Bible Commentaries

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

Matthew 26:3-5. The chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders — They together constituted the sanhedrim, or great council, which had the supreme authority both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs. Assembled together unto the palace of the high-priest — Namely, to deliberate how they might take Jesus, and put him to death; and consulted how they might take him by subtlety — Privately, by some artifice, without giving an alarm to his friends. But they said, Not on the feast-day — This was the result of human wisdom. But when Judas came, they changed their purpose. So the counsel of God took place, and the true paschal Lamb was offered up on the great day of the paschal solemnity.

Matthew 26:6-13. When Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper — That is, who had been a leper, but, as seems highly probable, had been healed by Jesus. At least, it is not to be thought that he was now a leper, for in that case he would not have been suffered to live in a town, nor would any Jew have come to an entertainment in his house. There came a woman — Probably Mary, the sister of Lazarus, for it is highly probable, as Dr. Doddridge has shown, that the anointing of Jesus here mentioned, is the same with that recorded John 12:1. Having an alabaster box, &c. — Being deeply affected with the many instances that Christ had given her and her sister Martha of his love, and especially by his late mercy in recovering her dear brother Lazarus from the grave, she was therefore solicitous to give some uncommon token of her gratitude to so excellent a person. She brake the box, says Mark, and poured the precious ointment, or rich balsam, on his head. See note on John 12:3. When the disciples saw it, they had indignation — Several of them were angry, though none so much so as Judas, saying, To what purpose is this waste? — Such a quantity of this rich balsam poured out to so little purpose. For this ointment might have been sold for much — The disciples being sensible that their Master was not delighted with luxuries of any kind, were grieved, and murmured against the woman, says Mark, for throwing away so much money idly, as they imagined. But they expressed themselves so as to cast a tacit reflection on Jesus himself. Jesus said, Why trouble ye the woman? — Why do ye grieve and distress the good woman, of whose piety and friendship we have had so long an experience? For she hath wrought a good work upon me — Hath given a great proof of her faith, gratitude, and love; and therefore deserves to be commended rather than to be blamed. For with respect to what has been now suggested, in favour of the poor, ye have them always with you — By the wise and gracious providence of God, it does, and always will happen, that objects needing your compassion and charity shall always be with you, that you may always have opportunities of relieving their wants, and so of laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven. But me ye have not always — I am soon to leave you, and to be placed beyond the reach of your kindness. In that she hath poured this ointment on my body — On my feet as well as my head; see John 12:4. She did it for my burial — As it were, for the embalming of my body. Indeed this was not her design; but our Lord puts this construction upon it, to confirm thereby what he had before said to his disciples concerning his approaching death. Verily, wheresoever this gospel — That is, this part of the gospel history; shall be preached, this that this woman hath done shall be told, &c. — To make them further sensible of their folly in blaming her for this expression of her love to him, he assured them that however much she might be condemned by them, she should be highly celebrated for this action through the world, and live in the memory of all ages.

Matthew 26:14-16. Then one of the twelve — Judas Iscariot, having been more forward than the rest (John 12:4) in condemning the woman, thought himself, as it appears, peculiarly affronted by the rebuke which Jesus now gave to all his apostles. Rising up, therefore, he went straightway into the city to the high-priest’s palace, where doubtless he had received some previous information that the council would be assembled, and finding them there accordingly, he said unto them, What will ye give me — Words that show he was influenced to the infamous action partly, at least, by the love of filthy lucre; and I will deliver him unto you? — I will undertake to put him into your hands, at a time and place in which you may effectually secure him, without the danger of giving any alarm to the people. And they covenanted — Or, bargained, with him for thirty pieces of silver — That is, (reckoning each piece to be of the value of 2 Samuel 6 d.) for 3l. 15s. sterling, the price of a slave, Exodus 21:32. A goodly price that he was prized at of them! Zechariah 11:13. The sum was so trifling that it would be unaccountable that he should have been influenced in any degree by it, to betray to death his friend and Master, had it not been that, as Luke observes, Luke 22:3, Satan at this time entered into him, which doubtless he was permitted to do to punish him for giving way to a worldly, covetous spirit, and probably for other sins, and especially his not improving the great privilege he had enjoyed for about three years, in statedly attending upon Christ’s ministry, hearing all his divine discourses, and being a constant spectator of his holy life and astonishing miracles, and having the high honour of being called to be one of his apostles. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him — Namely, as Luke observes, in the absence of the multitude, and that officers from the high- priest and his council might come upon him and apprehend him privately.

Matthew 26:17. On the first day of unleavened bread — Being Thursday, the fourteenth day of the first month, Exodus 12:6; Exodus 12:15. The disciples came, saying, Where wilt thou that we prepare the passover? — They meant at what house. And he said, Go into the city to such a man — This implies that Jesus named the person to whom they were sent, though the evangelists have not thought it of importance to mention his name. He told them further, that on their entrance into the city they should find one of the man’s servants in the street, bearing a pitcher of water. This person he ordered them to follow, without saying any thing to him, because as he was carrying the water home he would lead them straight to his master’s house, with which, it seems, the disciples were not acquainted. This direction, and some others, mentioned Mark 14:14-15; Luke 22:11-12, (where see the notes,) were given by Jesus to his disciples, and these predictions were uttered to show them how completely he foreknew every thing that should befall him, and to convince them that his sufferings were all predetermined of God; and that, on his part, they were all submitted to voluntarily. The disciples did as Jesus had appointed — and found every thing to happen exactly as Jesus had foretold, which doubtless would tend no little to confirm their faith in him, and prepare them for the trial they would so soon have to pass through.

Matthew 26:20-25. And when the even was come — At the proper hour; he sat down with the twelve — To taste first, according to the custom of those days, the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs, before the lamb was served up. After which they proceeded as is related in the note on Matthew 26:2. And as they did eat he said — One of you shall betray me — He had before told them, namely, Matthew 17:22, that the Son of man should be betrayed; he now comes to acquaint them, that one of them would be the traitor, and to point out the guilty person. And they were exceeding sorrowful — They were sorrowful that he should be betrayed by any one, but more so that one of themselves should be the instrument of so horrible a crime: and began every one to say, Lord, is it I, that am this guilty creature? They do not appear to have asked this question because they mistrusted themselves, not knowing to how great a wickedness their hearts might lead them; but because each of them wanted to be freed from the suspicion of such an iniquity. He answered, He that dippeth, &c. — “Grotius and others think this implies that Judas had placed himself so near his Master as to eat out of the same dish with him. But their way of lying on couches at meat must have made it inconvenient for two or more persons to eat in that manner. It is more probable that the disciples, being in the deepest distress, had left off eating, only Judas, to conceal his guilt, continued the meal, and was dipping his meat in a kind of a sauce named haroseth, (which they used on these occasions,) when Jesus happened to be putting his into it; which sauce, according to custom, was served up in a separate dish.” — Macknight. The Son of man goeth through sufferings to glory, as it is written of him — In the Scriptures; and determined in the divine counsels. See note on Acts 2:23. Yet this was no excuse for him that betrayed him: but wo to that man, &c. — In pronouncing this wo upon the man by whom he should be betrayed, our Lord manifestly shows that the foreknowledge and prediction that he should suffer, and that by the treachery of Judas, laid no antecedent necessity upon Judas of doing this action, for if it had, it not only would have lessened the wo due to him, but would have taken away all his guilt. For no guilt can attach to any action which a man is laid under an absolute necessity of doing, and which to him is unavoidable. All that the prediction of Judas’s treachery implies is, that God with certainty foreknew how his will, left entirely to its own freedom, would determine on this occasion: and, it must be observed, it would have determined in the same way, if such determination had neither been foreknown nor foretold. See note on 1 Peter 1:2. It had been good for that man if he had not been born — May not the same be said of every man that finally perishes? But who can reconcile this, if it were true of Judas alone, with the doctrine of universal salvation? For, if the torments of hell were not eternal, but, after suffering in them, though it might be millions of millions of years, guilty sinners should be rescued from them and brought to the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness, it still would be good for them that they had been born, inasmuch as they would still have a never-ending state of felicity before them. Then Judas, who betrayed him — Who had in fact already betrayed him, Matthew 26:15, and was now waiting for an opportunity to deliver him privately into the hands of the chief priests, answered, Master — Gr. Rabbi, or teacher, Is it I? — The other disciples, in asking the same question, said each of them, κυριε, Lord, is it I? a title implying greater reverence than Judas was disposed to show his Master. As Judas was conscious of what he had already done, and was resolved still further to do, in betraying and delivering up his Divine Master, and could not but know that his whole conduct, and the very secrets of his heart, lay open to his inspection, he manifests by this question unparalleled impudence, as well as excessive hardness of heart. One would almost suppose, that he intended to insult Christ’s prescience as well as long-suffering. He, Jesus, said unto him, Thou hast said — That is, It is as thou hast said: thou art the guilty person. Before this, when Christ discovered that he should be betrayed, he only told it in John’s ear, that Judas would be the traitor: and John told it to Peter, (see John 13:23-26;) but the rest knew nothing of it. Now Jesus plainly points him out before them all; which, impudent as he was, evidently confounded and struck him speechless. But whether he immediately left the company, as some infer from John 13:30; or whether that passage refers to what happened at a former supper, as others think, is a question which it is not easy to decide. One thing seems clear: if he withdrew at this time, he must have soon returned, as it appears, from Luke 22:21, that he was present when the Lord’s supper was instituted.

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

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