Mateus 26
James Montgomery Boice · Citado em PreceptAustin
Mateus 26
Boice - Not long ago a friend sent me a card with a picture of a small boy wearing a straw hat and floating on an inner tube on a tranquil country pond. His head was thrown back. He was in perfect peace. The caption read: "Each life needs its own quiet place." The verses we come to next in Matthew 26 (AND HERE IN MARK) are like that. They are a quiet place at the center of the storm that is about to break. The rulers of the people are plotting how they might take Jesus' life. Judas has offered to betray Jesus to them at the earliest possible opportunity ILLUSTRATION - The Portia (Por-sha) Spider: a jumping spider that uses deception and mimicry to catch and eat other spiders. It uses camouflage or it shows a kind of behavioral mimicry: It imitates something its intended victim finds harmless or even attractive. (i.e. it crawls on a spider's web, then plucks the web to imitate a captured insect) It varies its web signals to suit its specific victim. If it encounters a new spider species, it tries different signals rather randomly. (It was once observed to perform vibratory behavior for 3 days until the victim decided to investigate) That seems to be similar to our enemy the devil who seeks to rob, destroy, or sift us like wheat! Talk about ruining a good meal! (Lk 22:21+) THE BITE OF BETRAYAL! (Lk 22:21-23+) (21) In the East the worst breach of Friendship is for one to eat another’s bread & secretly betray him. (Gospel Light ; George M. Lamsa; pg.300.) To eat bread is a token of loyalty, love, & devotion. His hand is on the table - is an Aramaic colloquialism, which means, “he is eating my bread & yet he is plotting against me.” (Brian Bell) CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL ACCOUNTS OF THE EVENTS RELATED TO THE LAST PASSOVER & LAST SUPPER From the chart below we can make several observations regarding the timing of the events at the Last Passover and Last Supper as described in the Synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel. The betrayal is announced in all 4 Gospel accounts. Both Matthew and Mark place Jesus' announcement of a betrayer in their midst before His institution of the Lord's Supper. Luke places the disclosure of the betrayer after the institution of the Lord's Supper (see explanation). Luke's account has three discussions not in Matthew or Mark. John's Gospel makes no specific mention of the institution of the Lord's Supper, but includes the Upper Room Discourse not present in the synoptic Gospels. Most commentaries feel that Judas left the Passover meal before the Lord instituted the Lord's supper and before Jesus gave them the Upper Room Discourse in John 13-16. Stated another way, according to Matthew and Mark, the betrayal announcement came between the two suppers and is considered to be chronologically out of place in Luke. Thus the chronology of these events can be somewhat confusing if one relies solely on Luke's account which discusses the betrayal after the institution of the Lord's Supper. Clearly, it is almost unthinkable that Judas would have shared in the precious truth of the Lord's Supper and the institution of the New Covenant as is only for those who are genuine believers in Jesus. On the other hand, to be given the morsel by the host during the Passover meal was to be singled out for special honor and so Jesus was giving Judas an opportunity to repent when He bestowed this honor (John 13:26+) CHRONOLOGY OF GOSPEL ACCOUNTS OF EVENTS RELATED TO LAST PASSOVER & LORD'S SUPPER MATTHEW'S GOSPEL Matthew 26:21-25+ Betrayal Announced Matthew 26:26-29+ Lord's Supper Instituted MARK'S GOSPEL Mark 14:18-21+ Betrayal Announced Mark 14:22-25+ Lord's Supper Instituted LUKE'S GOSPEL Luke 22:19-20+ Lord's Supper Instituted Luke 22:21-23+ Betrayal Announced Luke 22:24-30+ Disciples Argue over Who is Greatest NOT IN Matthew or Mark Luke 22:31-35+ Jesus' Prophecy of Peter's Denial NOT IN Matthew or Mark Luke 22:36-38+ Jesus Talks of Swords NOT IN Matthew or Mark JOHN'S GOSPEL John 13:1-16+ Jesus' Example Washing Feet NOT IN SYNOPTIC GOSPELS John 13:17-30+ Betrayal Announced More Detail than Synoptic Gospels John 13-16 Jesus' Upper Room Discourse NOT IN SYNOPTIC GOSPELS NO MENTION of Lord's Supper Spurgeon's Commentary on Psalm 55:13-14 Whole Psalm. A prayer of the Man Christ in his humiliation, despised and rejected of men, when he was made sin for his people, that they might be made the righteousness of God in him, when he was about to suffer their punishment, pay their debt, and discharge their ransom. Utter depravity of the inhabitants of Jerusalem; betrayal of Messiah by one of the twelve whom he had ordained to the apostolical office, and who was Messiah's constant attendant in all his ministerial circuits. Premature and punitive death of the traitor Judas, and of others banded together to crucify the Lord of glory. John Noble Coleman, M.A., in "A Revision of the authorised English Version of the Book of Psalms, "1863. But it is you,. He sees him. The poetic fury is upon him, he sees the traitor as though he stood before him in flesh and blood. He singles him out, he points his finger at him, he challenges him to his face. But thou. Et tu, Brute. And thou, Ahithophel, art thou here? Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man? A man mine equal. Treated by me as one of my own rank, never looked upon as an inferior, but as a trusted friend. My guide, a counsellor so sage that I trusted thine advice and found it prudent to do so. And mine acquaintance, with whom I was on most intimate terms, who knew me even as I knew him by mutual disclosures of heart. No stranger occasionally conversed with, but a near and dear friend admitted to my secret fellowship. It was fiendish treason for such a one to prove false hearted. There was no excuse for such villainy. Judas stood very much in this relation to our Lord, he was treated as an equal, trusted as treasurer, and in that capacity often consulted with. He knew the place where the Master was wont to spend his solitude; in fact, he knew all the Master's movements, and yet he betrayed him to his remorseless adversaries. How justly might the Lord have pointed at him and said, But thou; but his gentler spirit warned the son of perdition in the mildest manner, and had not Iscariot been tenfold a child of hell he would have relinquished his detestable purpose. We who had sweet fellowship together It was not merely the counsel which men take together in public or upon common themes, their fellowship had been tender and confidential. The traitor had been treated lovingly, and trusted much. Solace, mutual and cheering, had grown out of their intimate communings. There were secrets between them of no common kind. Soul had been in converse with soul, at least on David's part. However feigned might have been the affection of the treacherous one, the betrayed friend had not dealt with him coldly, or guarded his utterance before him. Shame on the wretch who could belie such fellowship, and betray such confidence! And walked unto the house of God in company. Religion had rendered their intercourse sacred, they had mingled their worship, and communed on heavenly themes. If ever any bonds ought to be held inviolable, religious connections should be. There is a measure of impiety, of a detestable sort, in the deceit which debases the union of men who make profession of godliness. Shall the very altar of God be defiled with hypocrisy? Shall the gatherings of the temple be polluted by the presence of treachery? All this was true of Ahithophel, and in a measure of Judas. His union with the Lord was on the score of faith, they were joined in the holiest of enterprises, he had been sent on the most gracious of errands. His cooperation with Jesus to serve his own abominable ends stamped him as the firstborn of hell. Better had it been for him had he never been born. Let all deceitful professors be warned by his doom, for like Ahithophel he went to his own place by his own hand, and retains a horrible preeminence in the calendar of notorious crime. Here was one source of heart break for the Redeemer, and it is shared in by his followers. Of the serpent's brood some vipers still remain, who will sting the hand that cherished them, and sell for silver those who raised them to the position which rendered it possible for them to be so abominably treacherous. The Paschal ceremonial, Arthur Carr (a) The meal began with a cup of red wine mixed with water: this is the first cup mentioned, Luke 22:17+. After this the guests washed their hands. Here probably must be placed the washing of the disciples’ feet, John 13. (b) The bitter herbs, symbolic of the bitter bondage in Egypt, were then brought in together with unleavened cakes, and a sauce called charoseth, made of fruits and vinegar, into which the unleavened bread and bitter herbs were dipped. This explains “He it is, to whom I shall give a sop,” John 13:26+. (c) The second cup was then mixed and blessed like the first. The father then explained the meaning of the rite (Exod. 13:8+). This was the haggadah or “shewing forth,” a term transferred by St Paul to the Christian meaning of the rite (1 Cor. 11:26+). The first part of the “hallel” (Psalms 113 and 114) was then chanted by the company. (d) After this the paschal lamb was placed before the guests. This is called in a special sense “the supper.” But at the Last Supper there was no paschal lamb. There was no need now of the typical lamb without blemish, for the antitype was there. Christ Himself was our Passover “sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7+). He was there being slain for us—His body was being given, His blood being shed. At this point, when according to the ordinary ritual the company partook of the paschal lamb, Jesus “took bread and blessed it, and gave it to his disciples” (v. 26). (e) The third cup, or “cup of blessing,” so called because a special blessing was pronounced upon it, followed: “after supper he took the cup” (Luke). “He took the cup when he had supped” (Paul). This is the “cup” named in v. 27. (f) After a fourth cup the company chanted (see v. 30) the second part of the “hallel” (Psalms 115–118). (Lightfoot Hor. Hebr. Dr Ginsburg in Kitto’s Encycl., Dr Edersheim Temple Services.) MacArthur The eating of the Passover meal involved a strictly defined sequence. First, the initial cup of red wine mixed with water was served. Wine was always mixed with water before drinking, but during Passover it was diluted with a double amount of water, lest anyone should desecrate the most sacred occasion by becoming drunk. Partaking of the first cup was preceded by the giving of thanks to God (see Luke 22:17+). Second, the ceremonial washing of hands preceded the main part of the meal, signifying the need for moral and spiritual cleansing and holiness of heart. Because they were celebrating God’s deliverance from spiritual bondage to sin as they remembered His deliverance from physical bondage to Egypt, it was important that celebrants come to the table cleansed. It is significant that shortly after that the disciples started another “dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest” (Luke 22:24+). After having cleansed their hands, it was obvious that their hearts were still as proud, self-serving, and ambitious as ever (cf. Mark 9:34+). It may have been at this time that Jesus “rose from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, … began to wash the disciples’ feet” (John 13:4–5+). The Lord specifically explained to the disciples that He had washed their feet “as an example that you also should do as I did to you” (v. 15). Washing another person’s feet was normally done by a servant and was considered by most Jews to be the most demeaning of tasks. Jesus’ example of humble, selfless service was a stinging rebuke of the disciples’ pride and a profound lesson in condescending love. To that visualized rebuke the Lord added a verbal one, saying, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ But not so with you, but let him who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as the servant” (Luke 22:25–26+). The third part of the Passover meal was the eating of bitter herbs, symbolic of the bitter bondage their forefathers had endured in Egypt. As mentioned above, these herbs and pieces of unleavened bread were dipped in the charoseth, the thick mixture of ground fruit and nuts. The fourth part was the taking of the second cup of wine. When the head of the household, the Lord in the present case, took that second cup, he would explain the meaning of the Passover. Following that would be singing from the Hallel, which means “praise” and is the term from which hallelujah is derived. The Hallel consisted of Psalms 113–18, and at this point the first two were normally sung. After the singing, the roasted lamb would be brought out. The head of the household would again wash his hands and then break pieces of the unleavened bread and hand them out to be eaten with the lamb. Matthew 26:22 Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him, “Surely not I, Lord?” Mk 14:19,20+, Lu 22:23+, John 13:22-25+ John 21:17+ Related Passages: Mark 14:19-20+ They began to be grieved and to say to Him one by one, “Surely not I?” 20 And He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl. Luke 22:23+ (ONLY LUKE GIVES THIS INTERESTING DETAIL) And they began to discuss among themselves which one of them it might be who was going to do this thing. (IMAGINE THOSE WHO SPOKE WITH JUDAS!) John 13:22-23+ The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking. 23 There was reclining on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. DISCIPLES' DEEP GRIEF AND PERSONAL DOUBT Being deeply (sphodra) grieved (lupeo) - There were eleven truly grieved, and one greatly relieved! (that Jesus did not disclose his identity) Grieved (lupeo) is in the present tense describing their grief continuing as the meal went on. One wonders what this shocking news would have done to their appetites! In a sense this was a merciful call to Judas Iscariot to come to his senses and repent of his evil plans. John 13:22+ gives us a sense of the shock of the disciples who "began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking." Luke 22:23+ adds "they began to discuss among themselves which one of them it might be who was going to do this thing." They each one (hekastos - each and every one) began (archo started) to say to Him, “Surely not (meti) I, Lord?" (kurios) - Note each one is the Greek word hekastos which means every single one, including the lying one, Judas. Judas was forced to lie to Jesus, for he had already made up his mind (Jn 12:4-6+). Notice how one sin invariably gives birth to other sins! (O that I might remember what I just wrote!) Their question “Surely not I, Lord?" supports the premise that when Jesus made His prophecy, He glanced around the table and peered into the eyes of all twelve men. The Greek grammatical construction expects a negative response, which would apropos for eleven, but not for Judas. We are all a Judas because each and every sin against Jesus is an act of betrayal, and a personal one at that. THOUGHT on "Surely not I, Lord." - In a painful sense the answer to the question...“Is it I?” requires an answer of “yes” from each and every one of us. Yes, Judas betrayed Jesus, but by morning all the disciples would betray Him. Judas betrayed Him for greed (Mk 14:10-11+), but the rest would betray Him from weakness (Mk 14:37-42+), fear (Mk 14:50-52+) and cowardice (Mk 14:66-72+). But what about you? What about me? James Edwards hits us right between the eyes when he writes, “Surely not I?” How that protest echoes down the centuries” (See The Gospel according to Mark p. 424). We are all a Judas because each and every sin against Jesus is an act of betrayal, and a personal one at that. And yet this is where the grace of the gospel shines so bright, clean and pure. Even those who betray this great King and glorious Savior can experience immediate and complete forgiveness through simple repentance and confession of sin (1 John 1:9+). Godly repentance will grieve, even weep, over the terrible thing it has done (2Co 7:9-10+). But then it flees to Jesus who took that very sin on Himself at the cross. In grace God forgives. And, He provides the strength to move forward in the “family of the forgiven.” What a great family that is! If only Judas had turned from his sin! (Daniel Akin) Hiebert - Aware of their own weakness, they expressed a feeling of uncertainty about themselves; yet none of the eleven knew of anything in himself that could lead him to such a deed of treachery. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) In Mt 26:25+ Judas offers a second, hypocritical query, "Surely it is not I, Rabbi?” (he did not use Lord the second time) to which Jesus replied “You have said it yourself.”
Mateus 26
Boice - The Gospel of Matthew: The Triumph of the King, Matthew 18-28). Woe (alas, how dreadful) (3759 - click and select "Phonetics" to hear "ouai" pronounced) (ouai pronounced "oo-ah'ee," an eerie, ominous foreboding sound some say is like the cry of an eagle) is an onomatopoeic word (an imitation of the sound) which serves as an interjection or lamentation (e.g., at funerals 1Ki 13:30+) expressing an outburst of emotion, a cry of intense distress, displeasure, pain, sorrow or horror. An exclamation denoting pain or displeasure. Sometime woe was used to attract attention (Isa. 55:1). Less frequently, it occurs as a noun denoting a disaster or calamity. The OT prophets would often open their prophetic utterances of coming divine judgment with the word "Woe!" (Isa. 5:8-10+; Mic 2:1-5+) An interjection expressing great distress or sorrow; or a noun signifying a condition of deep suffering due to a calamity that has befallen or will befall a person or community. It may convey a warning of impending disaster to the hearers. BDAG - ① interjection denoting pain or displeasure, woe, alas ② a state of intense hardship or distress, woe OUAI - 47X/36V - woe(46), woes(1). (NOTE - MOST OFTEN FROM THE LIPS OF JESUS!) Matt. 11:21+; Matt. 18:7+; Matt. 23:13+; Matt. 23:14+; Matt. 23:15+; Matt. 23:16+; Matt. 23:23+; Matt. 23:25+; Matt. 23:27+; Matt. 23:29+; Matt. 24:19+; Matt. 26:24+; Mk. 13:17+; Mk. 14:21+; Lk. 6:24+; Lk. 6:25+; Lk. 6:26+; Lk. 10:13+; Lk. 11:42+; Lk. 11:43+; Lk. 11:44+; Lk. 11:46+; Lk. 11:47+; Lk. 11:52+; Lk. 17:1+; Lk. 21:23+; Lk. 22:22+; 1 Co. 9:16+; Jude 1:11+; Rev. 8:13+; Rev. 9:12+; Rev. 11:14+; Rev. 12:12+; Rev. 18:10+; Rev. 18:16+; Rev. 18:19+ Norman Geisler - Does Jesus’ statement about how it would have been better if Judas had never been born support the annihilationist’s view? MISINTERPRETATION: Jesus said of Judas, who was sent to perdition, that “it would be better for him if he had not been born” (Mark 14:21+NIV) (ED: Mt 26:24+). But before one is conceived one does not exist. Thus, annihilationists argue that if hell will be like the prebirth condition, it must be a state of nonexistence. Annihilationism must therefore be true. Is this a proper conclusion? CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: Jesus is not comparing Judas’s perdition to his non-existence before birth. This hyperbolic figure of speech indicates the severity of his punishment, not the superiority of nonbeing over being. Further, nothing cannot be better than something, since they have nothing in common to compare them. So nonbeing cannot be actually better than being. It is a category mistake to assume they can. In a parallel condemnation on the Pharisees, Jesus said Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented had they seen his miracles (Matt. 11:20–24+). This does not mean that they actually would have repented (or God would surely have shown them these miracles—2 Peter 3:9+). It is simply a powerful figure of speech indicating that their sin was so great that “it would be more tolerable” (Matt. 11:24+) in the day of judgment for Sodom than for them. So even in this phrase about Judas there is no proof of annihilation of the wicked. The Bible makes clear references to the lost being in conscious torment and punishment after their death. Jesus said it is a place “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12+; cf. 22:13; 24:51; 25:30). But those who are not conscious do not weep. See Matthew 25:46+. QUESTION - What does it mean that Jesus is the Son of Man? | GotQuestions.org (View Video) ANSWER - Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Man” 82 times in the New Testament (NIV and ESV). In fact, Son of Man is the primary title Jesus used when referring to Himself (e.g., Matthew 12:32+; Matthew 13:37+; Luke 12:8+; John 1:51+). The only use of Son of Man in a clear reference to Jesus, spoken by someone other than Jesus, came from the lips of Stephen as he was being martyred (Acts 7:56+). Son of Man is a title of humanity. Other titles for Christ, such as Son of God, are overt in their focus on His deity. Son of Man, in contrast, focuses on the humanity of Christ. God called the prophet Ezekiel “son of man” 93 times. In this way, God was simply calling Ezekiel a human being. Son of man is simply a periphrastic term for “human.” Jesus Christ was truly a human being. He came “in the flesh” (1 John 4:2+). Son of Man is a title of humility. The Second Person of the Trinity, eternal in nature, left heaven’s glory and took on human flesh, becoming the Son of Man, born in a manger and “despised and rejected by mankind” (Isaiah 53:3+). The Son of Man had “no place to lay his head” (Luke 9:58+). The Son of Man ate and drank with sinners (Matthew 11:19+). The Son of Man suffered at the hands of men (Matthew 17:12+). This intentional lowering of His status from King of Heaven to Son of Man is the epitome of humility (see Philippians 2:6–8+). Son of Man is a title of deity. Ezekiel may have been a son of man, but Jesus is the Son of Man. As such, Jesus is the supreme example of all that God intended mankind to be, the embodiment of truth and grace (John 1:14+). In Him “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9+). For this reason, the Son of Man was able to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6+). The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28+). The Son of Man came to save lives (Luke 9:56+; Luke 19:10+), rise from the dead (Mark 9:9+), and execute judgment (John 5:27+). At His trial before the high priest, Jesus said, “I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64+). This statement immediately ended the trial, as the court accused the Lord of blasphemy and condemned Him to death (verses 65–66). Son of Man is a fulfillment of prophecy. Jesus’ claim before the high priest to be the Son of Man was a reference to the prophecy of Daniel 7:13–14+, “I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed” (NKJV). Daniel saw glory, worship, and an everlasting kingdom given to the Messiah—here called the “Son of Man”—and Jesus applied this prophecy to Himself. Jesus also spoke of His coming kingdom on other occasions (Matthew 13:41+; Matthew 16:28+). The author of Hebrews used a reference to the “son of man” in the Psalms to teach that Jesus, the true Son of Man, will be the ruler of all things (Hebrews 2:5–9+; cf. Psalm 8:4–6). The Son of Man, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, will be the King. Jesus was fully God (John 1:1+), but He was also fully human (John 1:14+). As the Son of God and the Son of Man, He is deserving of both titles. QUESTION - Was Judas Iscariot forgiven / saved? ANSWER - The Bible clearly indicates that Judas was not saved. Jesus Himself said of Judas, “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24+). Here is a clear picture of the sovereignty of God and the will of man working together. God had, from ages past, determined that Christ would be betrayed by Judas, die on the cross for our sins, and be resurrected. This is what Jesus meant when He said He would “go just as it is written about him.” Nothing would stop the plan of God to provide salvation for mankind. However, the fact that it was all foreordained does not excuse Judas or absolve him from the punishment he would suffer for his part in the drama. Judas made his own choices, and they were the source of his own damnation. Yet the choices fit perfectly into the sovereign plan of God. God controls not only the good, but also the evil of man to accomplish His own ends. Here we see Jesus condemning Judas, but considering that Judas travelled with Jesus for nearly three years, we know He also gave Judas ample opportunity for salvation and repentance. Even after his dreadful deed, Judas could have fallen on his knees to beg God’s forgiveness. But he did not. He may have felt some remorse born of fear, which caused him to return the money to the Pharisees, but he never repented, preferring instead to commit suicide (Matthew 27:5-8+). In John 17:12+, Jesus prays concerning His disciples, “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” At one time, though, Judas believed that Jesus was a prophet, or possibly even believed He was the Messiah. Jesus sent the disciples out to proclaim the gospel and perform miracles (Luke 9:1-6+). Judas was included in this group. Judas had faith, but it was not a true saving faith. Judas was never “saved,” but for a time he was a follower of Christ. Related Resources: Who was Judas Iscariot? How did Judas die? Do the accounts of Judas' death contradict? What is the gospel of Judas? Why did Jesus choose Judas? Matthew 26:25 And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, “Surely it is not I, Rabbi?” Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself.” Judas: 2Ki 5:25+ Pr 30:20 You have said: Mt 26:64+ Mt 27:11+ Joh 18:37+ JUDAS' HYPOCRITICAL SELF INCRIMINATION This exchange between Jesus and Judas is only found in Matthew's Gospel. Jesus "woe" in verse 24 elicits a reaction from Judas, but unfortunately it was the wrong response. Jesus was offering Judas an opportunity to respond with repentance. And Judas, who was betraying (paradidomi - present tense) Him, said, “Surely it is not (meti) I, Rabbi?” - Rabbi (rhabbi) means my teacher, but sadly Judas was a poor student! Other than the time Judas probably chimed in with the other eleven calling Jesus Lord in Mt 26:22+ (Judas had no choice), there is no record that he ever referred to Jesus as "Lord." He will learn one day that Jesus is Lord and will be forced to call Him Lord one last time (Php 2:9-11+) before he is condemned forever to the lowest depths of eternal Hell! As the saying goes, but then it is too little, too late! Stuart Weber - Judas’ use of the respectful Rabbi was a smokescreen that hid his disrespect for Jesus. Judas was just like the hypocrites who built Jesus up with false compliments even as they were trying to take him down. (Holman New Testament Commentary - Matthew) The phrase Surely it is not (meti) I, Rabbi? expects a negative answer! This shows the self-deception of a depraved mind. Judas knew he was the one but he still phrases his question in a way that expects a negative reply! He may have been hoping for a negative reply from Jesus which would indicate that Jesus did not know who the betrayer was. Jesus immediately quashes that possibility! Jesus knew Judas was insincere in the question he was asking. Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself - Apparently Judas had the seat of honor reclining next to Jesus and this would have allowed Jesus to make this statement quiet enough so that the other eleven did not hear it. Had Peter heard it, we can imagine he would have done more than cut off an ear as he would soon do to the slave of the high priest. “You have said it yourself is "A Greek expression that deflects responsibility back upon the one asking a question (cf Mt 26:64+)" (BORROW ESVSB PAGE 1880) In other words it is an indirect way of saying ‘yes’. In effect Jesus is telling Judas that he has indicted himself with his own words! The other disciples were not aware that Jesus had identified Judas as the betrayer. The question arises at what point did Judas leave the meal (cf John 13:30+)? Many think it was at this point that Judas departed because Matthew does not refer to Judas again until Mt 26:46-47+. There are some who think Judas did not leave until after the institution of the Lord's Supper (Mt 26:26+ff) but I find that inconceivable in view of the fact that the Lord's Supper is for believers. John