rwp - Matthew:26:47-56

rwp@Matthew:26:47 @{While he yet spake} (\eti autou lalountos\). It was an electric moment as Jesus faced Judas with his horde of helpers as if he turned to meet an army. {Let us go} (\agmen\), Jesus had said. And here he is. The eight at the gate seemed to have given no notice. Judas is described here as "one of the twelve" (\heis tn ddeka\) in all three Synoptic Gospels (Mark:14:43; strkjv@Matthew:26:47; strkjv@Luke:22:47|). The very horror of the thing is thus emphasized, that one of the chosen twelve apostles should do this dastardly deed. {A great multitude} (\ochlos polus\). The chief priests and Pharisees had furnished Judas a band of soldiers from the garrison in Antonia (John:18:3|) and the temple police (Luke:22:52|) with swords (knives) and staves (clubs) with a hired rabble who had lanterns also (John:18:3|) in spite of the full moon. Judas was taking no chances of failure for he well knew the strange power of Jesus.

rwp@Matthew:26:48 @{Gave them a sign} (\edken autois smeion\). Probably just before he reached the place, though Mark (Mark:14:44|) has "had given" (\dedkei\) which certainly means before arrival at Gethsemane. At any rate Judas had given the leaders to understand that he would kiss (\phils\) Jesus in order to identify him for certain. The kiss was a common mode of greeting and Judas chose that sign and actually "kissed him fervently" (\katephilsen\, verse 49|), though the compound verb sometimes in the papyri has lost its intensive force. Bruce thinks that Judas was prompted by the inconsistent motives of smouldering love and cowardice. At any rate this revolting ostentatious kiss is "the most terrible instance of the \hekousia philmata echthrou\ (Proverbs:27:6|)," the profuse kisses of an enemy (McNeile). This same compound verb occurs in strkjv@Luke:7:38| of the sinful woman, in strkjv@Luke:15:20| of the Father's embrace of the Prodigal Son, and in strkjv@Acts:20:37| of the Ephesian elders and Paul.

rwp@Matthew:26:50 @{Do that for which thou art come} (\eph' ho parei\). Moffatt and Goodspeed take it: "Do your errand." There has been a deal of trouble over this phrase. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 125 to 131) has proven conclusively that it is a question, \eph' ho\ in late Greek having the interrogative sense of \epi ti\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 725). The use of \eph' ho\ for "why here" occurs on a Syrian tablet of the first century A.D. 50 that it "was current coin in the language of the people" (Deissmann). Most of the early translations (Old Latin, Old Syriac) took it as a question. Songs:the Vulgate has _ad quid venisti_. In this instance the Authorized Version is correct against the Revised. Jesus exposes the pretence of Judas and shows that he does not believe in his paraded affection (Bruce).

rwp@Matthew:26:51 @{One of them that were with Jesus} (\heis tn meta Isou\). Like the other Synoptics Matthew conceals the name of Peter, probably for prudential reasons as he was still living before A.D. 68. John writing at the end of the century mentions Peter's name (John:18:10|). The sword or knife was one of the two that the disciples had (Luke:22:38|). Bruce suggests that it was a large knife used in connexion with the paschal feast. Evidently Peter aimed to cut off the man's head, not his ear (\tion\ is diminutive in form, but not in sense, as often in the _Koin_). He may have been the leader of the band. His name, Malchus, is also given by John (John:18:10|) because Peter was then dead and in no danger.

rwp@Matthew:26:52 @{Put up again thy sword} (\apostrepson tn machairan sou\). Turn back thy sword into its place. It was a stern rebuke for Peter who had misunderstood the teaching of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:22:38| as well as in strkjv@Matthew:5:39| (cf. strkjv@John:18:36|). The reason given by Jesus has had innumerable illustrations in human history. The sword calls for the sword. Offensive war is here given flat condemnation. The Paris Pact of 1928 (the Kellogg Treaty) is certainly in harmony with the mind of Christ. The will to peace is the first step towards peace, the outlawing of war. Our American cities are often ruled by gangsters who kill each other off.

rwp@Matthew:26:53 @{Even now} (\arti\). Just now, at this very moment. {Legions} (\leginas\). A Latin word. Roman soldiers in large numbers were in Palestine later in A.D. 66, but they were in Caesarea and in the tower of Antonia in Jerusalem. A full Roman legion had 6,100 foot and 726 horse in the time of Augustus. But Jesus sees more than twelve legions at his command (one for each apostle) and shows his undaunted courage in this crisis. One should recall the story of Elisha at Dothan (2Kings:6:17|).

rwp@Matthew:26:54 @{Must be} (\dei\). Jesus sees clearly his destiny now that he has won the victory in Gethsemane.

rwp@Matthew:26:55 @{As against a robber} (\hs epi listn\). As a robber, not as a thief, but a robber hiding from justice. He will be crucified between two robbers and on the very cross planned for their leader, Barabbas. They have come with no warrant for any crime, but with an armed force to seize Jesus as if a highway robber. Jesus reminds them that he used to sit (imperfect, \ekathezomn\) in the temple and teach. But he sees God's purpose in it all for the prophets had foretold his "cup." The desertion of Jesus by the disciples followed this rebuke of the effort of Peter. Jesus had surrendered. Songs:they fled.

rwp@Matthew:26:58 @{To see the end} (\idein to telos\). Peter rallied from the panic and followed afar off (\makrothen\), "more courageous than the rest and yet not courageous enough" (Bruce). John the Beloved Disciple went on into the room where Jesus was. The rest remained outside, but Peter "sat with the officers" to see and hear and hoping to escape notice.

rwp@Matthew:26:59 @{Sought false witness against Jesus} (\eztoun pseudomarturian\). Imperfect tense, kept on seeking. Judges have no right to be prosecutors and least of all to seek after false witness and even to offer bribes to get it.

rwp@Matthew:26:60 @{They found it not} (\kai ouch heuron\). They found false witnesses in plenty, but not the false witness that would stand any sort of test.

rwp@Matthew:26:61 @{I am able to destroy the temple of God} (\dunamai katalusai ton naon tou theou\). What he had said (John:2:19|) referred to the temple of his body which they were to destroy (and did) and which he would raise again in three days as he did. It was a pitiful perversion of what Jesus had said and even so the two witnesses disagreed in their misrepresentation (Mark:14:59|).

rwp@Matthew:26:63 @{Held his peace} (\esipa\). Kept silent, imperfect tense. Jesus refused to answer the bluster of Caiaphas. {I adjure thee by the living God} (\exorkiz se kata tou theou tou zntos\). Songs:Caiaphas put Jesus on oath in order to make him incriminate himself, a thing unlawful in Jewish jurisprudence. He had failed to secure any accusation against Jesus that would stand at all. But Jesus did not refuse to answer under solemn oath, clearly showing that he was not thinking of oaths in courts of justice when he prohibited profanity. The charge that Caiaphas makes is that Jesus claims to be the Messiah, the Son of God. To refuse to answer would be tantamount to a denial. Songs:Jesus answered knowing full well the use that would be made of his confession and claim.

rwp@Matthew:26:64 @{Thou hast said} (\su eipas\). This is a Greek affirmative reply. Mark (Mark:14:62|) has it plainly, "I am" (\eimi\). But this is not all that Jesus said to Caiaphas. He claims that the day will come when Jesus will be the Judge and Caiaphas the culprit using the prophetic language in strkjv@Daniel:7:13| and strkjv@Psalms:109:1|. It was all that Caiaphas wanted.

rwp@Matthew:26:65 @{He hath spoken blasphemy} (\eblasphmsen\). There was no need of witnesses now, for Jesus had incriminated himself by claiming under oath to be the Messiah, the Son of God. Now it would not be blasphemy for the real Messiah to make such a claim, but it was intolerable to admit that Jesus could be the Messiah of Jewish hope. At the beginning of Christ's ministry he occasionally used the word Messiah of himself, but he soon ceased, for it was plain that it would create trouble. The people would take it in the sense of a political revolutionist who would throw off the Roman yoke. If he declined that role, the Pharisees would have none of him for that was the kind of a Messiah that they desired. But the hour has now come. At the Triumphal Entry Jesus let the Galilean crowds hail him as Messiah, knowing what the effect would be. Now the hour has struck. He has made his claim and has defied the High Priest.

rwp@Matthew:26:66 @{He is worthy of death} (\enochos thanatou estin\). Held in the bonds of death (\en, ech\) as actually guilty with the genitive (\thanatou\). The dative expresses liability as in strkjv@Matthew:5:21| (\ti krisei\) and as \eis\ and the accusative (Matthew:5:22|). They took the vote though it was at night and they no longer had the power of death since the Romans took it away from them. Death was the penalty of blasphemy (Leviticus:24:15|). But they enjoyed taking it as their answer to his unanswerable speeches in the temple that dreadful Tuesday a few days before. It was unanimous save that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus did not agree. They were probably absent and not even invited as being under suspicion for being secret disciples of Christ.

rwp@Matthew:26:68 @{Thou Christ} (\Christe\). With definite sneer at his claims under oath in strkjv@26:63|. With uncontrolled glee and abandon like a lot of hoodlums these doctors of divinity insulted Jesus. They actually spat in his face, buffeted him on the neck (\ekolaphisan\, from \kolaphos\ the fist), and struck him in the face with the palms of their hands (\erapisan\, from \rapis\, a rod), all personal indignities after the legal injustice already done. They thus gave vent to their spite and hatred.

rwp@Matthew:26:69 @{Thou also} (\kai su\). Peter had gone within (\es\) the palace (26:58|), but was sitting {without} (\ex\) the hall where the trial was going on in the open central court with the servants or officers (\hupretn\, under rowers, literally, strkjv@26:58|) of the Sanhedrin. But he could possibly see through the open door above what was going on inside. It is not plain at what stage of the Jewish trial the denials of Peter took place nor the precise order in which they came as the Gospels give them variously. This maid (\paidisk\, slave girl) stepped up to Peter as he was sitting in the court and pointedly said: "Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean." Peter was warming himself by the fire and the light shone in his face. She probably had noticed Peter come in with John the Beloved Disciple who went on up into the hall of trial. Or she may have seen Peter with Jesus on the streets of Jerusalem.

rwp@Matthew:26:70 @{I know not what thou sayest} (\ouk oida ti legeis\). It was an affectation of extreme ignorance (Bruce) that deceived no one. It was an easy and ancient dodge and easy subterfuge. Dalman (_Words of Jesus_, 80f.) suggests that Peter used the Galilean Aramaean word for know instead of the Judean Aramaean word which betrayed at once his Galilean residence.

rwp@Matthew:26:71 @{Into the porch} (\eis ton pulna\). But Peter was not safe out here, for another maid recognized him and spoke of him as "this fellow" (\houtos\) with a gesture to those out there.

rwp@Matthew:26:72 @{With an oath} (\meta horkou\). This time Peter added an oath, probably a former habit so common to the Jews at that time, and denied acquaintance with Jesus. He even refers to Jesus as "the man" (\ton anthrpon\), an expression that could convey contempt, "the fellow."

rwp@Matthew:26:73 @{They that stood by} (\hoi hesttes\). The talk about Peter continued. Luke (Luke:22:59|) states that the little while was about an hour. The bystanders came up to Peter and bluntly assert that he was "of a truth" (\alths\) one of the followers of Jesus for his speech betrayed him. Even the Revised Version retains "bewrayeth," quaint old English for "betrayeth." The Greek has it simply "makes thee evident" (\dlon se poiei\). His dialect (\lalia\) clearly revealed that he was a Galilean. The Galileans had difficulty with the gutterals and Peter's second denial had exposed him to the tormenting raillery of the loungers who continued to nag him.

rwp@Matthew:26:74 @{Then began he to curse and to swear} (\tote rxato katathematizein kai omnuein\). He repeated his denial with the addition of profanity to prove that he was telling the truth instead of the lie that they all knew. His repeated denials gave him away still more, for he could not pronounce the Judean gutterals. He called down on himself (\katathematizein\) imprecations in his desperate irritation and loss of self-control at his exposure. {The cock crew} (\alektn ephnsen\). No article in the Greek, just "a cock crew" at that juncture, "straightway" (\euthus\). But it startled Peter.

rwp@Matthew:26:75 @{Peter remembered} (\emnsth ho Petros\). A small thing, but _magna circumstantia_ (Bengel). In a flash of lightning rapidity he recalled the words of Jesus a few hours before (Matthew:26:34|) which he had then scouted with the proud boast that "even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee" (26:35|). And now this triple denial was a fact. There is no extenuation for the base denials of Peter. He had incurred the dread penalty involved in the words of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:10:33| of denial by Jesus before the Father in heaven. But Peter's revulsion of feeling was as sudden as his sin. {He went out and wept bitterly} (\exelthn ex eklausen pikrs\). Luke adds that the Lord turned and looked upon Peter (Luke:22:61|). That look brought Peter back to his senses. He could not stay where he now was with the revilers of Jesus. He did not feel worthy or able to go openly into the hall where Jesus was. Songs:outside he went with a broken heart. The constative aorist here does not emphasize as Mark's imperfect does (Mark:14:72|, \eklaien\) the continued weeping that was now Peter's only consolation. The tears were bitter, all the more so by reason of that look of understanding pity that Jesus gave him. One of the tragedies of the Cross is the bleeding heart of Peter. Judas was a total wreck and Peter was a near derelict. Satan had sifted them all as wheat, but Jesus had prayed specially for Peter (Luke:22:31f.|). Will Satan show Peter to be all chaff as Judas was?