*26:2 Jesus knew just how He was going to die. I take it that our Lord's statement here settles the question of the exact day of the crucifixion. It was late Tuesday afternoon, probably about 6:00 p.m.—adding two days takes us to 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, but the proceedings in the upper room began after 6:00 p.m. on that Thursday, which to the Jews was already Friday. Therefore Jesus died on a Friday [not Thursday]. Our Lord's own statements have given rise to some confusion: referring to the time period between His death and resurrection He said—“on the third day”, “after three days” and “three days and three nights”. So some have argued that Jesus died on a Thursday, or even a Wednesday. Well, Wednesday won't work because that would make 3 days and 4 nights; but Thursday gives 3 nights and 2 full days, plus a part of a third day; while Friday gives 2 nights and 1 full day, plus a part of a second day. We take it that “3 days and 3 nights” was an idiomatic expression that could refer to three 24 hour days represented by some part of each, but in sequence—in this case: Friday, Saturday and Sunday. (See also Luke 23:54-24:1—Jesus was buried on Friday afternoon; then the women rested during the Sabbath [singular = just one day]; then early the first day of the week they went to the tomb.)
†26:3 The real high priest was Annas, but in an effort to diminish the political power of the high priest the Romans obliged the Jews to name a different one every year, and that year it was Caiaphas.
‡26:7 This incident must not be confused with the one in John 12:1-11. In John, Mary anoints His feet on Saturday (03/30/30), while in Matthew and Mark an unidentified woman anoints His head on Wednesday (04/03/30). The houses are also different. In the earlier incident only Judas ventured to criticize the hostess, but here a number of them chime in—He had already been anointed once, so why do it again?
§26:11 Jesus is referring here to His physical presence (see Matthew 28:20).
*26:13 So it has been, to this day.
†26:15 Apparently the ‘wasted’ perfume was the last straw for Judas. (If he also finally got the message that Jesus was about to be killed instead of setting up the Kingdom, he may have rebelled.)
‡26:19 Clearly the use of the upper room had been arranged beforehand.
§26:22 Perhaps 3% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, have “one after another” (as in NIV, LB, TEV, etc.), as if it were an orderly proceeding, each one politely waiting for his turn. Not really—they were shocked; what Jesus had just said couldn't be true! As a gut reaction each one started saying, “It cannot be me, can it?”, all at once. Apparently none of them suspected Judas.
*26:24 In John 17:12 the Lord calls him “the son of perdition” and declares him to be “lost”.
†26:25 Judas phrases his question just like the others, only saying ‘Rabbi’ instead of ‘Lord’. The Lord's answer confirms that it is Judas. Mark and Luke also record this incident, but the one recorded in John 13:21-30 happened later.
‡26:26 In John 13:1 we read, “before the feast of the Passover”, and in 13:2, “supper being ended” [less than 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, have ‘during supper’—as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.]. They ate an ordinary meal before the Passover ritual. In John 13:4-11 Jesus washes their feet because they could not proceed with the ritual while ceremonially unclean. In Matthew 26:21 they were eating the ordinary meal. Here in verse 26 they are now into the ritual (I think)—the foot washing happened between verse 25 and verse 26.
§26:28 Here, and in Mark 14:24, perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit ‘new’ (as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.). The original reading, as also in Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25, is new covenant.
*26:29 “With you”—presumably at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb? The vinegar in John 19:29 would not qualify as “this fruit”.
†26:30 For a detailed discussion of Peter's denials, please see the Appendix: How many times did Jesus say that Peter would deny Him?
‡26:31 See Zachariah 13:7.
§26:34 The emphasis here is on the silence of all roosters until Peter denies at least three times. This is actually the third prediction—the first is in John 13:36-38 and the second is in Luke 22:31-34.
*26:38 I take it that Jesus faced the full implications of the cross at this point—that He would be made sin, be separated from the Father—and the anguish of soul was so terrible that He almost died. Luke 22:44 records that Jesus sweat blood, “great drops” of it—a rare condition that is usually fatal. Verse 43 records that an angel from heaven strengthened Him. I believe Hebrews 5:7 refers to this moment; Jesus cried out to be delivered from a premature death in the Garden, He had to get to the cross, and the Father sent an angel to strengthen Him. [Perhaps 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit Luke 22:43-44.]
†26:39 How did Matthew know what Jesus prayed? It is not clear whether the “stone's throw” (Luke 22:41) refers to the nine, or the three, but even if the three were within earshot how much would they hear asleep? Did Jesus tell them after His resurrection? Or did the Holy Spirit simply reveal it? And how did they know about the blood if they were asleep?
‡26:42 Notice that the second prayer is less ‘desperate’—Jesus is getting the victory over His anguish. I believe the real battle was won in Gethsemane—the cross was just the mopping-up.
§26:43 The Greek verb phrase here is a periphrastic pluperfect, passive voice = ‘had been’. The clear implication is that there was supernatural involvement. Just as Jesus had to face the devil alone in the desert, without angelic help (Matthew 4:11), so here He faced His trial alone, without human help.
*26:45 I take it that Jesus is reproving them with a bit of gentle sarcasm, since He goes on to say, “Get up”—although there could have been an interval between verses 45 and 46.
†26:47 Jesus had repeatedly demonstrated unusual power, and they were probably expecting some resistance—hence the crowd.
‡26:50 Jesus knew perfectly well why Judas was there, so why did He call him “friend”? Perhaps to show that He held no personal animosity against him. Here read John 18:4-9. Jesus is clearly in control. They finally laid hands on Him only because He allowed it—it had to be; it was the Father's will.
§26:51 From John 18:10 we know that it was Peter, and that the servant was Malchus. The Text has ‘the servant’, so the high priest had probably put him in charge of the operation. Obviously Peter is not used to wielding a sword.
*26:53 That would be a minimum of 36,000—probably enough to handle the situation, don't you think?
†26:61 Of course, Jesus had said nothing of the kind, but even if He had, it would just be stupid, not criminal.
‡26:62 A freer rendering would be, “Aren't you going to answer?”—the priest was frustrated, getting desperate. He had to get results.
§26:63 What the priest did was cowardly and illegal. He had to come up with two witnesses on his own. Of course, under oath to the Living God Jesus had to answer, and of course He would tell the truth. And if He told the truth it wasn't blasphemy. During His ministry He had given more than enough evidence in support of His claim. They simply refused to acknowledge it. From the way Caiaphas framed the oath, I think he knew in his heart that Jesus was indeed the Messiah (just as Satan knows it) but had determined to rebel against Him.
*26:64 Jesus made it easy for him, gave him more than he asked. According to the Plan, He had to be condemned.
†26:68 Just like Satan entered Judas (John 13:27), the gang here was probably under satanic influence (which would help to explain their perversity).
‡26:75 Yes, but only after Jesus looked at him (Luke 22:61) and broke the satanic spell (Luke 22:31).