirlpool of political hatred and murder. Τότε (“then”) should be understood as an indefinite indication, as in many other cases. It is questionable whether this adverb has immediate relation to what precedes and indicates, in the evangelist’s mind, Judas’ departure from the supper that took place in Bethany. The word πορευθείς Bengel explains: discipuli non erant clausï poterat abire malus (the disciples were not locked up, the evil one could leave). Among all synoptists there appears an addition: “one of the twelve” (in Luke: “from among the twelve”). The evangelists do not try to hide and do not hide that the traitor was from the apostolic circle itself, and not only do not hide it but even emphasize this fact by the stated expression. The apostles, it seems, had not suspected until now that there was a traitor in their own midst (although Christ Himself had pointed to him much earlier—John 6:70). This fact was so unexpected and astonishing to the disciples that the expression “one of the twelve” appeared as it were naturally and of itself. Judas goes to the “chief priests,” but Luke adds (Luke 22:4) also στρατηγοῖς (in the Russian translation “commanders”—inexactly)—to military commanders, who were apparently invited to the chief priests’ council. This connection of chief priests with military commanders is very typical and typological.

Matthew 26:15. And said: “What will you give me if I deliver Him to you?” And they offered him thirty pieces of silver. (See Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:4-5). Mark and Luke do not say that Judas began negotiations with the chief priests and “leaders” (Luke) by stating the price at which he agreed to betray Christ. But in Matthew the negotiations begin precisely with this. Judas’ statement, as set forth by Matthew, is very characteristic. He makes his statement to such people as he hopes will immediately understand him. The motive expressed by Judas is sufficient in itself. It is the first and chief motive in ordinary human relations. Many place it first even when, so to speak, they wish to screen with it other, more serious motives, which they do not consider it necessary to reveal prematurely. But many point to the latter, always leaving the chief, monetary, motive in the background. Few genuine idealists are to be found. Most point to ideals, concealing the culpability of the chief motive with their beauty. Judas does not say: I will deliver Him to you and desire to receive for this so much. He could have asked for less than they could have given him. He does not initially set a price but seeks to learn about it. But he does not “sell” Christ, but “deliver” (παραδώσω). This was to cost less than a sale. Judas bargains to do in essence something unimportant and not difficult—to point out Christ’s secret whereabouts so that He could be safely seized. This could not cost much. The chief priests offer Judas such a price as he probably did not expect. Thirty pieces of silver—for some hour, an hour not even of difficult, strenuous work, but simply for the inconvenience of nighttime, for accompanying people who could seize Christ. A worker for heavy daytime work ordinarily received only a denarius (about 20–25 kopecks). Judas was offered thirty pieces of silver. These were “temple shekels,” which were “heavier” than ordinary ones. A single shekel equaled four denarii! Consequently, the price offered to Judas was 120 times higher than the daily wage of one worker. More than a third of a year was needed to endure the burden of day and heat to earn such money. But the chief priests and the temple were certainly wealthy. After the first service other services could be required. One needed only to please and faithfully execute the given commission, and then await further commissions from influential people, for which silver pieces would also pour into the pocket. For the greedy and money-loving, covetous Judas, magnificent prospects for the future could appear. Perhaps he even hoped to receive thirty pieces of silver each day! As soon as such a price was offered to Judas, he immediately agreed. It is unknown only whether the money was given to him now or later. That it was given is beyond doubt (Matt 27:5). But now it is difficult to determine how it was. All synoptists use different expressions. In Matthew ἔστησαν—this term was used to designate payment of a required sum, assignment of wages, but also means “to hang,” “to weigh out” (see the translation of the Seventy 2 Sam 14:26; Ezra 8:25; Job 6:2; Isa 40:12; Jer 32:9; Zech 11:12). Not in all these citations is it said about money. But however closely these citations relate to the discussed passage in Matthew, from the latter, on the basis of the use of ἔστησαν, one cannot conclude that the Jews at this very time weighed out and gave Judas the required sum. They only decided and determined to give it to him. Such a conclusion is confirmed by Mark, who says that the chief priests were gladdened and only promised Judas to give him silver pieces, and by Luke, according to whom they συνέθεντο—determined (in the Russian translation—“agreed”) to give him money. In this sense Euthymius Zigabenus explains the expression: “Mark said that they promised (Judas) to give him silver, and Luke—that they agreed. It appears they first agreed and promised, and then weighed out (σταθμῆσαι). Some, however, think that ἔστησαν stands in place of συνεφώνησαν and ὡρίσαντο (determined, appointed).” If we are to translate ἔστησαν as “weighed out,” then this would mean that the expression is borrowed from an earlier time when precious metals, when being paid without minting, were weighed on scales. But Theophylact directly affirms that they “only agreed, determined to give him, not that they weighed them out, as many think.” The pieces of silver promised or given to Judas were ἀργύρια (Mark, Luke; in John—none)—silver coins approximately the size of our ruble. Judas himself hardly supposed that in betraying Christ he was acting in accordance with ancient prophecies. For him the price promised and given by the Jews was high. On the other hand, the Jews, of course, did not think about the fulfillment of ancient prophecies in these events. But in appointing 30 pieces of silver themselves, they almost certainly thought thereby to humiliate Christ, because 30 pieces of silver was the ordinary price of a slave (Exod 21:32). Such contempt was apparently shared by Judas as well, who does not call Christ by name but says he will deliver Him (αὐτόν). On the other hand, the Jewish leaders, when Judas came to them, could not in their souls but despise him. There was nothing elevated or noble in secret betrayal, and it could be regarded with revulsion even by the most base and immoral people who, however, were considered heads of society. The presence at the council of military commanders (στρατηγοῖς—Luke) was necessary generally for regulating the measures of arrest. The statement of the traitor immediately changed the whole plan that was supposed to be executed. So it often happens.

Matthew 26:16. And from that time he sought an opportunity to betray Him. (See Mark 14:11; Luke 22:6). “An opportunity”—inexactly; in the original—“favorable” or, better still, “good, suitable time” (εὐκαιρίαν). It is clear that Judas’ subsequent actions are determined precisely by this goal. He conducts himself so as, on the one hand, not to arouse suspicion, and on the other, not to violate the promise given to the Jews. Judas hardly needed to investigate and study the matter. He knew it perfectly. He knew that Christ often remained with His disciples on the Mount of Olives. But precautions were necessary because strong resistance was possible from eleven strong men (not to mention other followers and adherents).

Matthew 26:17. On the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus and said to Him: “Where do you want us to prepare the Passover for You? (See Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7-9). This verse of Matthew and the parallels gave rise to an enormous amount of literature. Numerous articles and works on “Christ’s last Paschal supper” appeared, including in Russian (by Fr. Gorsky, Khvolson, Glubokovskii, Troitskii, and others). But the results have been unsatisfactory to the present. “The subject under discussion,” wrote Professor Glubokovskii in 1893, “still remains a difficult scientific cross, whose inscriptions have not even been approximately deciphered.” “As the question at present stands,” wrote the English scholar Sunday thirteen years later, in 1906, “we can only ignore” (given the present state of this question we can only acknowledge our ignorance). Under such circumstances we must present only what appears most probable. The evangelists Matthew and Mark say that the disciples came to Jesus with a question about where He had commanded them to prepare Passover on the first day of unleavened bread. But, some said, Passover and the day of unleavened bread were two different festivals. Passover was celebrated according to the law from the evening of the 14th to the 15th of Nisan, at night, not later than 12 o’clock. Then on the 15th came a festival lasting seven days, until the 21st of Nisan, which was called the festival of unleavened bread. Since by the direct sense of Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts the disciples came to Jesus on the day when the festival of unleavened bread began, this means that the Last Supper, when the Passover lamb was consumed, was later than the time established in the law, i.e., not from the 14th to the 15th, but from the 15th to the 16th. This objection is relatively easy to refute. There is no doubt that the day of slaying and eating the Passover lamb was precisely defined in the law (Exod 12:1-6; Num 9:3), and deviations from the law when the day of Passover fell on sabbath are difficult to prove. Thus it is possible to establish that Christ with His disciples celebrated Passover at the time defined in the law, i.e., from the 14th to the 15th of Nisan. But what then will the expressions of Matthew and Mark mean (almost identical): “on the first day of unleavened bread”? How could one say at that time that “the Passover lamb was slain,” i.e., “the Passover lamb”? What day of the week should be understood as the first day of unleavened bread? These are the most difficult questions. To them one can answer that attempts to prove (Khvolson) that among the Hebrews the first day of unleavened bread never meant the Passover itself from the time of its institution to the present should be considered erroneous. But even if there were no error here, then it would still be possible to recognize that Matthew and Mark speak here in the common language, which considered Passover a day of unleavened bread and vice versa. This is fully confirmed by Luke (Luke 22:7), who says that on the day of unleavened bread “the Passover lamb had to be slain,” coming closest in this case to Mark’s account (Mark 14:12). With such an interpretation there is no need to accept that the festival of Passover was celebrated not seven but eight days, and that the time from evening of the 13th to the 14th was also called the festival of unleavened bread, although this is precisely what Josephus Flavius claims (Antiquities of the Jews, II, 15, 1). The question of what day the Paschal supper was held is settled by the undeniable fact that Christ died Friday evening, and the following day (a day of rest) He lay in the tomb. Therefore the interpretation of Chrysostom is correct, that “the evangelist calls the first day of unleavened bread the day preceding the festival of unleavened bread, since the Jews always had the custom of reckoning a day from evening. The evangelist mentions the day on which, in the evening, the Passover lamb was to be slain, so that the disciples came to Jesus on Friday.” But one cannot fully agree with Theophylact’s opinion: “Thus I think that the evangelist calls the first unleavened day the day of unleavened bread. They had to eat Passover properly on Friday evening: it is precisely this that was called the day of unleavened bread—but the Lord sends His disciples on Thursday, which the evangelists call the first day of unleavened bread because it preceded Friday—in the evening of which the unleavened bread was ordinarily eaten.” But regarding the contradiction to which John points (John 18:28), that the Jews did not want to enter Pilate’s “praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but would be able to eat Passover,” this is explained by the fact that here by Passover is meant not the day of Passover itself but its continuation, the eating of festival sacrifices (“hagiga”) etc., for which it was also necessary to avoid defilement, as for eating Passover. It is true that Sunday argues that however attractive this opinion, it should be abandoned due to lack of proof. But this opinion is at present the only one on which one can rely in the chronological distribution of the last days of Christ’s life. The opinion that Christ celebrated Passover not on the evening of the 14th of Nisan but from the 13th to the 14th, expressed also by our theologians (see, for example, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Metropolitan Makarii, 1868, Vol. 2, p. 376), should be considered doubtful. “It is impossible that priests would allow a sacrifice not offered at the appointed time to come to the altar, just as it is impossible for our priest, to please someone, to serve the Paschal liturgy on the eve of the Nativity (Khvolson).” However, the opinion that Passover was celebrated from the 13th to the 14th of Nisan should at present be considered universally recognized and widespread.

Matthew 26:18. He said: “Go into the city to a certain man and say to him: ‘The Teacher says: My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.’ (See Mark 14:13-15; Luke 22:10-12). The briefest (to the point of obscurity) account here is in Matthew. Mark and Luke speak further of a man carrying a pitcher of water; the disciples must follow him and tell the master of the house (in distinction from the man carrying the pitcher of water) the Savior’s command concerning the room for celebrating Passover. But Matthew in turn adds some expressions which are absent in the other evangelists. First of all, he has the special expression “to a certain man” (πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα). It was supposed that the “master of the house” (Mark and Luke), who was a disciple of Jesus Christ (ὁ διδάσκαλος λέγει—the teacher speaks to the disciple), is not named here because Christ wished to hide from the returning Judas the place of the celebration of the Last Supper, and Judas could not therefore bring conspirators there to seize Jesus on the very supper itself. In connection with this, they interpret further the words “My time is near” not as some special communication but as a “password” previously agreed upon between Christ and the master of the house, which was also unknown to Judas. Such interpretations do not appear probable, because it is very questionable whether Christ would resort to such means of protection as are ordinarily employed in war. The presence of Judas at the supper serves as an objection to this opinion. The course of events appears in the following form in general. On the morning of the 14th of Nisan, on Thursday, the disciples asked Jesus where He commanded them to prepare for Him a Passover lamb. As is evident from Luke’s account, some preparations had already been made and for this Peter and John were sent (Luke 22:8). They had to bring the Passover lamb to the temple from 3 to 5 o’clock in the evening and themselves slaughter it, with the priests pouring its blood on the altar. While the disciples were doing all this (the opinion that Thursday did not have enough time for this should be considered idle and untenable), there also arose the question about the place of celebrating the Last Supper. Inhabitants of Jerusalem willingly provided pilgrims arriving in Jerusalem with necessary premises, perhaps for a certain fee. Several groups could eat Passover lamb in one room. The number of people eating this Passover lamb was determined to be not less than 10 and not more than 20 persons. There is a tradition that the house where the Last Supper was celebrated belonged either to the evangelist Mark himself or to his father. Such an opinion is supported by the fact that Mark’s account of all these events contains more lively and minute details than that of the other evangelists. But the room that had been prepared for Christ was separate and secluded. Besides the disciples, apparently no one else was admitted to the supper. The fact that the master’s name is not mentioned is explained by the hatred of the Jews, continuing at the time when the synoptic Gospels were written. From this τὸν δεῖνα—“to someone,” “to a certain one,” which Zahn considers equivalent to NN or “so-and-so.” It is questionable, however, whether Christ Himself did not name the master’s name when sending the disciples or whether the disciples did not know about it before meeting the man carrying the pitcher of water and arriving at the house itself. “My time is near”—an indication of approaching death, which could be understood by the master of the house from previous acquaintance and conversations with the Savior. The translation of ποιῶ as “will keep” (future) is incorrect; in the original it is the present tense and means “keep” in the sense of the future.

Matthew 26:19. And the disciples did as Jesus directed them, and prepared the Passover. (See Mark 14:16; Luke 22:13). This meant that after observing various formalities in the temple, the Passover lamb was baked as the law prescribed, set on the table with unleavened bread and bitter herbs in a large furnished, spread, and consecrated room (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:13). Around the table were arranged couches (like our cushions or divans).

Matthew 26:20. Now when evening came, He reclined with the twelve disciples. (See Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14; John 13:2.) This was, as has been said, on Thursday evening, from the 14th to the 15th of Nisan, and the 16th was the Paschal sabbath, a great day. The last supper of Jesus mentioned in John’s Gospel and the Paschal supper of the synoptists is one and the same. In all four evangelists, identical accounts are connected with the time of the Paschal supper: the revelation of the traitor, the prediction of Peter’s denial, the removal of Jesus after the Last Supper to Gethsemane. By the name “Passover” was meant the slaying and eating of the Passover lamb and, it seems, the seven-day festival lasting from the 15th to the 21st of Nisan, the festival of unleavened bread (Lev 23:5-6; Num 28:16-17 and following; Ezek 45:21), just as we call Passover not only the first day of Passover but also the entire Paschal week. The 15th of Nisan was “the day after Passover” (Num 33:3; concerning the time of celebrating Passover see also Exod 12:6; Lev 23:5-8; Num 28:16-25; see Exod 29:38-39). According to the law, the Passover lamb was to be eaten standing (Exod 12:11), but later the custom of reclining was introduced. Jerusal. Pes. 37, 2: mos servorum est, ut edant stantes, at nunc comedant recumbentes, ut dignoscatur, exisse eos e servitute in libertatem (it is the custom of slaves to eat standing, but now they eat reclining, so that it may be known they have come out of slavery into freedom). Together with the other disciples, Judas was also present at the supper; this is evident from the clear statement of Matthew and Mark that Jesus “reclined with the twelve disciples.” This is also indicated by the further accounts of the evangelists about the Last Supper.

Matthew 26:21. And as they were eating, He said: “Truly I say to you: One of you will betray Me. (See Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21; John 13:21). Matthew, like Mark, omits here the long accounts of Luke 22:15-18 and John 13:2-21. The sequence of events at the supper, after comparing the evangelists’ accounts, was probably as follows. After arriving at the supper, Jesus said the words set forth in Luke (Luke 22:15-18), then there was a dispute among the disciples about who was greatest (Luke 22:24), the washing of feet (John 13:2-11) and teachings on this matter (Luke 22:25-30; John 13:12-20). Some suppose that after this came the breaking of bread (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:23-24), and only then the revelation of the traitor, which is told in the verse under discussion. But it is better and more natural to refer the institution of the Sacrament to after the revelation of Judas, though in Luke the order is different. They ate the Passover lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. The preparation and setting on the table of “haroseth” was not mandatory. But, quite probably, this dish—a mixture of fruits in which bitter herbs are dipped before being eaten—also stood on the table. The words of verse 21, according to Matthew (and Mark), were spoken before the institution of the Eucharist; according to Luke—after. The sequence adopted by Matthew and Mark is more probable, though many think otherwise. The words “One of you will betray Me” were probably not fully understood by the disciples or were not understood at all, were so new and unexpected that no one could understand their actual meaning except Judas. The remaining apostles could understand them to mean that the Teacher faced some danger and that one of the disciples would become the involuntary and unthinking cause of this danger. That Judas had already entered into negotiations with the chief priests, the apostles apparently did not know.

Matthew 26:22. And they were greatly distressed and began to say to Him, each one: “Is it I, Lord? (See Mark 14:19). John’s account (John 13:22-29) is in essence similar to the account of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Luke 22:22-23), but with the addition of certain details. The questions of the disciples confirm what was said in the interpretation of verse 21, that they did not understand what was being discussed. The interrogative form (μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι, κύριε) requires a negative answer after it. The disciples were conscious of their complete innocence and purity of intention, and therefore hoped that the Savior would not accuse any of them of betrayal. An affirmative answer would require οὐ instead of μή or μήτι. Each disciple asked. But whether Jesus gave an answer to each, is unknown. In all probability, He limited Himself to a general answer, which is set forth in the next verse.

Matthew 26:23. But He said in answer: “He who dipped his hand in the bowl with Me, this one will betray Me. (See Mark 14:20). To better understand the following words of Christ, one would need to precisely establish the order in which the disciples sat at the supper. The Savior, of course, occupied the first or highest place. But, unfortunately, this alone can be established in the present case. As for the order in which the other disciples sat, nothing definite can be said. The most probable, upon consideration of all the speeches and actions at the supper, appears to be the following arrangement. That John was located next to Jesus is evident from John 13:23. It would have been most convenient for Peter to gesture to him (John 13:24) if he had been seated opposite John. On the other hand, some words of the Savior appear to have been spoken, it seems, to Judas in a whisper, so that the other disciples could not hear Christ’s accusations of him. This is best explained if Judas occupied a place at the supper next to Christ. Such a supposition is justified also by the fact that Judas, not for the sake of a higher place in the new Kingdom, which he no longer valued, but better to simulate his devotion to Christ and thus hide his intentions, tried to occupy a place as close to Him as possible. As for the order in which the other disciples reclined, nothing can be derived from the Gospel expressions. Christ’s answer in verse 23 apparently did not have the following sense: you see who just now or just has dipped (together with Me) his hand in the bowl, this one will betray Me. It is more probable to suppose that the answer had a more general sense. Not pointing to Judas’ person, the Savior gave an affirmative answer to the disciples’ questions, saying that “one of the twelve” (Mark 14:20) will betray Him, then explained this expression more closely: namely the one who is now with Me (and with you) and dips his hand with Me in the bowl. All disciples did this, and therefore the answer seemed indefinite. Its special sense and significance could be understood only by Judas alone. Therefore ὁ ἐμβαπτόμενος (Mark), i.e., “the one dipping,” is considered equivalent to ὁ ἐσθίων μετ´ ἐμοῦ—the one who eats with Me at the supper. Matthew replaces ὁ ἐμβαπτόμενος (“dipping”; the present tense indicates the continuity and repetition of the action) with the aorist—ἐμβάψας—“dipped,” without precise indication of time—an expression just as indefinite as ὁ ἐμβαπτόμενος in Mark and John (John 13:18). That it is truly indefinite is evident from the following verse, where the person destined to betray Christ is called not by name but ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος—that man. The reasons for such indefiniteness are understandable. In accusing Judas and saying what was completely understandable to him, Christ did not wish to expose him clearly before the disciples, because this would probably have been the cause of their general indignation and anger against Judas. The opinion that Judas, desiring to simulate his devotion to Christ, tried to dip his hand with Him in the bowl as frequently as possible has no basis. By the bowl is meant an ordinary dish or basin; τρυβλίον δέ ἐστιν εἶδος πίνακος (Euthymius Zigabenus).

Matthew 26:24. For the Son of Man goes as it is written of Him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. (See Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22). Instead of “as it is written” better is “as it has been written” (καθώς γέγραπται); instead of “through whom” literally “through whom” (δἰ οὗ); instead of “would have been better” “it would have been better” (καλόν ἦν). The entire verse in Matthew and Mark (in the Greek text) is literally identical, except for Mark’s initial ὅτι. Luke has different expressions. The sense of all of them in the synoptists is that if the betrayal and connected with it sufferings the traitor (again without indication to personality) wishes to make dependent on himself, on his own actions, negotiations and dealings with Jewish authorities, then in reality all this does not depend on him. The Son of Man is betrayed because this is “written” in the sacred books, and what is written serves as an expression of what is predetermined in the very Council of God. No separate place in Scripture is indicated (see Luke 24:26-27). All the sacred books, all the Old Testament Scripture pointed to the fact that Christ had to suffer and die and thus enter into His glory. This might occasion the thought that the traitor was innocent, being only an involuntary instrument of the eternal Council of God. But this is not so. The Son of Man is betrayed as it is written of Him, but (δέ) woe to that man who serves as the instrument (δἰ οὗ—through whom) of the betrayal. The Church Fathers and Church teachers on the whole unanimously interpreted this expression. Origen: “He did not say: woe to the man through whom it is betrayed, but: ‘through whom it is betrayed,’—showing that it is betrayed by another, i.e., by the devil; Judas himself was the executor of this betrayal.” Chrysostom: “But someone will say: if it is written that Christ will thus suffer, then why is Judas condemned? He fulfilled what was written. But he did it not with that thought, but out of malice. If you will not attend to intentions, then you will also free the devil from blame. But no, no! And the one and the other are worthy of countless torments, though the universe was saved. Not Judas’ betrayal made our salvation, but the wisdom of Christ, which wonderfully turned the crimes of others to our benefit.” Euthymius Zigabenus: “Some say that (Judas) is innocent because he accomplished what was predetermined. To such people we will say that Judas did not betray because it was predetermined; but because he betrayed, and it was predetermined, since God foreknows all that will be.” The expression “it would have been better for him if he had not been born this man” (thus literally) is explained as being a proverb often used by the rabbis (see Job 3:4-13 and following). These words should be understood not in a strictly logical sense but as a popular designation of the highest misery. The chief thought here, according to Jerome, is: multo melius est non subsistere quam male subsistere (it is much better not to exist at all than to exist poorly). This entire saying has a Semitic character.

Matthew 26:25. In response, Judas, who was betraying Him, said: “Is it I, Rabbi?” Jesus said to him: “You have said so. This conversation is set forth only in Matthew. Judging from Luke’s account, the disciples, after the Savior said: “And behold, the hand of him who is betraying Me is with Me on the table” etc. (Luke 22:21-22), “began to question one another, which of them it was who would do this” (Luke 22:23). From this it is clear that the speech about betrayal was not as brief as it appears in Matthew and Mark. The disciples asked the Savior not only about the traitor but also carried on conversations among themselves about this. They tried to find out, to learn, to clarify precisely such an incredible matter. Therefore one can permit that there was a general, probably quite loud, murmur. John provides here (John 13:22-29) several lively details as a supplement to what the other evangelists say. The disciples looked at one another, perplexed, not knowing about whom Jesus was speaking. Simon Peter gestures to John to ask Jesus about the traitor. The Savior, having dipped a morsel, gives it to Judas with the words not understood by the disciples: “What you are about to do, do quickly” etc. Probably during these questions and negotiations, and Judas not in general silence and quiet, but in the midst of noise and murmur, also posed the question whether he was the traitor (verse 25). In form, Judas’ question differed from the questions of other disciples only in that instead of “Lord” Judas said “Rabbi”: “Is it I, Rabbi?” Christ’s answer was given only to Judas and heard only by him. The other disciples in the midst of general murmur and noise did not hear the Savior’s answer, with perhaps the exception of a few. Judas soon withdrew when he, after σὺ εἶπας, was given “a morsel”; if the Savior’s answer were heard by all disciples, then the account of John 13:27-30 and especially John 13:28 would be completely incomprehensible to us. The expression “you have said” was, of course, a confirmation of Judas’ words. But its explanation is not as simple as it appears at first glance. In the Old Testament Bible we find only analogous but not literal expressions (Exod 10:29; 1 Sam 20:40). Among the Hebrews and Greeks such answers were not customary. The existence of the formula σὺ εἶπας in rabbinical literature is questionable. But some assert that it was customary among the Jews of that time. The sense of Christ’s words was as follows: “I have no need to repeat what you have said.”

Matthew 26:26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and, having blessed it, broke it and gave it to the disciples, saying: “Take, eat: this is My body. (See Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:23-24). From our previous exposition it is evident that Judas did not participate in the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrament. The accounts of Matthew, Mark, and John tend toward this, with the last not speaking at all of the institution of the Sacrament, though his account in chapter 6 does have a eucharistic character. If we accept the order of events as set forth by Luke, then we must admit Judas’ participation in the Sacrament. But in this case we would be forced to distinguish in the institution of the Sacrament two separate moments, separated from one another by a more or less long interval, namely: after Luke 22:19 immediately (to reconcile Luke’s account with that of the other evangelists) place Luke 22:21-23, and only after this account—Luke 22:20, where it speaks of the giving of the cup. In general, it is impossible to determine the time of the institution of the Sacrament at the Last Supper. The rabbinical ordinances concerning the eating of the Passover lamb, set forth in the Talmudic tractate Pesahim, are so tangled that they can offer no help in resolving the question. In the accounts of the evangelists, there constantly remains something that cannot be fully explained. Church writers also offer little service to the exegete here. The contradictions which they allowed in the question of whether Judas participated in the Sacrament deprive of almost all significance their testimony, relating, by the way, to a later period, when the precise order of events was known to them just as much as to us. John Chrysostom, together with many others, supposed that Judas participated in the Eucharist. “O, how great the blindness of the traitor! Partaking of the Mysteries, he remained the same and, enjoying the terrible meal, was not changed.” In this John Chrysostom allows a certain inaccuracy, not changing, however, the sense of what was said, attributing to Luke what is said in John (John 13:27). “This shows Luke, when he says that after this Satan entered into him (Judas), not because he neglected the Lord’s Body, but mocking the shamelessness of the traitor. His sin was great in a twofold respect: both because he approached the Mysteries with such a disposition, and because, having approached, was not enlightened by fear, benefit, or honor.” Jerome: “After the celebration of the figurative Passover and when (Judas) ate the flesh of the lamb with the apostles, he took bread.” But Hilary directly affirms that Judas corpus Christi non sumpsit (did not partake of the Body of Christ). Among modern exegetes, many consider Judas’ departure before the celebration of the Sacrament of Communion more probable than his presence. It is true that the synoptists do not speak of Judas’ departure from the supper, but from Matt 26:47; Mark 14:43; Luke 22:47 his removal is presupposed without doubt. If Judas had left at the end of the supper, then, as justly noted, he would not have had time to lead a crowd. Thus, of the two probabilities, whether or not Judas was a participant in the supper, we must give preference to the one that he was not; this is confirmed by various other considerations. The words of Christ: “Now the Son of Man is glorified” etc. (John 13:31-32), spoken during the supper, could indirectly point to the irreversibility of Judas’ decision to betray Him and served as it were an introduction to the institution of the new Sacrament. “Christ began His activity with Baptism and ended with Communion.” One must suppose that the Sacrament was instituted after the celebration of the Hebrew Passover and had connection with it only in time. One cannot suppose that even the ancient rites were strictly observed during Christ’s time, and still less that Christ conformed to them in instituting the Last Supper. The breaking of unleavened bread in eating the Passover lamb was incumbent upon the master of the supper and it is possible that the Savior Himself broke this bread and distributed it to the disciples. But, it is thought, not all the bread was broken, but only half, the remaining other half (afikoman) being the matter for the institution of the Sacrament of the New Covenant. This supposition is very doubtful. The use of afikoman relates not to ancient times but to a later period, when after the destruction of the temple the custom of slaying the Passover lamb ceased among the Jews. There was a law that after eating the lamb nothing else was to be eaten until midnight. Perhaps on this basis one should suppose that the first supper was fully Old Testament and Paschal, and then the new covenant supper was celebrated already after midnight. It is improbable that Christ left the afikoman for the new supper. At least, there are no indications of this in the Gospels. It is well known that with the beginning of Passover began the festival of unleavened bread, and the Jews were not supposed to eat anything leavened, removing it from their homes and burning it in advance. If so, then one must admit that Christ performed the Sacrament of Communion on unleavened bread. This is accepted by the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. But, on the other hand, there are no grounds for thinking that the institution of the Eucharist in any of its points was connected to the Hebrew Passover. The Paschal Old Testament supper was completely finished when the new Passover was instituted, which was to replace the former. There are no grounds for thinking that because the (weekly) festival of Passover was called the festival of unleavened bread, the Jews ate nothing else besides them. This does not even happen at the present time. We call Passover the entire Paschal week, but this does not mean that throughout the entire week they eat only Passover and kulich. Something similar could have been then. It is improbable that throughout the entire Paschal week the Jews ate nothing but unleavened bread. The authors of the Talmud understand that even water could be considered “leavened” (see tractate Pesahim), and yet it is impossible to suppose that it was completely withdrawn from use during the entire Hebrew Passover. Even during the eating of the Passover lamb wine was used (a later, not original Old Testament custom), which was undoubtedly “leavened.” In the subsequent Church practice closest to the time of Christ, in the celebration of the Sacrament of Communion, unleavened bread was certainly not used. It is impossible to prove by anything that, meeting the disciples on the way to Emmaus, Jesus Christ, even during the Paschal week, took precisely unleavened bread and gave it to the disciples (Luke 24:30). The Apostle Paul celebrated the Eucharist on a ship during a storm (Acts 27:35), and one cannot think that he had prepared for this purpose not ordinary but precisely unleavened bread. Thus, there is evidence showing, at least, that which bread to use for the Sacrament, unleavened or leavened, in the very beginning of the history of the Christian Church was considered a matter of indifference. The word ἄρτος (bread) some derive from ἄρω—apto, compingo—“adjust,” “combine,” “join” etc. But first, the existence of such a verb in the Greek language is doubtful, and second, even if it existed, the derivation of ἄρτος from it would be doubtful. Better is to derive from αρω—“lift up,” though for the exactness of even such a derivation one cannot fully be responsible. But in any case, the evangelists clearly distinguish ἄρτος from ἄζυμος (ἄζυμος is properly an adjective). In Philo we find ἄρτους ἀζύμους; in the expression τὰ ἄζυμα one cannot subsume ἄρτοι, and this distinction is apparently based on a distinction by the Hebrews themselves of both these terms. The Hebrews called unleavened bread “matza,” plural “matzot,” and ordinary bread “lehem,” i.e., any food generally, victuals, and bread of the Presence, which were probably not unleavened (though the biblical expressions about them are unclear). In translating verse 26 into Hebrew, in no case could one place the Hebrew “matza”—unleavened bread—in place of ἄρτος. Much more important is the question concerning the very meaning of the words spoken by Christ: “this is My body.” This question has given rise to an enormous amount of literature, and it is understandable that we cannot even briefly set forth all the disputes on this question. Discussion of it is a subject of dogmatic theology, and we refer the reader to works on this science. Let us only attempt to set forth the essence of the matter in the most brief possible way from an exegetical perspective. The Protestants, as is known, rejected the Catholic (and Orthodox) doctrine of transubstantiation (transubstantiatio) of bread and wine and replaced this word with the term “consubstantiation” (consubstantiatio and inconsubstantiatio) or the presence of Christ in, cum, and sub pane. To justify such a doctrine, many Protestant scholars attempted to prove that in the Aramaic in which the words were first spoken by Christ: “this is My body” and “this is My blood” there is no copula “is”; in Greek, however, it does not indicate that the bread and wine truly are the Body and Blood of Christ, and the verb ἐστί serves only as a connection between subject and predicate. With such an interpretation, it became possible to give Christ’s utterances only a symbolic sense, i.e., Christ wished to say that bread and wine serve only as symbols or signs of His Body and Blood. Such teaching of the Protestants appeared as a protest against medieval doctrines of transubstantiatio. Without entering into detailed investigation of all this question, we point only to the fact that the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine of transubstantiation (transubstantiatio) was foreign to the early Christian Church, and the term appeared only in the middle ages. But this does not mean that in either the early Christian Church or for a long time afterward bread and wine were considered only symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. Even heretics protested against such teaching, not to mention the Orthodox. Thus, Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote: οὐκ εἶπε τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σύμβολον τοῦ σώματός μου καὶ τοῦτο τοῦ αἵματός μου, ἀλλὰ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμα μου καὶ τὸ αἵμα μου (he did not say: this is the symbol of My body and My blood, but this is My body and My blood). That the words of Christ were understood by the ancient Church in precisely this and not in another sense can be traced over many centuries after Christ’s ascension. We found an exception only in Origen, for whom apparently the idea of transubstantiation was foreign. “The visible bread which (Jesus Christ) held in His hands did not God the Word call His Body, but the word in whose mystery this bread was being broken. And the visible drink did not He call His Blood, but the word in whose mystery this drink was poured out. For what else can the Body or Blood of God the Word mean except the word that nourishes and the word that produces joy.” But if, in the absence of the special term transubstantiatio, the ancient Church Fathers recognized bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ, what did this mean? What sense did the words of Christ Himself have in instituting the Sacrament? How can bread and wine be transformed or transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ? In answer to these questions let us say first that neither Christ Himself nor His apostles explained how this happens. But there is no doubt that in distributing bread and wine, Christ Himself considered them truly His Body and His Blood; no other interpretation is possible if one attends to the direct sense of His words and does not venture into the subtleties of medieval or any other theology. How to understand that bread and wine can be transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, we cannot; it is a Mystery; nor can we explain the significance of Christ’s words according to their very nature. The term consubstantiatio, considered in itself, is just as incomprehensible as transubstantiatio. But for us now in understanding the very essence of the Sacrament there is no necessity. Let us attend only to what natural, accessible, and comprehensible sense is contained in the developed teaching afterwards about transubstantiation. Not an explanation of the significance of the Sacrament itself, but an explanation of what was the psychological and religious process by which people came to the idea of transubstantiatio seems to us profoundly interesting. A long historical process which led to the concept of transubstantiation will help us partly to explain which teaching is more correct, the teaching about transubstantiation or the teaching about “consubstantiation” and other doctrines. From the very words of Christ, which He broke bread and held in His hands and then commanded to drink from the cup, it was clear that this bread was not simple, ordinary bread, and the wine was not ordinary wine. But initially, it seems, this was not attended to particularly. We know little of the “essences” of things, they are not accessible to us, and therefore even now we cannot reason about them. The ancient Christians did not reason about this at all. All that we see is only phenomena. But, not knowing anything of essences, we, however, very often consider the same objects from different points of view and therefore evaluate them differently. If perhaps in the early Christian time the true force and sense of Christ’s words were not fully understood, this became clearer with time, and the significance of bread and wine was increasingly evaluated in proportion as the consciousness of people represented Christ’s merit itself as higher and higher. The higher this merit, the consequently higher also the gift which He bequeathed “in remembrance of Him.” It should be noted that by universal recognition the oldest information about the institution of the Eucharistic Sacrament we find not in the Gospels but in the First Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:23-30), which was written before the Gospels. The Apostle Paul was, of course, well acquainted with the significance of Christ’s merit; accordingly the apostle evaluates and the gift bequeathed by Him. The Apostle Paul clearly distinguishes eucharistic bread and wine from ordinary bread and wine. The latter can be eaten and drunk at home. But when the Corinthians gather for the Lord’s supper, they partake not of simple bread and wine. This partaking is a proclamation of the Lord’s death until He comes again. To eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily—means to be guilty against the Body and Blood of the Lord. Therefore, so as not to be found unworthy, one should examine oneself before partaking of the Eucharist. Thus, to eucharistic bread and wine the apostle gives the highest dignity, while never mentioning transubstantiatio. With the passage of time, any limitations of the dignity of bread and wine began to seem like limitations of the very dignity of Christ’s redemptive work. Since the dignity of the latter was infinite and Christ’s merit was immeasurable (which became increasingly clear with time), the gift bequeathed by Him acquired in the eyes of people ever higher and higher dignity and significance, until finally even the thought that bread and wine do not change in their very essence seemed to limit the very work of Christ and His merit. Was such a psychological mental process correct and logical? We have no doubt that it was correct. It is so natural and ordinary that we have even ceased to notice similar exaggerations in our everyday life (we ask that the word “exaggeration,” “exaggerated” be understood in the precise sense and not as a reproach). One could cite many examples showing that we hold exaggerated views on many subjects. A book given to someone for achievements and behavior is dearer to him than a book bought; a thing bequeathed by the father is dearer than one acquired in the market. Paper money itself, of course, is worth nothing, but is valued more than its weight in gold. This depends on the presence of gold in the state treasury. In the same way, the gift bequeathed by Christ before His very sufferings has the highest value as the gift of mankind’s Redeemer, rich in His merit. Therefore, so to speak, any deviation from the very highest point, from the thought of transubstantiation, would seem and seemed to diminish the value of the gift bequeathed by Christ and at the same time the redemptive merit of Christ. The key to understanding Christ’s words should be sought in His discourse after the feeding of the five thousand with five loaves (John 6). Outwardly, Christ’s words could have relation to the Jewish formula which was pronounced in answer to the question: “What is this?”—“This is the body of the lamb which our fathers ate in Egypt.” Christ Himself apparently did not eat bread nor drink from the cup, though John Chrysostom affirms the contrary (τὸ ἑαυτοῦ αἷμα αὐτός ἔπιεν). The word ἄρτον serves as an object to four verbs—λαβών, εὐλογήσας, ἔκλασεν, and δούς.

Matthew 26:27. And, taking the cup and having given thanks, He gave it to them, saying: “Drink from it, all of you, (See Mark 14:23; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). As mentioned above, the use of wine at the Passover meal among the Jews was not an original institution but came into use later, before the time of Christ. Usually four cups were poured, and sometimes three. Which of them served for the institution of communion is difficult to determine; most likely the third. When the food was prepared and the assembly was seated for the meal, the first cup was distributed, blessed by the host with words of thanksgiving, and drunk in order by those gathered (Luke 22:14-17). After this, following the washing of hands, the festival was opened by each taking bitter herbs and eating them, then certain sections from the law, chosen beforehand, were read. Then the second cup of wine was distributed, and the master of the house, according to Exod 12:26 and following, explained to his son, in response to his question, the purpose and significance of the festival; then the hallel (alleluia – Ps 112-117), during which, after the singing of psalms 112–113 was finished, the cup was drunk (that which even in ancient times at the Passover celebration they sang is shown by Isa 30:29). Only then followed the eating, with a blessing, of the broken matzo and the roasted lamb. This was properly the festival, during which each reclined and ate and drank as he wished. After the meal the host again washed his hands, gave thanks to God for the granted festival, and blessed the third cup, which was called especially the cup of blessing (cf. 1 Cor 10:16; Matt 26:26 and following; Luke 22:19 and following), and drank it together with his companions. Then the fourth cup was distributed, the hallel was sung again Ps 114-117, and the host blessed the cup with words Ps 117:26 and drank it with the guests (cf. verse 29). These four cups were to be received by the poor, who were cared for, received them from the community. Sometimes there was even a fifth cup, and then psalms 119–136 were sung – by choice. “Why,” remarks Theophylact, “did He not say above: ‘Take, eat all,’ but here said: ‘Drink from it all’? Some say that Christ said this for the sake of Judas, since Judas, having taken the bread, did not eat it but hid it, to show the Jews that Jesus calls the bread His flesh; the cup he drank reluctantly, being unable to hide it. Therefore the Lord said: ‘Drink all.’ Others interpret this figuratively, namely: since solid food can be partaken of not by all, but only by those who have reached mature age, drinking can be done by all, therefore He said here: ‘Drink all,’ for simple doctrines are suited to be received by all.” These words of Theophylact appear to be contrary to the teaching of the Roman Church, by which drinking from the cup is forbidden to the laity. ‘All’ – this word presumably referred first of all to the apostles present at the meal. But it has undoubted reference to all Christians as well. The word ποτήριον in Matthew and Mark is put without the article (so according to the best readings), in Luke and the Apostle Paul – with the article (τὸ ποτήριον).

Matthew 26:28. For this is My Blood of the New Covenant, shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Cf. Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). The words of Christ somewhat resemble Exod 24:8 and Zech 9:11, but only in form. It is quite doubtful whether He spoke here in citations from the Old Testament. The word τοῦτο does not refer to ποτήριον and is correctly rendered in Russian. Of course, it could not have been said of the cup itself that ‘this’ is My Blood, but of what was contained in the cup, that is, of the wine. Γάρ shows that the speech in the given verse serves as proof of the preceding: drink from it all, because (γάρ) the wine poured into the cup is My Blood. The meaning of this expression is the same as for the bread. The word ‘new’ is not in the best codices, but it is found in ACD, minuscules, and translations. Διαθήκη means, generally, a testament in the case of death; among the Greeks it was used in both singular and plural. The Hebrew word ‘berit’ means, properly, a contract, condition, or covenant. Among the Seventy this word is constantly translated as διαθήκη, except for 1 Sam 11:11; Deut 9:15, but by the same word are translated other Hebrew words as well. The word used by Christ does not mean either covenant or condition or contract. It means, properly, arrangement (as, for example, the arrangement of a camp or an army), structure, the laying of a foundation for a future building. The figurative sense may lie even in this, that ‘this is the blood of the Kingdom that I establish, the blood of My religion.’ This blood is shed for many – for all. Περὶ πολλῶν, ἀντὶ τοῦ, ὑπὲρ πολλῶν... Πολλοὺς γὰρ τοὺς πάντας ἐνταῦθα καλεῖ (of many instead of for many... for it calls many here all – Zigavin). In Mark and Luke, as well as the Apostle Paul, the expressions are similar in meaning but different in form. The Apostle Paul (1 Cor 11:25) repeats literally only part of Luke’s words, not adding τό ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυόμενον. The Blood of Christ is shed for the forgiveness of sins. These words are not found in the other synoptists, nor in Paul, nor in Justin (Apologia, I, 66), where the institution of the Mystery of the Eucharist is discussed. The assumption that these words are genuine and are proved strongly, but cannot be considered as the words of Christ but are only the interpretation passed down by tradition, cannot be accepted. The expression that the Blood of Christ is shed for the forgiveness of sins is full of the deepest meaning and cannot be attributed to anyone but Christ Himself. “In the giving of the law on Sinai,” says Zahn, “there was no lack of sacrifice, Exod 24:11, but to drink sacrificial blood – this would have seemed monstrous to every Israelite. Despite the attachment of all (the new Christian) institution to the Passover festival and the comparison of His death to the sacrifice established in the law of Moses, Jesus rises above all the analogies of the Old Testament cult.” The institution of the New Covenant was foretold Jer 31:31-34. The thought of Christ is explained in detail in the 7th and 9th chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Matthew 26:29. But I say to you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in the Kingdom of My Father. (Cf. Mark 14:25). Instead of δέ in Matthew, in Mark – ἀμήν; instead of οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπ´ ἄρτι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήματος, in Mark – ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήματος “with you” Mark omits; instead of the last expression τοῦ πατρός μου, in Mark – τοῦ θεοῦ. In the rest the expressions are the same. The words of Christ are very difficult to explain. The direct meaning is that He will not drink wine with the disciples until His resurrection. To the question of whether Christ drank wine with the disciples at the very meal, one can answer affirmatively, because this was required by Jewish customs in partaking of the Passover lamb (but not by law). But the eucharistic cup, at the institution of the Mystery of Communion, He undoubtedly did not drink, because it is difficult to imagine that He drank His own Blood. All the terms used at the institution of the Mystery point to precisely this. Whether Christ drank new wine with His disciples after His resurrection is information so scant that nothing positive can be said. The only place from which we can gain an indication of this is contained in Acts 10:41, but that place has so general and unclear a meaning that nothing can be derived from it. Perhaps, therefore, because the words of Christ in the examined verse are simply a solemn farewell to the disciples, in which the thought is expressed figuratively that this immediate communion with them at the meal is the last and will not repeat until the time of His resurrection, when completely new relations will arise between Him and His disciples. According to Luke (Luke 22:18), these words were spoken by Christ before the institution of the Mystery of the Eucharist.

Matthew 26:30. And after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. (Cf. Mark 14:26; Luke 22:39; John 14:3). After the words set forth in the previous verse were spoken, Christ continued the speech which is set forth in John 13:33-38 and then Luke 22:31-38, and the latter part of John 13:38 coincides in content with Luke 22:34. Then the disciples were told the long speech set forth in John 14:1-17:26. The synoptists touch on John here only at a few points, one of which is the present verse. Other coincidences will be noted below. This is the most probable order of events. ‘Υ´μνος, ὑμνέω were used among the ancient Greeks to denote songs of praise in honor of the gods. The main characteristics of a hymn are singing and praise. Initially the Church avoided the use of this word, as it did of templum, because it reminded of pagan worship. But later the word ‘hymn’ gained civil rights. Hymnus scitis quid est: cantus est cum laude Dei. Si laudas Deum et non cantas, non dicis hymnum. Si cantas et non laudas Deum, non dicis hymnum. Si laudas aliquid, quod non pertinet ad laudem Dei, et si cantando laudes, non dicis hymnum (you know what a hymn is, it is a song with praise to God. If you praise God and do not sing, it is not a hymn. If you sing but do not praise God, it is not a hymn. If you praise something not pertaining to the praise of God, then even with singing praise, it is not a hymn). Among the Jews, as mentioned above, there was a definite “alleluia” at the partaking of the Passover lamb. Whether Jesus Christ Himself took part in the singing is unknown. Saepe orasse in mundo Jesum legimus; cecinisse, nunquam (we read that Jesus Christ often prayed in the world, but that He sang, we never read). But Justin the Martyr (“Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,” 106) says that the Savior took part in the singing. It was not obligatory to remain in Jerusalem all night during the celebration of Passover. Just as the first Passover was accompanied by the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, so the new covenant Passover ended with the departure of Christ and His disciples from Jerusalem”.

Matthew 26:31. Then Jesus said to them: All of you will fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered; (Cf. Mark 14:27; John 16:31-32). In the coming night-time is indicated the terror which the disciples will not endure. This night will be a time of offense even for the closest disciples of Christ; they will be scattered like sheep when the shepherd is struck. All the disciples will be scattered. Reference to Zech 13:7. In the citations of the evangelists only the thought of the original is briefly conveyed, but in expression there is no resemblance either to the Hebrew original or to the translation of the Seventy. “Strike” in the evangelists is replaced by “I will strike,” because if the first word were used, the words of Christ would not apply to the present case. According to Alford, the citation is given literally according to the Alexandrian text of the translation of the Seventy, with only the replacement of πάταξον with πατάξω. Fui scandalizantur, non in die scandalizantur, sed in nocte illa in qua proditur Christus (Those who are offended are not offended in the day, but in that night in which Christ is betrayed) (Origen). Πάντες ὑμεῖς – except Judas, who was not with the disciples. Cf. Ps 68.

Matthew 26:32. But after My resurrection, I will go before you to Galilee. (Cf. Mark 14:28). The words of the evangelists are almost literally similar. Προάγω means “to lead forward,” “to bring out,” “to precede,” “to go before,” “to outstrip someone.” The prediction about appearances in and around Jerusalem is omitted. All the disciples (except Judas) were from Galilee, and Jesus Christ points to them that He will meet them or appear to them in their homeland. (Cf. Matt 28:10; Mark 16:7; John 21:1.)

Matthew 26:33. Peter said to Him in reply: If all fall away because of You, I will never fall away. (Cf. Mark 14:29). These words are usually thought to be a result of Peter’s self-confidence. It is much better and more correct to explain them as an expression of love for Christ. Judging by the fact that in Luke the conversation of Christ with Peter is placed before they went out to the Mount of Olives (Luke 22:31-34; cf. Luke 22:39), one can suppose that Peter declared his dedication to Christ more than once. Peter’s statement was contrary to all the actions and behavior of the betrayer. Οὐδέποτε – never, not only in this one night.

Matthew 26:34. Jesus said to him: Truly I say to you, that in this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times. (Cf. Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34). All the synoptists show a difference in the indication of time. According to Matthew, the threefold denial will be before the rooster crows; according to Mark – it will be before the rooster crows twice; in Luke generally agrees with Matthew, but instead of the positive three times (τρίς) – up to three times (ἕως τρίς; in the Russian translation of Luke it is inexact). Here is simply an approximate indication of the time of denial – the earliest, morning crowing of roosters (see commentary to Matt 20:3). Among the Hebrews this was one of the ways of telling time. And probably the words of Christ were not understood in any other sense. There has been much ridicule about the discrepancy of the evangelists. But the whole matter can be explained by the fact that Matthew and Luke express themselves briefly, while Mark – more fully. In a prophetic prediction or in its exposition, in any case, one cannot demand such precision as some critics would desire. There was much discussion about whether there were roosters in Jerusalem. It was said that they were rare among Jews, but the Jews could not prevent the Romans from keeping them. Here we will say only that if there were no roosters either among the Jews or the Romans in Jerusalem at all, even then the prediction of Christ and its fulfillment would lose none of their force. The main purpose of the prediction, directed against Peter’s assertions about his dedication to Christ, is to prove that, despite his assurances, in the very near future, when roosters crow, he will deny Him. The deep originality and, so to speak, completely unexpected turns of all this event point to its historical reality, which we can fully accept even independent of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the particular designations of circumstances or details of this event”.

Matthew 26:35. Peter said to Him: Even if I must die with You, I will not deny You. And in the same way all the disciples also said. (Cf. Mark 14:31 – with differences in expressions). Wishing to show his love, Peter loses his faith in the truth of the words of Christ and contradicts Him only with the warmth of love. Peter’s error was based on insufficient and imprecise knowledge of the character of the coming events. Even death with Christ appeared less terrible to Peter than what actually happened in reality. The apostles made their declaration of dedication following Peter’s example. One can suppose that the crime of Judas, who had left the meal, was now at least partially explained to them, and they hasten to express their protest against his actions, declaring that they will not act as Judas did. In the declarations of Peter and the disciples one can see indirect indication of what the Savior’s personality seemed to them. He was not in their eyes an ordinary man, but one with whom one could even die (σὺν σοὶ ἀποθανεῖν – Matthew, συναποθανεῖν σοι – Mark). A circumstance important for apologetics.

Matthew 26:36. Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples: Sit here while I go over there and pray. (Cf. Mark 14:32; Luke 22:40). The word “Gethsemane” Jerome explains as vallis pinguissima (the most fertile valley), more likely derivation is from “geth shemet” – an oil press. The place was located on the west side of the Mount of Olives, below, and was the first place on leaving Jerusalem and crossing the stream of Kidron. For a long time it was not enclosed, but recently it was enclosed and a garden was laid out. The enclosed place now occupies almost a quadrilateral of approximately 23×21 square fathoms and is in the possession of Catholic monks, who allow travelers to enter the garden and show it to them. There now grow eight old olive trees. Probably those olive trees that grew there during Christ’s time were cut down, and new ones grew on their place, which also grew old. Beside the Catholic Gethsemane another such garden has been laid out by the Greeks. Which place was actually the place of Christ’s prayers cannot be determined. But approaching the enclosed gardens or entering them, the traveler can be sure that he is at the site of the holiest events in Christian history. The word “Gethsemane” in Greek is written variously: Γεθσημανεί, -σημανί and -σημανή. Of these readings the first is considered more probable. “Sit here” – μείνατε, verse 38, “here” – the original Greek expression αὐτοῦ instead of ὧδε, as in the Seventy (Gen 22:5; Acts 15:34). The adverb ἐκεῖ probably relates to ἀπελθών – “going away there” – ἐκεῖσε, rather than to “I will pray there,” as in the Russian translation. The expression shows that, leaving the disciples, the Savior withdrew into the more shaded part of Gethsemane to pray. “He had the habit of praying without them,” that is, without the disciples (St. John Chrysostom). Since Passover was always celebrated by the Hebrews at the time of the vernal full moon, it should be supposed that the moon at this time illuminated Gethsemane with its quiet shine”.

Matthew 26:37. And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and distressed. (Cf. Mark 14:33). Mark names all three disciples by name: Peter, James, and John. In verse 36 Matthew sets forth the intention of Christ, now – His action, which consisted of separating from the eight disciples together with three, the most trusted, who had been with Him at the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus and on the Mount of Transfiguration. He walked for a little while first with them, and they could notice how His soul began to be overtaken by grief, sadness (λυπεῖσθαι) and He began to \”be distressed.\” This last Russian word is exact, but it does not express the full meaning of the Greek ἀδημονεῖν. It comes from δῆμος with negation ἀ and means, properly, \”to withdraw from the people,\” \”to hide,\” \”to be unsocial.\” The meaning is that the Savior, being among people, seemed to dwell in a desolate desert and felt what people usually feel, those withdrawing into distant lands from their homeland – longing for home. The grief and distress of the Savior were not, of course, longing for home in the proper sense, but strongly resembled this heavy feeling peculiar to exiles from their beloved homeland. This is an extremely heavy and oppressive feeling that subdues the soul’s powers and capacities. It is said to be sometimes completely unbearable, and a person sometimes sacrifices everything to return to his homeland. We will more clearly understand how heavy this feeling was if we say that it was joined to foreboding of approaching death and was at the same time \”world sorrow,\” which is peculiar only to a few too refined and elevated natures. But speaking generally, we cannot comprehend the grief and distress of the Savior in all their depth, because \”we cannot step out of our organic sphere, just as the eagle cannot rise higher than the atmosphere in which it flies.\””}

Matthew 26:38. Then He said to them: My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me. (Cf. Mark 14:34). Excessive sadness and grief are expressed by both evangelists in two words: περίλυπος – valde tristis and ἕως θανάτου – to death, – as if such grief which itself could lead to death, grief belonging to all living beings at parting with life. It is unknown whether there were any outward manifestations of the Savior’s sorrow, beyond the words He spoke, noticeable to the disciples, that is, expressed in His appearance, or whether the disciples learned of His grief only after He told them about it. The invitation addressed to the disciples, to remain near Him in these heavy moments and to keep watch (γρηγορεῖτε – do not sleep) serves as an expression of the most grievous sorrow, during which a person especially seeks the nearness of people to himself and cares for their special sympathy.

Matthew 26:39. And going a little farther, He fell on His face and prayed, saying: My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will. (Cf. Mark 14:35; Luke 22:41). Luke clarifies: He withdrew from the disciples at a distance such as one might cast a stone, – an approximate determination of distance, fully understandable. At such a distance the three disciples could not hear all the prayer words pronounced by the Savior, but were in a position to catch certain moments of His prayer. Strange as it may seem, in many codices here a word is used completely opposite to the word “going away,” and means “approaching” (προσελθών) in Matthew and Mark. This was considered an error of the scribe, who here inserted an extra σ and wrote προσελθών instead of προελθών (so in BMPS, the Vulgate, and the Siro-Sinaic). Consequently, according to some readings, the expression means not that the Savior withdrew from the disciples a little, but that He drew near to them a little. It can be supposed that the Savior, having withdrawn at a distance such as one might cast a stone, then again drew a little nearer to the disciples. Such interpretation reconciles the testimonies of Matthew and Mark with that of Luke, who speaks only of withdrawal (ἐπισπάσθη). It is understandable that μικρόν (a little) can only relate to προσελθών, not to ἔπεσεν. During His prayer the Savior “fell on His face,” that is, fell to the ground and perhaps sprawled out, although this latter cannot necessarily be concluded from ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ (Matthew) or ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (indicates repeated falling to the ground – Mark). Both of these expressions can be understood so that He only bent His knees (Luke) and inclined His face to the ground. Whether the Savior repeated the same words during His prayer or added others is unknown. Three disciples who heard them preserved only what is set forth in the examined verse and parallels. The Savior prayed that, if possible, He would not have to undergo the sufferings which He calls the “cup of suffering” (see commentary to Matt 20:22). But He thereby rejects, as it were, the action of His own human will and desires that all be as the Father wishes.

Matthew 26:40. And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter: So, you were not able to keep watch with Me for one hour? (Cf. Mark 14:37). Instead of προσέρχεται (“comes”) now in both evangelists simply ἔρχεται – “goes.” Three times in Matthew and Mark the word “and” is repeated: “and goes,” “and finds,” “and says.” In this repetition some see “simple pathos” in the Gospel narrative. In all probability, the disciples initially followed the prayer of Christ with tension. But as a result of this very tension their weariness during the sleepless and terrible night was intensified still more. The eyes of Christ’s friends grew heavy with sorrow (Luke 22:45), and this was at the time when His enemies were watching. Approaching the disciples, the Lord addresses Peter. He could show Him sympathy more than any other, support and comfort Him during these heavy moments before death’s agony. But, addressing Peter, He speaks to all the disciples: “so you were not able,” that is, so you did not have the strength, patience, self-control to resist sleep. The word “so” indicates the contrast between what was in reality and what should have been. The disciples should have been watching, but instead they slept. There is not even a hint of reproach and condemnation in His speech, but rather the same sadness and sorrow is expressed in it. Μίαν ὤραν – “one hour” – is considered an indication that Christ prayed for one hour. But this word should be taken in a general sense of a short time, although it is possible that Christ prayed about an hour.

Matthew 26:41. Keep watching and praying so that you will not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. (Cf. Mark 14:38). The simplest, completely laconic and devoid of all reproach explanation of the disciples’ condition. They slept, but they needed to be watching and praying. Temptations awaited them. Watching would cause them to be on guard, and prayer would become for them a tool for repelling temptations. Teaching to all people who are threatened by temptation. The spirit itself is always willing, but it yields to the weakness of the flesh. Not spirit, but flesh is the cause of temptation to a person. The Savior Himself at this time was undergoing the strongest temptation – to pass by the cup of suffering which the Heavenly Father gave Him to drink. Submission to the Father’s will, watching and prayer protected Him from consenting to this temptation”.

Matthew 26:42. Again, going away a second time, He prayed, saying: My Father, if this cup cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done. (Cf. Mark 14:39). Now in Matthew and Mark ἀπελθών instead of προσελθών, as in verse 44. The disciples woke up and were left again. “A second time” some found to be pleonasm, a repetition of the word “again.” But if the expression were omitted, one could suppose that Christ approached the disciples and withdrew from them several times. Mark, however, omits this expression. But Matthew in this case wished to observe special precision. The word “this cup” is not in the best manuscripts. Instead “it” (τοῦτο): “if it cannot pass from Me...” According to Mark, the Savior’s words were the same as those spoken the first time. But, according to Zigavin, εἰκός δὲ καὶ ἐκεῖνον (that is, the word), καὶ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν (apparently said both), that is, both the first words and those set forth in Matthew. Now in this prayer is contained not so much a petition that the cup of suffering would pass from Christ, but a petition for the fulfillment of God’s will itself. The prayer is reminiscent of the third petition of the Lord’s Prayer.

Matthew 26:43. And He came again and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. (Cf. Mark 14:40; Luke 22:45). In Mark with minor changes in speech and addition: “and they did not know what to answer Him.” That the indicated words of Luke and further relate precisely to this moment of Christ’s sufferings in Gethsemane seems more probable than ascribing them to the first moments of prayer.

Matthew 26:44. And leaving them, He went away again and prayed a third time, saying the same word. (Cf. Luke 22:43-44). Mark does not say that the prayer was threefold. But according to Mark 14:41, the Savior returns to the disciples “the third time.” In the prayer about the fulfillment of the Father’s will was expressed the agreement to surrender Himself to the hands of death, which was the way of Christ’s return to the bosom of the Father. The repeated returns to the disciples testified, as it were, to love for the life being left behind. Zahn compares these actions of Christ to the oscillations of a magnetic needle, which, being deflected from the pole, after some time through trembling and oscillations again becomes motionless and points in what direction the pole lies. One cannot suppose that during prayer Christ repeated the same words.

Matthew 26:45. Then He came to His disciples and said to them: Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour has come near, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners; (Cf. Mark 14:41; Luke 22:45-46). Some considered the words of Christ “Are you still sleeping and resting” as irony, censure and sarcasm. This cannot be agreed with, because it is completely improbable that the Savior would use irony or speak sarcastically in such important and solemn moments of His sufferings. Τὸ λοιπόν, found in Matthew and Mark, means “to the end,” “finally,” “however” (in the Russian translation – “still”; in the Vulgate – jam). In other languages it is quite difficult to render the Greek speech here, and therefore the expression is translated variously, and sometimes not translated at all. Euphemius Zigavin arbitrarily adds εἰ δύνασθε – if you are able, sleep and rest. Some considered this speech interrogative. The meaning: behold, the end has come, very little time remains. Sleep and rest! Then a quick and unexpected turn of speech: “behold, the hour has come near!” The word ἰδού points to the unexpectedness and importance of the coming events; it is used twice, in this and the next verse. But its meaning in both verses is not the same. Here it points to the importance of the moment when the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Matthew 26:46. Get up, let us go; behold, the one who betrays Me is near. (Cf. Mark 14:42). The opposition of the speech of the previous verse: sleep and rest. Now: awake, rise up (ἐγείρεσθε). The words set forth in verses 45–46 were undoubtedly spoken simultaneously and without interval. Incomparable realism in the depiction of the swift succession of historical events. Ἄγωμεν instead of πορευώμασθε – among the Greeks the word was often used by military commanders as a military term, when they needed to call soldiers to battle, feats, and sufferings.

Matthew 26:47. And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. (Cf. Mark 14:43; Luke 22:47; John 18:3). All synoptists repeat the expression “one of the twelve.” As if they thought this was particularly surprising, in no way comparable, and extremely monstrous! The secret betrayal by Judas now turns into his open activity. Judas became the leader. As can be seen from the comparison of Gospel notes scattered in various places, he led with him a detachment of Roman soldiers with a military commander (σπεῖρα – John 18:3), servants of the chief priests and slaves. It is possible that some of the chief priests and elders themselves were present, if we understand the words of Luke (Luke 22:52) literally. Matthew calls this crowd ὄχλος πολύς (“a great multitude”), and Mark and Luke simply ὄχλος. The multitude of people was obviously necessary because they feared failure due to popular uprising. To the Roman detachment they attached civilians (not soldiers) in order to apparently give this crowd a more imposing appearance. It is possible that only soldiers from the Roman detachment were armed with swords; the rest went with clubs or sticks (ξύλα, φυστεσ). John adds: “with lanterns and torches.”

Matthew 26:48. Now he who was betraying Him gave them a sign, saying: “Whoever I kiss, He is the one; seize Him. (Cf. Mark 14:44). Mark adds: “and lead Him away carefully.” Some asked why Judas gave a sign when Christ was well known to everyone. Origen gives a very original answer to this question: “We have received a tradition that He (Jesus Christ) had two appearances: one – which He seemed to all to have, and another – during His Transfiguration before the disciples on the mountain, when His face shone like the sun. Moreover, each one saw Him as he was worthy to see. And when He Himself was present, He seemed to many as if not Himself. Therefore, although the crowd that went with Judas had seen Him many times, nevertheless it was necessary, because of His Transfiguration, that Judas point Him out.” Pointing to John 18:4-6, Origen remarks: “You see that they did not recognize Him, although they had often seen Him, because of His Transfiguration.” We do not think that such interpretation is needed to explain the sign given by Judas. The indication or sign was required simply because it was night, Jesus Christ was not alone, and the place itself, where He was, perhaps provided the possibility of escape. The sign given by Judas can therefore be seen as a simple precaution and precision, eliminating any possibility of error. So there would be no mistake, – Judas could have said to the crowd accompanying him, – seize the one I kiss. This was such a sign that surpassed all other signs in its clarity and certainty. But, not considering Origen’s opinion suitable for explaining the reasons for the sign given by Judas, we can, however, fully allow that Origen’s words have a very deep meaning. Not only Christians but pagans know and have known about Christ. But to each one He appears in thousands of different forms, corresponding to education and development, intellectual and moral. One might even say that each person bears in his soul his own Christ. Remaining the same, He appears in different forms to men and women, healthy and sick, rich and poor, learned and simple. The tradition to which Origen points could only be a reflection of this in the highest degree remarkable, easily understood and historical fact. If Christ has such power, surpassing in the highest degree the power of other known and famous personalities in history in the spiritual sphere, then it is by no means possible to completely deny that, even while being in the flesh, He also appeared to different persons in different forms, and they sometimes recognized, sometimes did not recognize Him (cf. Matt 14:26; Mark 6:49; Luke 7:49; John 1:10). Ἔδωκεν (“gave”) – dedit, probably at the very approach to Christ or somewhat earlier. This was more an improvised than a premeditated and agreed-upon sign.

Matthew 26:49. And immediately coming up to Jesus, he said: “Greetings, Rabbi!” And he kissed Him. (Cf. Mark 14:45; Luke 22:47). Luke’s speech is shorter than in the other synoptists. They omit the entire account John 18:4-9. According to the Russian translation “immediately” relates to “coming up.” Meyer explains: immediately after Judas gave the sign. In the Siro-Sinaic codex the order is somewhat changed; first mention is made of the kiss, then of the greeting. In the Alexandrian codex the words “and he kissed Him” are omitted. The rapidity of Judas’s actions is well expressed in Mark: “and coming up, immediately approached Him and said: Rabbi!” (one time – according to the best readings) “and kissed Him.” The evangelists indicate in general the rapidity of Judas’s actions, but the smallest details of the event on the basis of their testimonies are difficult to determine. The verb κατεφίλησεν (kissed) differs from the one used in verse 48 φιλήσω (I will kiss) and is not expressed in the Russian and other translations. It can be better conveyed as: “kissed repeatedly,” – perhaps several times, but more probably only once, and the kiss was not only seen by all but also heard. Judas, so to speak, smacked, kissing Christ. What a contrast to any true, sincere, and loving kiss! What profound and undoubted truthfulness of the narrative! Who could have invented anything simpler and at the same time so well expressed in a few words the whole depth of human degradation! It is no wonder that “the kiss of Judas” has become proverbial. In two words here is a whole psychological sketch, a whole moral system. On one hand, Judas wants to hide his spiritual baseness and extreme depravity with his kiss. On the other, the kiss – a sign of love – becomes the symbol of the most terrible betrayal and malice. Anyone thinking about this will say that so it is and very often in actual life. The word “Greetings” (χαῖρε) was an ordinary greeting and in meaning fully equals our “hello!”

Matthew 26:50. Jesus said to him: Friend, why have you come? Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him. (Cf. Mark 14:46; Luke 22:48). In the Russian translation the speech is interrogative: “why have you come?” In explaining this verse serious philological difficulties are encountered. It has been proven that if the speech were interrogative, instead of ἐφ´ ὅ πάρει would stand ἐπὶ τί πάρει, and from the available monuments of Greek literature no exceptions to this are found. On this basis the speech of Christ to Judas in no case (contrary to the Russian and other translations) can be considered interrogative. And on the basis of internal considerations it is understandable that the Savior could not ask Judas such a question, could not ask him why he came, because this was undoubtedly well known to Christ. But if this speech is not interrogative, then one gets only a subordinate clause without a main clause: “why have you come.” To explain this, various guesses and suppositions were resorted to. Blass (Gram., S. 172) considers it completely improbable to apply ὅστις or ὅς in a direct question, except in cases when ὅ, τι – “why” – is used, apparently instead of τί. Thus in Matt 9:11; Matt 2:16 and others. Nevertheless, Blass says that ἑταῖρε is a corrupted αί῀ρε – “take what you came for.” Such an opinion seems, however, to be an unsupported guess, because the reading ἑταῖρε, ἐφ´ ὃ πάρει is established firmly. In the Elzevirian edition: ἑταῖρε, ἐφ´ ὃ πάρει – this reading should be rejected, although it is accepted by Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others (in Jerome it is interrogative, as in the Vulgate: amice, ad quid venisti?). Euphemius Zigavin remarks that ἐφ´ ᾧ πάρει should be read not as an interrogative clause, for the Savior knew why Judas came, but as an announcement, for it means: what you came for, do (it is implied: pratte) according to your intention, dropping the veil. Finally, some understood the expression as exclamatory: friend, what are you here for or appearing for! Πάρει can be derived from εἰμί and from ἰέναι (Zahn). Most probable seems to be that here is simply an incomplete speech, after which one could put an ellipsis. The meaning is that Jesus Christ had not yet finished His words to Judas when the soldiers came up and laid hands on Christ. At this interpretation the further speech can only be implied, but what exactly to imply is very difficult to say. The word ἑταῖρε (“comrade,” “friend,” at Luke 22:48 – Judas) is used not in the sense that Christ wanted to call Judas His friend or comrade, but as a simple form of address used toward persons unknown to us: “dear” and the like. In Luke it is added: “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” – an expression which also may not be considered interrogative: “Judas, you are betraying the Son of Man with a kiss” – a simple statement of fact and condemnation of Judas for his deceitful action. Following the sign given by Judas those who had come quickly approached, laid hands on Jesus Christ, undoubtedly bound Him (John 18:12), seized and led Him away with them.

Matthew 26:51. And behold, one of those with Jesus, stretching out his hand, drew his sword and struck the servant of the chief priest, and cut off his ear. (Cf. Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50; John 18:10). The synoptists express themselves indefinitely – one of them, someone, some one of those with Jesus and such like. But John names Peter here. In this silence some see one of the proofs of the early origin of the synoptic Gospels, when it was dangerous to mention Peter’s name directly. Peter’s action is entirely in keeping with his usual impetuousness and lack of restraint. But where did he get the sword (μάχαιρα – in all evangelists)? Was there a sword with Peter alone or also with other apostles? Did they all carry or did only Peter carry his sword with the permission of Christ or only, so to speak, without His knowledge? These are the most difficult questions. But however we explain this passage, we must firmly establish in advance that here is not the slightest approval of capital punishment, contrary to the opinions of various modern scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites, because even from a purely a priori point of view it is in no case possible to allow that Christ, even in exceptional cases, ever approved of capital punishment. The presence of a sword with Peter Chrysostom and others explained by saying that it was not a sword but simply a knife necessary for the slaying of the Passover lamb, taken by Peter from the Passover meal. This opinion – the only one that can be accepted. The word used here μάχαιρα Lat. culter, Heb. “herev,” means first of all a knife used in the slaying of sacrificial animals, then a dagger and generally a short sword, while a large and broad sword was called ῥομφαία. In all probability, only Peter – but hardly John, who prepared the Passover meal together with Peter (Luke 22:8) – took this knife with him, not asking Jesus Christ, because in the contrary case it would be difficult to explain the further words of Christ in verses 52 and following. The knife was taken, of course, not for military purposes, but in case of danger – a precaution quite characteristic of Peter. At Christ’s arrest Peter wanted to defend, not reasoning that this was useless. He, stretching or extending his hand, “drew his sword,” – probably not from a sheath but tied – the expression at John 18:11, “sheath” (at Matthew – “place”) can mean in general any place where a knife can be kept (θήκη), – and struck the servant of the chief priest, perhaps with the intention of cutting or splitting his head, but obviously missed and cut off only his ear. “Ear” in Greek is not οὖς but (in Matthew and John – ὠτίον, in Mark – ὠτάριον) a diminutive of οὖς and means, properly, “little ear.” Diminutives (τὰ ῥυνία – little noses, τὸ ὀμμάτιον – little eye, στηθίδιον – little chest, χελύνιον – little lip, σαρκίον or σαρκίδιον – little body, little piece of meat) were frequently used in Greek popular speech.

Matthew 26:52. Then Jesus said to him: Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword; (Cf. Luke 22:51; John 18:11). The Savior commands Peter to leave his knife unused. Further the reason is given why this should be so. Alford considers “will perish by the sword” a commandment and says that here is not only the future but the future imperative: “may perish” or “should perish by the sword.” With such an interpretation the meaning of Christ’s words would be clear, but in the original there is no future imperative mood. Hilary said: “Not all who carry a sword usually perish by it. Many perish from fever or from some other circumstance – those who use the sword either by office of judges or in case of necessity of resistance to robbers.” Augustine was troubled by the interpretation of these words. Others think that here is a general thought, reminding of the ancient law of retaliation (Gen 9:6), or a folk saying (proverb), by which the punishment for each person is his own defects (cf. Rev 13:10). One cannot refer these words only to Peter, because – independent of their general meaning – it is undoubted that Peter never after that raised a sword against anyone and, however, he himself died by the sword; or that the saying related to the Jews, who died by the sword of the Romans, because in this very crowd that seized Christ, apparently, the Romans, probably, were the ones who wielded swords. Nothing remains but to understand the expression only in a general sense, and if we open the Old Testament Bible, we will find many similar general sayings, for example, in Sirach, in the Proverbs and others, which cannot be taken in a completely unconditional sense, admitting no exceptions. So also the words of Christ allow many exceptions, in their general meaning remaining completely true. Undoubtedly only, that Christ, uttering His words, forbade all people to have a sword and use it as a defense or for the commission of violence. Deviations of the old man from this truth because of necessity or for other reasons may have dangerous consequences for him – raising the sword, he as it were approves its raising by others, and this can fall on his own head”.

Matthew 26:53. Or do you think that I cannot call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? Only in Matthew. Literally: “do you not think that I am able to call upon My Father and He will not place beside Me more than twelve legions of Angels?” The word “call upon” is not the proper translation of the Greek verb παρακαλέω, composed of παρά – “near” (means closeness) and καλέω – “I call,” means I call someone to myself, so that the called one is close. “To pray,” “to beseech” is expressed by another verb – προσεύχεσθαι, which is used specially to denote prayer. The whole sentence should be considered interrogative, and not only ending with the words “My Father.” But the latter half of the verse is rather affirmative than interrogative in sense. “Twelve” is put in correspondence not so much with the number of apostles, which was now eleven, as with the number of apostles together with Jesus Christ Himself. The meaning is that, in Peter’s view, twelve persons could now go against the people who came to seize Christ. But, says the Savior, He needs no defense. If defense were needed, twelve legions of Angels would have been sent by God. A legion – a detachment of Roman troops up to 6,000 men. It is understandable that the expression of Christ should be understood in a general sense, that a great multitude of Angels would appear for His defense. “Now” is placed in some manuscripts before “call upon” (as in the Russian translation) and after the words “will provide” – in others. The latter reading is more probable (as in the Vulgate – modo). The word was probably inserted before “call upon” because it seemed to scribes inappropriate that Christ could not at that very moment call upon the Father and speak about it at all.

Matthew 26:54. But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be thus? (Cf. John 18:11 (end) – in other expressions and almost on a different subject). The sentence is interrogative, although some thought otherwise. The reference is not to separate passages of Scripture but to all Scripture (cf. Luke 24:44). The consciousness of Christ at such moments, when He was being led to suffer, that it is precisely now and precisely in Him that the words of Scripture are being fulfilled, is not characteristic of ordinary people.

Matthew 26:55. At that time Jesus said to the crowd: Have you come out as you would against a robber, with swords and clubs to seize Me? Every day I was sitting with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me. (Cf. Mark 14:48-49; Luke 22:52-53). John testifies clearly that “the soldiers and the commander of the thousand and the servants of the Jews took Jesus and bound Him” (John 18:12). The words given by the synoptists were apparently spoken during the way to Jerusalem, to which the indefinite designation of time in Matthew points (“at that time”), that is, at that time when Christ was taken and bound. There is a bitter reproach in the words of Christ. The very first mockery consisted in that He “was numbered with the transgressors” (Isa 53:12). But He was not λῃστής, a robber. This is strongly expressed in the words “I was sitting” (ἐκαθεζόμην), which, on one hand, point to the custom of Christ teaching in the temple “sitting,” and on the other – to the complete opposition of His peaceful and quiet activity to the activity of robbers, which is mobile, secret, and full of dangers. Such an exposure of the whole absurdity of what had been done by those who seized Christ had no effect on them and could not, because they were mere executors of higher orders, both in the narrow sense (orders of the chief priests) and in the widest sense (orders of God). But if the words of Christ did not edify those around Him (although perhaps not absolutely), they are deeply edifying to us. How often it has been that armed people went forth against people engaged in completely peaceful activity! Luke adds: “but now your hour and the power of darkness.”

Matthew 26:56. But all this has happened so that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left Him and fled. (Cf. Mark 14:50-51). The speech of Mark: καὶ οὐκ ἐκρατήσατέ με ἀλλ´ ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί (and you did not seize Me but so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled) shows that the words in Matthew were spoken by Christ Himself, and not an editor’s remark of the evangelist. Such understanding is natural. First the Savior tells the disciples that the Scriptures about Him must be fulfilled (verse 54), now He tells the crowd accompanying Him the same thing in almost the same words. Just as there, so here there is no reference to specific passages of Scripture. Under “the Scriptures of the prophets” the whole Old Testament is understood. Ὅλον (all) shows that the words of Christ referred to all the events of His arrest under guard. Seeing the uselessness of resistance and feeling fear, the disciples scattered. This flight indirectly shows how terrible and serious were the coming events and how terrible were the people into whose hands Christ was being delivered. From the Gospels it is not evident that the disciples were troubled or even suspected of anything at the very beginning of Christ’s seizure. However, such terror fell upon them that they considered it necessary to flee. All the disciples were scattered, not excepting the most dedicated. Christ remained alone among His enemies. This was foretold to Him (Matt 26:31). The fulfillment of the prediction carries such internal and external signs of historical authenticity that only a few can doubt the reality of the transmitted events. In Mark (Mark 14:51-52) there is here an additional account of a young man following Christ.

Matthew 26:57. Now those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered together. (Cf. Mark 14:53; Luke 22:54; John 18:13-14). John clearly testifies that Jesus Christ was first led to the high priest Annas. But whether the first examination was precisely at Annas is questionable. Annas was formerly high priest, but now was retired, was at rest, as mentioned above. Both he and Caiaphas were evil men and apparently completely insignificant. It is unknown whether those who seized Christ wanted to express their respect to Annas by this act, or whether he took an active part in the conspiracy against Christ and everything was done according to his orders. Annas sent the bound Christ to his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas, where, according to Matthew’s testimony, “the scribes and the elders” gathered, according to Mark – “the chief priests and the elders and the scribes,” and Luke mentions only the house of the high priest. This was an unofficial gathering of the Sanhedrin at night. Annas and Caiaphas apparently lived, probably in one court, although in different houses”.

Matthew 26:58. Now Peter was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest; and he entered inside and sat down with the servants to see how it would end. (Cf. Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54-55; John 18:15-16). John provides here vivid details of an eyewitness of the events, how Peter managed to enter the courtyard of the high priest. Initially the disciples scattered. They could not, of course, run very far. When the panic fear passed and they saw that they themselves had nothing to fear, then under cover of night some of them at least managed to creep back into Jerusalem unnoticed, and succeeded in entering even the very courtyard of the high priest. These were Peter and John. About the rest nothing is heard until the time of the Resurrection. Peter, probably, was especially eager to learn what would be the end. Wishing to see it, he commits actions which, one might say, were more actions of love and dedication than well thought out. It is very difficult to explain here the further order of the exposition of events by the evangelists. If we follow Luke (Luke 22:56-62), then the further event was Peter’s denial (Matt 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72). If we follow Matthew and Mark, then Matt 26:58 and Mark 14:54-55 should be considered as a kind of introduction to the further tragedy of Peter’s denial, interrupted now by the examination of Christ. We will naturally follow the exposition of Matthew.

Matthew 26:59. Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking false testimony against Jesus so that they might put Him to death, (Cf. Mark 14:55.) The word “elders” is not in the best codices, as in Mark, whose account is similar but not literal. The word was probably originally placed in the margin and then entered the text. Speaking of this event, Merx reasons: “Why would they need to seek false testimony when they were convinced that Jesus was guilty? False witnesses are invited beforehand to act with certainty, and here everything appears to be a matter of chance. Eastern people know very well how to obtain testimony, even false testimony. Ψευδομαρτυρία is an ancient (uralte), penetrating all Greek, Latin, Armenian and Memphitic codices tendentious forgery.” However, upon first acquaintance with the testimonies of the evangelists we see that in them everything appears as if almost completely natural. Initially the enemies of Christ wish to wait, to seize Him after the festival to avoid causing popular disturbance. But the betrayal by Judas provides them with an unexpected and favorable opportunity to carry out their plan on the very festival. One cannot forget that for putting to death a favorable verdict from Pilate was required. All this impels them to immediately seek “false testimony.” It is necessary and cannot be done without. Contrary to Merx’s opinion, it is difficult to present and set forth a more lively and clear picture of what was than that done by the evangelists. Here everyone who knows what evil, dishonorable, and vile people are like will find a completely objective and exact exposition of events. Everything forced the enemies of Christ to hurry both because of the approaching Passover Sabbath and because of fears that the accused might not escape the punishment predetermined for Him. The gathering probably took place after midnight (by our reckoning), after the eating of the Passover lamb. It was forgotten, as is often forgotten in such circumstances, that the Passover had come and that sporadic and unclear provisions of oral and written law prescribed that on the day of unleavened bread, following the Passover meal, nothing was to be done. All of this is so deeply characteristic and understandable that it requires no explanation”.

Matthew 26:60. and they did not find any. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they did not find any. But later two false witnesses came forward (Cf. Mark 14:56-57.) It is evident that, contrary to the wishes of the enemies of Christ to be rid of Him with as little noise as possible, the events began to excite this noise and threatened with a popular outburst. To seize Christ “a great multitude of people” came out (verse 47). This circumstance alone shows that delaying and concealing was impossible. The enemies of Christ now looked like people who had attached themselves to a moving popular crowd, which was gradually growing. They began to move together with the crowd not where, perhaps, they wished, but where the crowd moved. This movement of the crowd fully explains the appearance of πολλῶν προσελθόντων ψευδομαρτύρων – an expression which is explained in Mark, πολλὰ γὰρ ἐψευδομαρτύρουν κατ´ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἴσαι αἱ μαρτυρίαι οὐκ ἦσαν – literally: many testified falsely against Him and equal (false testimonies on the basis of which one could sentence to death) these testimonies were not. The crowd as if caught the wishes and intentions of its popular leaders. They needed only false witnesses. And the crowd immediately produced them. But they are no good at all; their testimonies are contradictory and do not lead to the goal. It is unknown what these many false witnesses said. But if the evangelists had reported to us that as soon as Jesus Christ was brought to trial to the high priest, false witnesses immediately came forth, invited beforehand, who accused Him of crimes punishable by death, then we probably would not easily and quickly have believed their accounts. False witnesses were needed as soon as possible – but they were not there! What is this if not the most actual, genuine, and in no way falsified historical truth? But finally (ὕστερον), two witnesses came forward, whose testimonies in this obvious lack of false witnesses and absurdities could at least somewhat look like a matter and end these hurried and exhausting searchings for false testimonies. Two witnesses were sufficient. This was according to the law (Deut 19:15). Matthew’s expression in Greek (according to the best readings) is somewhat more characteristic than in the Russian text: “but finally two came (“false witnesses” in the original according to the best readings are absent)”. Cf. 1 Sam 21:13.

Matthew 26:61. and said: “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’ (Cf. Mark 14:58). In three days – in the course (διά) of three days. Matthew’s speech is brief, simple, and laconic. But in Mark one can hear (in Greek) even how the false witness tongue falters here. The invited false witnesses should have spoken before the highest popular leaders. Naturally, if they became confused and spoke ineptly, crudely, and unpleasantly. The witnesses themselves had once heard the speech of Christ to the Jews (John 2:19), and to them it seemed amazing and strange His declaration that such a huge building could be constructed within three days! The persons seeking false witnesses and bringing false testimony presented against Christ the charge of deviation from the truth. The false witnesses relate the speech of Christ (John 2:19) in their own words, completely differently than it is related by the evangelist. But the essence of the matter they convey quite accurately. It is evident that the witnesses were from the common crowd and apparently did not stand at that juridical level on which the judges themselves stood. The latter could have presented against Christ more serious accusations, of course, from their own point of view. They could have accused Him, for example, of violating the Sabbath or of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul. But, being judges, they could not be witnesses and therefore did not voice accusations incomprehensible to the common folk. Outsider witnesses testify only to what seemed to them especially unreasonable, struck their ears, and disturbed their hearing”.

Matthew 26:62. The high priest stood up and said to Him: Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You? (Cf. Mark 14:59-60). In the Russian translation – two questions. The first question is understandable; the second: “what are these men testifying against You?” – is not. The high priest could not and certainly did not want to ask Christ what the witnesses said about Him. In the Vulgate one question: nihil respondes ad ea, quae isti adversum te testificantur? – Do You not answer (are You unable to say or respond) to what they testify against You? This translation is correct and understandable. But modern German translators return to the previous construction accepted in the Russian translation (nichts autwortest du? Was zeugen diese wider dich?), with two questions. Such a construction is accepted also by Blass (Gram., S. 172 note). The basis for accepting two questions was mainly that ἀποκρίνομαι requires πρός after itself, so that if there were one question, ἀποκρίνῃ πρός τί would be placed. But this is not always the case; ὑποκρίνομαι is joined both with the dative and the accusative without πρός (Cremer, Wort. S. 566). Thus, it is more correct to consider all the speech of verse 62 as one question, and τί in the present case could be ὅτι, although there is no particular need for this latter supposition. The actual meaning of the high priest’s question, independent of philology and form, is clear. However weak and shaky the false testimony might be, the defendant must give an answer to it. There is much psychology here and observation of great accuracy with reality by the evangelists. Against a person whom they wish to accuse, very often, even now, the most trivial accusations are presented, in which no “composition of a crime” is seen. And yet an answer is demanded. In such cases there is complete separation of formal truth and real truth, and at such a trial, always testifying to a low moral level of the judges themselves, people who are really pure in heart before God and men very often become guilty of various crimes, which in reality cannot be imputed to anyone as crimes. Neither the false testimony nor the testimony that Christ intended to destroy the temple and in three days restore it indicated such deeds in which the “composition of a crime” could be seen. And yet the high priest demands an answer to such accusations”.

Matthew 26:63. But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him: I put you under oath by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God? (Cf. Mark 14:61). Jesus Christ was silent because the false testimonies did not point to any crime. Besides, silence is always the best answer to all kinds of slander and false testimony. People who lie and intend to lie are always difficult to convince of the truth, because in refutations in which it is explained, they answer with new lies. It is well evident that all this false testimony was only a pretext for accusation; the actual and main point for which the high priests needed to condemn Christ was, like some phantom, moved to the very back. Thus, political convictions are often not prosecuted in themselves, but a person suffers from various carping, sometimes having no connection at all with those deeds which are considered the main crime. What often happens in the sphere of politics, often happens in the sphere of religion. The novelty of the religion of Christ, its moral disagreement with the understanding, customs, and activities of a den of robbers – that is what essentially constituted, in their view, the crime of Christ. But it was awkward to speak of this, because it was essentially not a crime. Therefore, carping is observed only to small facts – whether real or imagined. But the judges of Christ understood well that these small accusations and false testimonies did not equal (οὐδὲ οὕτως ἴση ἦν ἡ μαρτυρία αὐτῶν – Mark 14:59), did not correspond to the goal which they had in mind – to deliver Christ to death. This prompted the high priest to take a more decisive step. Why gather these small false testimonies? Why waste time on petty questions? It is necessary to turn to the main thing. Caiaphas, probably rising from his place, located at the very center of the judges’ semicircle, approached the defendant. Among the judges, as must be supposed, a deep silence reigned. And so the high priest utters solemn words: “I put you under oath by the living God...” Caiaphas pronounced not an oath but an adjuration. He adjured Christ by the living God to tell him the truth. The high priest knew that Christ previously called Himself this way. This was, in his opinion, self-exaltation, such an assumption of supreme dignity that no man could dare. The high priest now wished formally and before all to force from Christ an acknowledgment that He was indeed guilty of such a crime.

Matthew 26:64. Jesus said to him: You have said it; but I say to you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven. (Cf. Mark 14:62). Luke 22:66-70 should probably be referred to the second, daytime, session of the Sanhedrin (ὡς ἐγένετο ἡμερα – Luke 22:66), when Christ repeated the same confession. But some consider Luke’s account parallel to the present account on the basis of the similarity of Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69. The question about this is difficult, and it is impossible to solve it now. This confession of Christ was completely opposite to the temptation with which the devil tempted Him, offering Him from the roof of the temple to cast Himself down. This would be not a verbal but a pragmatic confession before men of His own dignity as the Son of God. Then it would be solemn and the amazed crowd would immediately recognize in Him the powers belonging only to the Son of God. But by the power of God Christ was lifted instead of the mountain of temptation to the Mount of Transfiguration. From this high mountain He, as it were, cast Himself down and now stood before men in the true, not false, dignity of the Son of God. But He now appears not in the form of a King but of a bound and humiliated Servant of Jehovah, and people completely refuse to applaud and triumph at such His manifestation. They even doubt whether He is truly the Son of God. They adjure Him to tell them about this. And Christ answers affirmatively to this adjuration. Σὺ εἶπας, cf. verse 25. As there this expression was not an oath, so it should be taken in the same sense here. Many assert that Christ here pronounced an oath on the basis that among the Jews there was no custom of repeating the same words as were contained in the oath formula in answers to an adjuration. But against this it can be said that in the expression σὺ εἶπας there is no most important word by which Jews expressed that their words were uttered under oath, namely: “shevua” or, perhaps, “amen” (see treatise Shevu’ot: Talmud, trans. Pereферковича, vol. 4, p. 359–402, especially ch. 3–4). It is improbable that Christ, who said “do not swear at all” (Matt 5:34), Himself pronounced an oath now. Origen wrote: “He neither denied that He is the Christ, the Son of God, nor confessed this clearly (nec manifeste confessus est), but, as if making the one adjuring himself a witness, because he himself in the question declared Him Christ, Son of God, says: ‘you have said it’”. Much and other considerations were put forth in support of the idea that Christ pronounced an oath here, but it could appear forced under such circumstances. Similar words were said to Pilate, but without an adjuration (Matt 27:11). The words of Christ were even explained in the sense that “this is you pronouncing the oath, not I,” “I entrust to your own conscience to answer the question you have asked.” With this latter interpretation one cannot agree. Christ did not pronounce any oath. Nevertheless His words contained an affirmation of the thought expressed by the high priest, equal to “yes, yes” (Matt 5:37). That the answer of Christ was affirmative is evident from the fact that it was understood as such by the high priest, as is evident from verse 65. “The enemies of Christ should not have thought that He would affirm His Kingdom by force and weapons and that, if now He is deprived of the opportunity to do so, He doubts both His own calling and Himself” (Zahn). Ἀπ´ ἄρτι (“from now on”) some referred to λέγω ἡμῖν (I say to you from now on) or to καθήμενον (from now on sitting). Mark omits this word, and Luke (if Luke 22:69 can be considered a parallel) ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπ´ ἄρτι refers to καθήμενος. It is more correct to refer ἀπ´ ἄρτι in Matthew to ὄψεσθε (as in the Russian translation). It was also thought that instead of ἀπ´ ἄρτι (from now on) one should read ἀπαρτί (exactly, directly, precisely). But what does all this mean? The words of Christ will appear to us completely incomprehensible if we suppose that they point to something like His solemn manifestation, for example, as in Matt 25:31. For when was it that Caiaphas and the other judges saw Him thus “from now on”? The words of Christ should be understood in a completely opposite sense. He speaks here not of His solemn manifestations but of the extreme abasement, suffering, the Cross and Resurrection that awaited Him, which were equal to His complete glory, sitting at the right hand of Power and traveling on the clouds. In the saying of Christ is contained, therefore, a very subtle and deepest theological meaning. The extreme abasement of the Servant of Jehovah – that is what was His extreme glory. This, so to speak, negative glory of Christ the enemies saw personally. Christ speaks here with the words of Ps 109:1 and Dan 7:13.

Matthew 26:65. Then the high priest tore his robes and said: He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have heard the blasphemy! Matthew 26:66. What do you think? And they answered and said: He deserves death. (Cf. Mark 14:63-64). The true meaning of the words of Christ was, apparently, not understood by His judges. The circumstances in which He found Himself completely contradicted the declaration He made that He is the Son of God, sits at the right hand of Power, and travels on the clouds of heaven. Such a declaration seemed to them blasphemy and would indeed be such if it were pronounced by any ordinary person. Therefore the high priest tore his clothes. This would be a touching action if it did not originate from extreme malice, hypocrisy, hatred, and depravity (cf. 2 Sam 18:37; Acts 14:14). In Lev 10:6 the high priest was forbidden to tear his clothes, but from the further verse it can be concluded that he was not to tear his clothes only as a sign of mourning for the dead, even for his own father or mother. An example of tearing clothes in other cases is found in 1 Macc 11:71. The opinion that Caiaphas considered Christ a misleading messiah (see Sanhedrin VII, 10; Talmud, trans. Pereферковича, vol. 4, p. 291–292) is erroneous. Blasphemy was determined in the law to be punishable by death (Lev 24:15-16). Therefore, in response to the declaration of the high priest, those present immediately began to say that Christ “deserves death.”

Matthew 26:67. Then they spat in His face and struck Him with their fists; and others slapped Him on the cheeks, (Cf. Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63-64). Such treatment as is usually given to criminals “deprived of all rights of status.” True, the verdict of the Sanhedrin had not yet been officially confirmed. But it was evident in every way that the judges would not abandon their decision. Mockery of persons deprived of rights of status is characteristic not only of sinners but of many righteous men. At this, it is assumed that the condemned no longer has the right to bring complaints to anyone and that persons mocking him are in any case not subject to strict accountability. The inner feeling, the feeling of shame, the demands of conscience are suppressed by the coarseness and cruelty of natural man, and he becomes like a predatory beast, alien to all compassion and mercy. And religious hatred is always stronger than any other. All this was the cause why Christ now was subjected to mockery. They spat in His face to express contempt, struck Him with their fists (ἐκολάφισαν αὐτόν) and slapped Him (ἐράπισαν – omitted in the Russian translation), that is, beat with palms on the cheeks, but perhaps not only with palms but also with sticks or scourges, switches, rods (ῥαπίζω has such meaning as well). It is unclear whether all Sanhedrin members took part in all these mockeries. But judging by the fact that Matt 26:67 and Mark 14:65 are a continuation of the previous verses, there is nothing improbable in this.

Matthew 26:68. and saying: “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who struck You? (Cf. Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64). The people surrounding Christ treated Him not only as ordinary people usually treat a condemned criminal, but also as they behave toward a condemned and therefore false Messiah and Prophet. Spitting, beating, and slapping were interspersed with even more crude mockeries, especially under the circumstances, at His personal dignity as the Messiah. These were moral insults, not lacking in acerbity, but crude and cynical.

Matthew 26:69. Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a certain maidservant came to him and said: You too were with Jesus the Galilean. (Cf. Mark 14:66-67; Luke 22:56; John 18:17). While Christ was being subjected to mockery in that same courtyard of the high priest, events were taking place which in any other history would have seemed microscopic. But in the history of the sufferings of Christ in them is evident terrible horror and bloody tragedy. While the Savior was being spat upon, slapped, and subjected to other insults, Peter, who had come to the courtyard of the high priest (verse 58), during the entire examination, apparently, sat together with the servants of the chief priests and “warmed himself by the fire” (Mark 14:54; Luke 22:56). How much terrible tragedy and realism in this simple expression! What was happening inside, in the soul of Peter, was not noticeable to anyone, but outwardly was only seen that he was warming himself by the fire! Naturally, being near an actual flame, Peter had to vigorously suppress and restrain all inner flame so as not to give himself away and his intentions. He was in the position of a man who sees a drowning person from the shore and has neither strength nor means to help him in any way. This is generally one of the most tormenting states of all good and loving people. What spiritual anguish Peter experienced warming himself by the fire is hidden from the eyes of men. John, showing himself for a moment (John 18:15-16), quickly throws a veil over his own personality and hides in the night darkness. Only Peter remains with his external calm. “The power of darkness” (Luke 22:53), which seized His Teacher and took possession of Him like a threatening cloud during a dark night flashing lightning and striking with thunder blows, soon spreads over Peter’s head as well. This is temptation. Peter gradually, suspecting nothing himself, enters into the limited sphere of temptation. Never was prayer more needed for him than: “and lead us not into temptation.” In the accounts of the evangelists of Peter’s initial temptation there are no contradictions; everywhere at the forefront is some unknown “maidservant” (μία παιδίσκη, μία τῶν παιδισκῶν, παιδίσκη τις), whom John calls the “gatekeeper” (παιδίσκη ἡ θυρωρός – John 18:17). This is a completely unknown to us, and probably also to the first Christians, personality, as if casually showing her dark face in the night darkness. She looks at Peter (Mark 14:67; Luke 22:56) and then suspiciously says aloud: “and you too were with Jesus the Galilean.” If all these accounts had been invented, then even then we should have said that here is an extremely skillful, in the highest degree artistic selection of all circumstances. Why this maidservant, the gatekeeper? Why did the composers of inventions not cause a man to speak with Peter, for example, at least the very Malchus, to whom Peter cut off the ear? This would be much more natural in any invention, even an artistic one. But reality always corresponds little to any invention. Men were occupied with other affairs and thoughts; but the observation, keen eye, and unrestrained tongue of women are known to all. Judging by the expressions (παιδίσκη), this was a young slave girl, perhaps even an adult girl. The bold and courageous Peter is placed in an extremely difficult and dangerous position not by a sword raised over him, not by an arrow directed straight to his heart or a pike, but by the lighthearted question of some unknown and talkative young slave girl. The Gospel καί (in all evangelists) here is meaningful: “and you too were.” If “and you too,” then, consequently, someone else was with the Galilean as well, and together with him Peter. Who was this other? Some suppose the maidservant pointed to John, others – to Judas. But perhaps the maidservant’s words mean: “you were together with many others, who are now not on this courtyard.”

Matthew 26:70. But he denied it before them all, saying: I do not know what you are saying. (Cf. Mark 14:68; Luke 22:57). Peter’s first denial does not stand out clearly, although it was in essence such. He gives, apparently, a somewhat evasive answer. Many people were present at the arrest of Jesus Christ, probably the chief priests themselves were there. Peter does not know whether the maidservant counts him among the friends or enemies of Christ. If among the enemies, then what is strange if he was in Gethsemane with Jesus the Galilean and returned with Him from there? He does not know (οἶδα – Matthew and Luke) and does not understand (ἐπίσταμαι – Mark), what exactly the woman is talking about. But in John a brief, harsh, untempered and direct denial: οὐκ εἰμί (I am not, I was not with Him).

Matthew 26:71. When he had gone out to the gateway, another maidservant saw him and said to those who were there: This man too was with Jesus of Nazareth. (Cf. Mark 14:68-69; Luke 22:58; John 18:25). Peter saw that, although his answer seemed apparently satisfactory to the persons around him and to the maidservant herself, his situation was nevertheless not safe. It is difficult, of course, to determine here the exact sequence of very small and themselves insignificant facts. Only, apparently, after Peter’s first denial John (John 18:18-24) introduces the account about the servants and attendants warming themselves by the fire and about the examination at the high priest (some think – at Annas – on the basis of John 18:24, but more likely – at Caiaphas, because otherwise it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the Gospel accounts of Christ’s examination and Peter’s denial). In any case, one cannot suppose that a fairly significant interval passed between Peter’s first and second denial. Luke (Luke 22:58) testifies that the second denial was “soon after” (μετὰ βραχύ). Peter now directs himself toward the gate, apparently intending to leave the courtyard entirely. But here “another” maidservant addresses him with almost the same speech as the first, – so according to Matthew; according to Mark – the same one, according to Luke – “another,” and according to John (John 18:25) – unknown people: (they) “said to him.” The reconciliation of the evangelists here seems particularly difficult. Even in works specially devoted to the examination and reconciliation of Gospel “discrepancies” we did not find discussion and reconciliation of these facts. And exegetes almost do not discuss them, apparently due to extreme difficulty. At this time a rooster crowed (Mark 14:68 – these words are not in several of the best codices, but are considered genuine because of Mark 14:72).

Matthew 26:72. And again he denied with an oath: I do not know the Man! (Cf. Mark 14:70; Luke 22:58; John 18:25). According to the testimony of Jerome, some said that Peter denied Christ only as a man, not as God. “Thus,” says Jerome, “they defend the apostle, accusing God of lying... For if Peter did not deny, then the Lord spoke falsely, having predicted: ‘you will deny Me three times.’ Peter now denies “with an oath” (μετὰ ὅρκου), which testifies to the intensification of his first denial.

Matthew 26:73. A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter: Surely you also are one of them; for the way you speak gives you away. (Cf. Mark 14:71; Luke 22:59; John 18:26). For Peter, in order to avoid danger, it was necessary either to save himself at once by fleeing, or to return and deflect any suspicion. If he had done the first, he would probably have been immediately pursued, and then he might be accused as a suspicious spy. Therefore Peter chose the latter and, in order to allay any suspicion, apparently with outward composure sat down again with the servants by the fire. Here the initial stammering of two maidservants or one maidservant and some man, after about an hour (Luke), transforms into an almost noisy uproar. The initial suspicions grew. Peter’s distinctive Galilean speech or accent served as strong confirmation that he truly had been with a Galilean and was \”one of them.\””

Matthew 26:74. Then he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this Man. And immediately the cock crowed. (Compare Mark 14:71; Luke 22:60; John 18:27).” Matthew, Luke, and John say that the cock crowed at that time, understood as the first time. Mark clearly indicates that the cock crowed a second time. There have been many attempts to explain this discrepancy. But it does not seem to be particularly important. Certainly, the evangelists did not intend to keep an exact count of how many times the roosters crowed at that time. For them the important thing was Peter’s very person and the circumstances of his trial, as well as something originally unexpected and purely historical, not invented, in justification of what was predicted by Christ. First Peter simply denied, then he denied \”with an oath.\” For the Russian reader of the Gospel, the intensification of and, so to speak, the accumulation of the oath is not noticeable at all. This can only be understood by one reading the Greek text. Instead of \”to curse and to swear\” in the original it is now \”to curse\” (καταθεματίζειν, but not καταναθεματίζειν) and \”to swear\” (ὀμνύειν). In Mark – ἀναθεματίζειν (to curse) and ὀμνύσαι (to swear). Luke greatly smooths over the expressions of the first two synoptics, and John expresses himself again briefly: \”Peter denied again; and immediately the cock crowed.\””

Matthew 26:75. And Peter remembered the word spoken to him by Jesus: before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times. And going outside, he wept bitterly. (Compare Mark 14:72; Luke 22:61-62).” The curses and oaths were heard from Peter’s mouth at the very time when the suffering Lord and his Teacher was before his eyes. Matthew and Mark do not mention this, but Luke says so plainly. Therefore Peter immediately noticed when the Lord \”looked upon\” him. This aroused in him a feeling of extreme shame and repentance. Without now paying attention to anyone, he rushed impetuously from the courtyard (ἐπιβαλών – Mark) and ran out into the night darkness, pursued by no one; remaining alone somewhere, he shed harsh, burning (πικρῶς – Matthew and Luke) tears – such as few people have perhaps shed from that time, because these secret tears of Peter in the course of time became famous.” * * *” Equivalent to the value of approximately 50 grams of gold. – Translator’s note.” This sum in Russia in 1867–1917 was equal to the value of 4.5 grams of silver. – Translator’s note.” That is, weighing approximately 20 grams. – Translator’s note.”