Mateus 26

John MacArthur · Citado em PreceptAustin

Mateus 26

MacArthur has an additional note on tearing the robes - When the high priest ceremoniously tore his robes, he did so not out of grief and indignation over the presumed dishonor of God’s name but rather out of joy and relief that, at last, Jesus had placed Himself into their hands, condemning Himself out of His own mouth. Although Leviticus 21:10+ strictly forbade the high priest’s tearing his garments, the Talmud held that judges who witnessed blasphemy had a right to tear their robes if they later sewed them up. By his traditional and theatrical display, Caiaphas dramatically gave the appearance of defending God’s name, but inwardly he gloated over the illegal, unjust, and devilish victory he imagined he had just won. (See Matthew Commentary) and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, (idou) you have now heard the blasphemy How could God's own Son blaspheme? His works had proved him to be God, and yet they called him a blasphemer. Their spiritual blindness and hardness of hearts reminds me of Stephen's words to his Jewish antagonists in Acts 7:51+ "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did." Matthew 26:66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!” He deserves death: Lev 24:11-16+ Jn 19:7+ Ac 7:52+ Acts 13:27,28+ Jas 5:6+ Related Passages: Leviticus 24:16+ ‘Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. John 19:7+ The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.” CAIAPHAS CALL INVOKES A CHORUS OF "DEATH" What do you think (dokeo)?” - Caiaphas addresses the question of the ages to the Sanhedrin seeking an immediate verdict. MacArthur - He did not bother to have the members polled individually and the results tabulated by scribes, as judicial protocol required, but simply called for verbal support of the predetermined conclusion of guilt....Because we know that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Council but did not consent to Jesus’ condemnation (Luke 23:50–51+), he obviously had left the proceedings before this final judicial farce transpired. (See Matthew Commentary - Page 209) They answered, “He deserves (enochos literally "is [estin] guilty of [enochos]") death (thanatos) - According to Leviticus 24:16+ the penalty for blasphemy was to be death. But if the letter of the law were followed it would have to be by stoning. The problem for the Jews of course was that the Romans did not allow them to carry out capital punishment. The more significant reason that they could not carry out stoning was because God had foretold His Son would die on the Cross, not by stoning. Little did these 71 Jewish know or understand the paradox that their pronouncement of death for their Messiah would open the floodgates for life and salvation to all who would believe in His death! God would bring forth life out of death! Mark 14:64++ adds that the verdict was unanimous for "they all condemned Him to be deserving of death."

Mateus 26

MacArthur has an anecdotal comment - The impressive tomb of Absalom is still standing in the Kidron Valley just outside Jerusalem. But for thousands of years that monument has been spat on by Jewish passersby to show their contempt for Absalom’s treacherous rebellion against his father, David. (See Matthew Commentary - Page 209)

Mateus 26

MacArthur - see sermon explanation of timing) prior to the Passover. Clearly, both Mark and Matthew insert this description as a "flashback" while John gives the correct chronology of this event which would have been the preceding Saturday. In this particular and unique act of worship, when Mary poured this perfume upon Jesus' body, without her even realizing it she did it to prepare Him for burial. It became a symbolic deed that anticipated His death and burial (Mt 26:12+). And so Matthew and Mark place this event in the context of the events leading up to His betrayal, trial and crucifixion. Alan Trites - "Matthew’s account follows Mark quite closely but adds a few details of its own. It links the setting with the previous teaching of Jesus on the last judgment (Matt 25:31–46+) and records Jesus uttering another Passion prediction on the very threshold of the Passover celebration. It thus heightens the tension as the decisive hour draws near, and solemnly declares the betrayal and the ensuing crucifixion (Matt 26:1–2+). In addition, Matthew notes that the plot to kill Jesus was hatched “at the residence of Caiaphas, the high priest” (Matt 26:3+), thus highlighting the fact that Jesus came to his own people, and yet they tragically rejected him (cf. John 1:11+), even planning his execution in the house of the high priest (ED: NOTE THE TRAGIC IRONY - THE HIGH PRIEST WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE LEADER OF WORSHIP INSTEAD IS THE LEADER IN PLOTTING THE DEATH OF THE MOST HIGH GOD! "RELIGION" CAN BE A TREACHEROUS THING IN THE WRONG HANDS!)." (BORROW Luke, Acts - Page 285) QUESTION - Who was Simon the Leper? ANSWER - Simon was a very common name in New Testament times, and at least eight men bearing that name appear in the Bible. Simon Peter was one of our Lord’s closest companions (Matthew 10:2+), Simon the Zealot was another of Jesus’ disciples (Luke 6:15+), and Simon of Cyrene (Matthew 27:32+) carried Christ’s cross. Thus, “Simon the Leper” was a label given to distinguish this Simon from many others in the Bible. Simon the Leper emerges in a brief but dramatic scene recorded in Matthew 26:6–13+ and Mark 14:3–9+. While Jesus was staying in Bethany, one night He and the disciples were invited for a meal at the home of Simon the Leper. As Jesus reclined at the dinner table, an unnamed woman came in, broke an expensive flask of perfume and poured the oil over the Lord’s head, anointing Him in an extravagant act of worship. The disciples reacted with indignation at the woman’s waste of valuable resources. But Jesus told them to leave the woman alone, “for she has done a beautiful thing to me” (Matthew 26:10+, ESV). Her anointing was a fitting way to honor the Messiah-King and prepare Him for burial. This dinner at Simon the Leper’s home took place about one week before Jesus was crucified. Similar but distinct episodes are featured in Luke 7:36–50+ and John 12:1–8+. The event in Luke transpired at the home of a different Simon, “Simon the Pharisee,” with a woman referred to as only “a sinner.” The event in John happened on a different day and involved Mary of Bethany. Exactly who was Simon the Leper? This is a question that has long intrigued Bible students and scholars. In an attempt to connect Simon the Leper with the anointing recorded in John 12, some suggest that Simon was the father of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus or the husband of Martha. All we know for sure is that this Simon lived in Bethany and that he was (or had been) a leper. Almost assuredly, Simon the Leper was one of the hundreds of people whom Jesus had healed during His ministry. In any case, Simon the Leper could not have been leprous at the time Jesus visited his home. According to Leviticus 13:46+, lepers were considered unclean and “must live outside the camp.” They were to live alone and could not dwell inside the house. Anyone who attended a meal with a leper would have been considered unclean also. Thus, many scholars believe the Lord had healed this Simon of leprosy, and, in an act of gratitude, the cured man welcomed Jesus and the disciples into his home for a meal. COMPARISON OF JESUS' ANOINTING IN THREE GOSPELS John 12:1-8+ Matthew 26:6-13+ Mark 14:1-9++ Time Before Passover 6 days Jn 12:1+ None 2 days Mk 14:1+ Town Bethany Jn 12:1++ Bethany Mt 26:6+ Bethany Mk 14:3++ Home no home mentioned Jn 12:1+ home of Simon the leper Mt 26:6+ home of Simon the leper Mk 14:3+ Name of one anointing Mary Jn 12:3+ A woman Mt 26:7+ A woman Mk 14:3+ Perfume Very Costly Pure Nard Jn 12:3++ Very Costly Mt 26:7+ Very Costly Pure Nard Jn 14:3++ Container -- Alabaster Vial Mt 26:7+ Alabaster Vial Broke Mk 14:3+ Amount Pound Jn 12:2+ -- -- Value 300 Denarii Jn 12:5++ High Price Mt 26:9+ 300 Denarii Mk 14:5++ Proposed Purpose Sold...given to poor Jn 12:5++ Sold...given to poor Mt 26:8+ Sold...given to poor Mk 14:5++ Conclusion -- Why this waste? Mt 26:8+ Wasted Mk 14:4+ Persons Reacting Judas Iscariot Jn 12:4-6++ Disciples indignant: waste Mt 26:8+ Some indignant: waste Mk 14:4++ Where Anointed Anointed feet Jn 12:3+ Poured on His Head Mt 26:7+ Poured over His head Mk 14:3+ Jesus' Words Let her alone Jn 12:7++ Why bother the woman Mt 26:10+ Let her alone. Why bother her Mk 14:6++ Rationale Poor you have with you always Jn 12:8++ Poor you have with you always have Mt 26:11+ Poor you always have & can do them good Mk 14:6++ Woman's Purpose Preparation for burial Jn 12:7++ Prepared Me for burial Mt 26:12+ Done a good deed to Jesus Mk 14:6+ Woman's Renown/ Reward -- Woman's act remembered wherever Gospel preached Mt 26:13+ Woman's deed be memory wherever Gospel preached Mk 14:9+ Note that the similarities of the three accounts are highlighted in red. Even many of the differences can be explained. E.g., name of the one anointing named Mary and then referred to as woman is easily resolved. The location of the anointing in Simon the Leper would still fit John's description because he says Jesus went to Bethany but does not specifically say he went to a home. Grant Osborne adds "There are two issues related to this account that need to be addressed: (1) harmonizing the Gospel accounts and (2) the chronology of the event....The story in Mt 26:6-13+ and Mk 14:3-9+ has some interesting differences (the home of Simon the leper, an unnamed woman who breaks the jar and anoints Jesus’ head), but the similarities are far greater, and as the discussion below will show, the differences can be reasonably harmonized. These are the same account, so historically Jesus was anointed twice—first, the one in Luke and second the one reported in the other three Gospels....As to the second issue (CHRONOLOGY), the story in Matthew and Mark occurs after the Triumphal Entry, while the one here in John occurs before that event. However, this is only a problem if we demand that the Gospels follow a strictly chronological pattern. Actually, this is a modern development, and ancient historians did not do so. It has long been realized that the Gospel writers often arranged their material topically, especially the Synoptics (cf. Blomberg 1987). It is generally agreed that John probably has the correct order (he tends to have a more chronological arrangement, so Coakley 1988) and that Matthew and Mark place it where they do in order to contrast the woman’s worshipful act with Judas’s betrayal (cf. Carson, Blomberg 2001, Keener). (See The Gospel of John) THOSE IN FAVOR OF ONE ANOINTING DESCRIBED IN ALL THREE ACCOUNTS - John MacArthur, Grant Osborne, Edwin Blum (Bible Knowledge Commentary, Tom Constable, J C Ryle, A B Bruce, Rodney A Whitacre (IVP Commentary), Warren Wiersbe, William Cook (Focus on the Bible), NIV Study Bible, Reformation Study Bible, ESV Study Bible, J Vernon McGee, C L Blomberg, H. Ridderbos, William MacDonald (BORROW Believer's Bible Commentary), THOSE OPPOSED - Gotquestions.org, John Phillips NOTE: I AM SURE THERE ARE OTHERS, BUT IN MY CURSORY SURVEY OF THIS ISSUE, IT SEEMS THAT BY FAR MOST WRITERS FAVOR THE FACT THAT THE ANOINTINGS ARE PARALLEL IN JOHN, MATTHEW AND MARK. I will admit I was extremely surprised to find Charles Swindoll also included Luke's account as parallel with John, Matthew and Mark. He is in the minority on that unusual interpretation! See discussion of this interpretation. Matthew 26:7 a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. a woman came: Joh 12:2,3+ vial of very costly perfume: Ex 30:23-33+ Ps 133:2 Ec 9:8+ Ecclesiastes 10:1+ Song 1:3+ Isa 57:9 Lu 7:37,38,46+ Click picture to enlarge Ancient Way of Reclining at the Table Matthew's account skips over Martha serving supper described in John 12:2+. A woman came to Him with an alabaster vial (alabastron) of very costly perfume (muron) - John says the woman was Mary (Jn 12:3+), who is referred to as a woman in Matthew and Mark (Mk 14:3+). Mark 14:5+ says the cost of the perfume was 300 denarii, which is roughly the equivalent of a year's salary for a worker. Mark (Mk 14:3+) and John (Jn 12:3+) both identify the perfume as pure nard (nardo) which was used especially for anointing the dead. Paul Apple asks "How many of you have spent a year’s salary on expensive perfume for your wife? She would think you were nuts." It is interesting to note that in Jesus' day Jewish women often wore a perfume flask suspended from a cord round the neck, and it was so much a part of them that they were even allowed to wear it on the Sabbath (without being accused of carrying a burden)! And she poured (katacheo) it on His head as He reclined (anakeimai) at the table - Mk 14:3+ adds it was "perfume of pure nard (nardos) and she broke the vial (only Mark mentions breaking the vial) and poured it over His head." The act of breaking the vial pictures Mary as hold nothing back and displaying wholehearted devotion to her Lord. She is pouring out of her heart filled with love, gratitude and devotion to Jesus. Reclined describes the position in which meals were eaten (see illustration above) with one’s side on the floor with the head closest to the low table and the feet farthest away. Hiebert - Mk 14:3+ “An alabaster cruse (vial) of ointment of pure nard very costly” (ASV)—the cruse was a long-necked flask with no handles used for preserving precious perfumes or fragrant oils. Although such flasks might be made of other materials, perfumes were found to be best preserved in vessels made of alabaster, a finely textured, translucent stone. The flask contained “a pound of ointment,” twelve ounces of highly aromatic perfume which evaporated rapidly and left a very pleasant odor (John 12:3+). The ointment is described as “of pure nard very costly.” Nard identifies the ointment as derived from nard plants, native to India, and the source of the finest ointments. The meaning of the adjective rendered pure is uncertain, but the most probable meaning is “unadulterated.” The nard was “trustworthy,” or “pure,” as opposed to nard adulterated with inferior substances. Such ointment naturally was very costly. Mary’s possession of such costly perfume indicates that the Bethany household must have been comparatively wealthy. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) Warren

Mateus 26

MacArthur - "Though two millennia have passed, the testimony of Mary’s sacrificial worship still stands as a perpetual memorial of her love for Christ. Her heartfelt gesture—looking to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ—provides a compelling example of the kind of selfless, extravagant praise that honors the Savior." J C Ryle The deeds and titles of many a king, and emperor, and general, are as completely forgotten, as if written in the sand. But the grateful act of one humble Christian woman is recorded in one hundred and fifty different languages, and is known all over the globe. The praise of man is but for a few days. The praise of Christ endureth for ever. The pathway to lasting honor, is to honor Christ. Leon

Mateus 26

MacArthur comments "Lest that devil incarnate participate further in the Passover meal with them or in any way interfere with Jesus' last precious moments with the true disciples, and to set him loose for the final scenes of his treachery, the Lord said to the betrayer, "What you do, do quickly" (Mt 26:27+b+). Except for John, the others did not know why Jesus gave that instruction to Judas but supposed "because Judas had the money box, that Jesus was saying to him, 'Buy things we have need of for the feast'; or else, that he should give something to the poor" (Mt 26:28-29+). Jesus knew who the betrayer was; John knew; and Judas himself knew. But the rest did not know. After Judas left and Jesus was alone with the eleven faithful disciples, He transformed the Passover of the Old Covenant into the Lord's Supper of the New Covenant." (See Matthew Commentary - Page 150)

Mateus 26

MacArthur comments on this transformation from Passover to Lord's Supper - The Passover Jesus was now concluding with the disciples was the last divinely sanctioned Passover ever to be observed. No Passover celebrated after that has been authorized or recognized by God. Significant as it was under the Old Covenant, it became a remnant of a bygone economy, an extinct dispensation, an expired covenant. Its observance since that time has been no more than a religious relic that serves no divinely acknowledged purpose and has no divinely blessed significance. To celebrate the Passover is to celebrate the shadow, after the reality has already come. (ED: HIS COMMENTS BEG THE QUESTION Should Christians celebrate Passover?) Celebrating deliverance from Egypt is a weak substitute for celebrating deliverance from sin. In fact, Christ ended the Passover and instituted a new memorial to Himself. It would not look back to a lamb in Egypt as the symbol of God’s redeeming love and power, but to the very Lamb of God, who, by the sacrificial shedding of His own blood, took away the sins of the whole world. In that one meal Jesus both terminated the old and inaugurated the new." (See Matthew Commentary - Page 150) Dave Guzik makes an interesting statement that "The Passover created a nation; a mob of slaves were freed from Egypt and became a nation. This "new Passover" (ED: MY QUOTES ADDED) also creates a (ED: NEW) people; those united in Jesus Christ, remembering and trusting His sacrifice." Grassmick - Before this meal was eaten in Jewish homes the head of the house explained its meaning regarding Israel’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt. As host, Jesus probably did so to prepare His disciples for a new understanding of the bread and wine. (See Bible Knowledge Commentary) Jesus (Iesous) took some bread (artos), and after a blessing (eulogeo), He broke (klao - aorist) it and gave (imperfect) it to the disciples (mathetes) - Jesus had done the same thing when He fed the multitude in Mt 14:19+ and Mt 15:36+ -- He first blessed, then He broke. Jews explicitly blessed God for the food, rather than blessing the food. The Passover bread was unleavened bread (see also azumos). Gave is in the imperfect tense which pictures Jesus distributing the bread to one after another of the 11 remaining disciples (As alluded to above Judas is almost certainly not present having departed prior to the institution of the Lord's Supper). There does not appear to be any symbolism intended by Jesus breaking the unleavened bread (cf. Ex 12:15+; Exodus 13:3, 7+; Dt 16:3+). Yes, to be sure, in a sense His body was "broken" for us, but the Scripture is clear that not a bone of Jesus' body was broken (Jn 19:36+). Taken literally, the breaking of bread was simply a way it could then be easily distributed to all who were present. Some might ask but what about 1Co 11:24+ which says "this is My body which is broken for you." The problem is that the phrase "broken for you" is only found in the King James Version (based on Textus Receptus), and is a phrase not found in the best Greek manuscripts (Nestle–Aland). And so most modern Bible versions say something like "This is My body" without any mention of "broken for you." A T Robertson agrees writing that "Jesus broke one of the passover wafers or cakes that each might have a piece, not as a symbol of the breaking of his body as the Textus Receptus has it in 1 Cor. 11:24+. The correct text there has only to ὑπερ ὑμων [huper humōn] without κλωμενον [klōmenon - break]. As a matter of fact the body of Jesus was not “broken” (John 19:33+) as John expressly states. And said, “Take, eat; this is My body - Take and eat are both aorist imperatives which means in effect "Do this now." In other words, Jesus seems to be making the Lord's Supper a command. That Jesus intends for the Lord's Supper to be something disciples are commanded to partake of is substantiated by the command "do (present imperative - command to continually do) this in remembrance of Me" in Lk 22:19+ and Paul's 2 commands in 1Co 11:24-25+ do (aorist imperative) this in remembrance of Me”.....do (present imperative) this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”) IN REMEMBRANCE - In a memorial service, words are spoken or actions taken to pay tribute to the deceased. People may say, "I'm doing this because I know that's the way John would have wanted it." Think how inappropriate it would be for someone to clearly go against the deceased's wishes or principles. When Christians celebrate Communion, they do more than hold a memorial service. The Savior who died is alive and well, and he is present and involved in Communion. How much more, then, should believers want to conduct themselves—actions, attitudes, thoughts, and words—in a manner consistent with the love and compassion of Jesus. The next time you participate in the Lord's Supper, give serious consideration to how you will live "in remembrance of him." - Life application New Testament commentary This is My body (soma)- To what does this refer? In context, this clearly refers to the literal bread. How is body used, literally or metaphorically? Given the fact that Jesus is reclining there in His literal body, the bread which He dispenses has to be interpreted metaphorically as symbolizing His body. Any other interpretation would be absurd and is clearly a perversion of Jesus' words (see Transubstantiation)! To say it another way, Jesus' body and the piece of bread are separate and distinct! How could it be stated any more directly? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the piece of literal bread had now changed into Jesus' body. As a physician, that is absolutely ridiculous! It is very sad when people believe what men say something means rather than trusting only in what the Bible teaches! And keep in mind that Jesus often used symbolic language so His use in this case is not unusual or surprising (cf Mt 16:6+; Jn 2:19+; Jn 3:3+; Jn 4:14, 32+; Jn 6:51, 53–56+; Jn 11:11+). THOUGHT - Let me ask you again, is Jesus a piece of bread? Of course not! This is a powerful metaphor, a figure of speech which Jesus never meant it to be interpreted literally. To do so is to discard all rules of Biblical hermeneutics. Jesus is no more a piece of bread than He is a literal door (Jn 10:9+) or a literal vine (Jn 15:5+). If you have been taught to interpret the bread literally as Jesus' body, you do well to study the concept of a metaphor and ask the Spirit of truth to guide you into all truth (Jn 16:13+), truth that He teaches, not "truth" that I or any other human teaches! It is fascinating (? coincidence) that by rabbinic decree, matzah bread must be striped, pierced, and burned in such a way as to appear bruised. Woe! Is this likeness just a random coincidence? Dear believer in Messiah, what do you think? Luke's version adds the phrase "Which is given for you." (Lk 22:19+) This declaration looks forward to Calvary. The bread represents Jesus' body which would be His vicarious gift. It is His body which is given for us, where the Greek for for is huper, which means "in behalf of", "in the place of" or "for the sake of." For example, Paul uses huper in Gal 1:4+ writing about Jesus Christ "Who gave Himself for (huper) our sins so that (purpose clause) He might rescue (deliver) us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father." Can you see what Jesus is saying with the phrase "for (huper) you?" He is clearly alluding to substitutionary atonement, in essence saying that His sinless body is sacrificed in place of (huper) our sinful body on the Cross. Jesus died once for all time in our place, on our behalf, for our sake, so that we might live forever in Him and for Him! In his famous declaration, Paul says “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR (huper) ME." (Gal 2:20+; cf Jn 10:15+ = "My life for [huper] the sheep"). In short, Lk 22:19+ uses huper to depict substitutionary atonement which could be paraphrased as below... Christ “for the sake of" ______ (fill in your name). Christ "in behalf of"_________ (fill in your name). Christ "instead of”_________ (fill in your name). R T France adds that Jesus' words introduce "the concept of a personal participation in the effects of that death (ED: HIS DEATH ON THE CROSS), a concept more powerfully spelt out in John 6:48–58+. If the eating of the Passover meal served to identify the Israelite with the redemption from Egypt (ED: CELEBRATING DELIVERANCE FROM PHYSICAL SLAVERY), so does this ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ convey the benefits of Jesus’ paschal sacrifice to those who share his table." (ED: CELEBRATING DELIVERANCE FROM SPIRITUAL SLAVERY TO SIN!) COMMENT - France says "convey the benefits," but I think it is better to say the ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ symbolically depict the benefits of the Cross (e.g., our co-crucifixion with Christ - Gal 2:20+) while also causing us to call to remembrance (see above for 1Co 11:24-25+) Christ once for all time victory on the Cross over sin, death and the devil and the fact that His victory is now our's to live in daily and ultimately forever! (cf Gal 6:14+, 1Co 1:18+) Paul goes on to explain the DUAL PURPOSE of the Lord's Supper writing "FOR (gar - term of explanation) as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death (LOOK BACK - YOU REMEMBER CHRIST'S CROSS - OUR SURETY) until He comes (LOOK FORWARD - YOU RECOUNT CHRIST'S COMING - OUR SURE HOPE!). (1Co 11:26+) And what does sure hope that Christ will return do to our faith and obedience? Future hope energizes and invigorates present living. What/Who you are looking for will (should) impact Who you are living for! A T

Mateus 26

MacArthur - As the Passover celebration concluded, Jesus and the disciples sang a closing song, likely the final psalm of the traditional Hallel (Ps. 118+). It is difficult to imagine a more fitting benediction, since the repeated refrain of Psalm 118+ is that the loving-kindness of God is everlasting (Ps 118:1-3, 29+). No refrain could have been more fitting in light of the imminence of the cross. (See Mark Commentary) John Grassmick points out that "The Hallel (praise) Psalms (ED: What are the Hallel Psalms?) were sung or chanted antiphonally in connection with the Passover—the first two (Ps 113-114) before the meal, the remaining four (Ps 115-118) after it to conclude the evening observance. Such verses as Psalm 118:6-7, 17-18, 22-24+ gain added significance on Jesus' lips just before His suffering and death." Since their conversation after the meal included Jesus’ (upper room) discourse and prayer (John 13:31–17:26), it was probably near midnight when He and the Eleven (minus Judas) finally left the Upper Room and the city. They crossed the Kidron Valley (cf. John 18:1+) to the western slopes of the Mount of Olives (cf. Mark 11:1+a) where Gethsemane was located (Mk 14:32+) (See Bible Knowledge Commentary - Page 178) Henry

Mateus 26

MacArthur has an interesting comment on not as I will (thelo), but as You will - This conflict between what I will and what Thou wilt reveals the reality of the amazing fact that Jesus was truly being tempted. Though sinless and unable to sin, He clearly could be brought into the real conflict of temptation (see Heb. 4:15+). (Matthew Commentary) There are no disappointments to those whose wills are buried in the will of God. -- Faber Brian Bell - This comes against the traditional picture of Jesus on 1 knee, hands reverently folded, leaning against a rock, & gazing off into the distance w/a warm glow about Him. God was on His Face…what a sight. As much as His Human nature shrank from the cup, still more did He shrink from any thought of acting contrary to His Fathers will. [but as You will] Nevertheless (Mt 26:39+KJV) - The most wonderful nevertheless in the bible.

Mateus 26

MacArthur - The Lord did not use the usual word (philos) for friend, which He used of the Twelve in John 15:14+. Instead He addressed Judas merely as hetairos, which is better translated “fellow,” “comrade,” or “companion.” Jesus had offered Himself to be Judas’s friend, and more than that, to be his Savior. But the opportunity for salvation had passed, and in light of Judas’s unspeakable treachery, even fellow was a gracious form of address. (SEE Matthew Commentary - Page 187)

Mateus 26

MacArthur points out that "Like a first-century mafia family, Annas and his sons controlled the lucrative temple operation, including money changing and the sale of sacrificial animals, which was so closely associated with him that it became notoriously nicknamed the Bazaar of Annas. Jesus disrupted the corrupt enterprise when He single-handedly evacuated the temple earlier that week (Mark 11:15–18+)." (See Mark Commentary)

Mateus 26

MacArthur - Revealing their true decadence, the supreme court of Israel descended into chaos and resorted to shameful physical abuse. For the Jews, the act of spitting constituted the most detestable form of personal insult (cf. Nu 12:14+; Dt. 25:9+) (See New Testament Commentary) The KJV (based on Textus Receptus) has the added phrase "and others smote him with the palms of their hands" but most translations do not accept this addition. Spit (1716) emptuo spit on or at, as in one's face(Mt 26.67+, Mt 27:30+; Lxx - Nu 12:14+); passive be spit on (Lk 18.32+), to be understood as a gesture of extreme contempt (Lxx - 25:9) Emptuo - 8v Matt. 26:67+; Matt. 27:30+; Mk. 10:34+; Mk. 14:65+; Mk. 15:19+; Lk. 18:32+ Twice in Lxx = Num. 12:14+; Deut. 25:9+; Beat with fists (buffet, harshly treat) (2852) kolaphizo from kolaphos = the knuckles or a closed fist and kolapto = to strike) means to beat or strike with the fist. To strike with clenched hand. Figuratively it means to cause harm, treat roughly or harshly (1Cor 4:11+). Gilbrant - Found primarily in the New Testament and early Christian literature, the meaning of the verb kolaphizō is “to strike with a clenched fist” or “to beat with one’s hands.” Although this meaning is to be taken literally, the usage in one location in the New Testament is better understood in a figurative sense. In Matthew 26:67+, and the parallel passage in Mark 14:65+, kolaphizō is used to refer to the “beating” which Jesus suffered at the hands of the high priest and others during His trial. Paul wrote concerning the apostles and the beatings which they suffered in 1 Corinthians 4:11+. In 1 Peter 2:20+ Peter addressed servants in regard to enduring beatings at the hands of overbearing masters as a mark of Christian commitment. In each of the above cited passages kolaphizō is used in a literal sense; i.e., receiving physical abuse, beatings. There is, however, one passage in which the meaning of kolaphizō is better understood in a figurative sense. In 2 Corinthians 12:7+ Paul described his “thorn” as being given to him “to beat or buffet him.” This could refer to some sort of physical illness delivered by a “messenger of Satan.” KOLAPHIZO - 5V - beat...with their fists(2), harshly treated(1), roughly treated(1), torment(1). Matt. 26:67+; Mk. 14:65+; 1 Co. 4:11+; 2 Co. 12:7+; 1 Pet. 2:20+ NOT IN THE SEPTUAGINT. Slapped (4474) rhapizo related to rhábdos = a stick or rhapis = rod) means to hit with the open hand, especially on the cheeks or ears. Rhapizo can refer to striking a blow with an instrument, such as a club, rod, or whip. Only used Mt 5:39+, Mt 26:67+ and twice in the Septuagint (Jdg 16:25+ where Septuagint adds " they smote [rhapizo] him with the palms of their hands", Hos 11:4). Rhapizo should be distinguished from kolaphizo which means to punch or strike with a clenched fist. Both verbs are used to describe the treatment of our Lord on the night He was betrayed, when the Jewish religious leaders. Understanding that Jesus endured such pain and humiliation should cause us to respond in three ways. The following are from Spurgeon... We should bravely bear pain and humiliation for the sake of Jesus ourselves. “How ready should we be to hear slander and ridicule for Jesus’ sake. Do not get into a huff, and think it a strange thing that people should mock you. Who are you, dear sir? Who are you? What can you be if compared with Christ? If they spat upon him, why should they not spit upon you? If they buffeted him, why should they not buffet you? Shall your Master have all the rough of it? Shall he have all the bitter, and you all the sweet? A pretty soldier you, to demand better fare than your Captain!” We should be more diligent to praise Jesus. “How earnestly, next, ought we to honor our dear Lord. If men were so eager to put him to shame, let us be ten times more earnest to bring him glory. Is there anything we can do today by which he may be honored? Let us set about it. Can we make any sacrifice? Can we perform any difficult task which would glorify him? Let us not deliberate, but at once do it with our might. Let us be inventive in modes of glorifying him, even as his adversaries were ingenious in the methods of his shame.” We should have more assurance and confidence in receiving the finished work of Jesus for our redemption. “Surely I know that he who suffered this, since he was verily the Son of the Blessed, must have ability to save us. Such griefs must be a full atonement for our transgressions. Glory be to God, that spittle on his countenance means a clear, bright face for me. Those false accusations on his character mean no condemnation for me.” Rick Renner - Has Anyone Ever Spit in Your Face? Matthew 26:67+ Some years ago, I visited another church in our city to hear a special speaker who had come from afar. That evening at the meeting, the local church I was visiting announced they would be starting a building program. As I sat in there, God’s Spirit spoke to my heart and instructed me to sow a sacrificial seed into their new building program. It was a time when we desperately needed money for our own building program, so anything I sowed would be sacrificial. However, the amount the Lord put in my heart was significant. What made it even harder for me to give this gift was that this church had acted maliciously toward our church in the past. They had lied about us, scoffed at us, and even prayed for our downfall. And now the Lord was telling me to sow a large gift into this same church? Throughout that entire service, I argued with the Lord. The issue really wasn’t the money, although we could have used the money ourselves at that moment. The issue I was wrestling with was giving a gift to this church that had treated us with contempt for so long. Finally, the Spirit of God asked me, Are you willing to sow a seed for peace with this church? That clinched it! I pulled my checkbook out of my pocket to write what I considered to be a sizable gift for this other church. Writing that check was difficult, but once it was written, my heart simply flooded with joy because I had been obedient. There is no joy to compare with the joy that comes from being obedient! One week later, the pastor to whom I gave the gift was at a meeting with his staff and church leaders. The pastor told his leaders, “Look at this puny little check Pastor Rick gave us! Couldn’t he have done any better than this?” When I heard how he viewed the sizable gift I’d given, I was quite shocked. But when I heard what this pastor did next, I was literally stunned. He devoted the next part of his staff meeting to discussing all the things he didn’t like about me and our church. He poked fun at us, ridiculed us, mocked us, and put us down in front of his people. Instead of being thankful for the gift we gave, he once more demonstrated utter disrespect and contempt for us. When I heard about this event, it hurt so badly that it cut deep into my heart. How could anyone say the gift we gave was puny? It would be considered significant in any nation of the world. But what hurt the most was that the pastor had put us down and publicly made fun of us in front of his staff and leadership. I remember feeling as if I had been spit on—and as the years passed, this same pastor spit on us many more times. For instance, when we dedicated our church building—the first church to be built in sixty years in our city—it was a moment of great rejoicing. But soon after our dedication, this man stood before a large convention of several thousand people and sneered at our new facility. For a second time, he injected a dagger into my heart! At a time when this pastor could have been rejoicing with us, he chose to make it another opportunity to spit in our faces. How about you? Can you think of an instance in your life when you did something good for someone, but that person didn’t appreciate what you did? Was he so unappreciative that you felt as if he’d spit in your face? Were you stunned by his behavior? How did you act in response to that situation? I think nearly everyone has felt taken advantage of and spit on at some point or another. But imagine how Jesus must have felt the night He was taken to the high priest where He was literally spit on by the guards and temple police! For three years, Jesus preached, taught, and healed the sick. But now He was being led like a sheep to the spiritual butcher of Jerusalem, the high priest Caiaphas, and to the scribes and elders who had assembled to wait for His arrival. In the trial that took place before the high priest and his elders, the religious leaders charged Jesus with the crime of declaring Himself the Messiah. Jesus replied by telling them that they would indeed one day see Him sitting on the right hand of power and coming with clouds of glory (Matthew 26:64+). Upon hearing this, the high priest ripped his clothes and screamed, “Blasphemy!” as all the scribes and elders lifted their voices in anger, demanding that Jesus die (Matthew 26:66+). Then these religious scribes and elders did the unthinkable! Matthew 26:67, 68+ says, “Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?” Notice that it wasn’t just a few who spit in his face that night; the Bible says, “… they spit in his face.…” The word “they” refers to all the scribes and elders who were assembled for the meeting that night. One scholar notes that there could have been one hundred or more men in this crowd! And one by one, each of these so-called spiritual leaders, clothed in their religious garments, walked up to Jesus and spit in His face! In that culture and time, spitting in one’s face was considered to be the strongest thing you could do to show utter disgust, repugnance, dislike, or hatred for someone. When someone spattered his spit on another person’s face, that spit was meant to humiliate, demean, debase, and shame that person. To make it worse, the offender would usually spit hard and close to the person’s face, making it all the more humiliating. By the time Caiaphas and his scribes and elders had finished taking turns spitting on Jesus, their spit was most likely dripping down from His forehead into His eyes; dribbling down His nose, His cheekbones, and His chin; and even oozing down onto His clothes. This was an extremely humiliating scene! And remember, the men who were acting so hatefully toward Jesus were religious leaders! Their hideous conduct was something Jesus definitely didn’t deserve. And what makes this entire scene even more amazing is that Malchus—the servant whom Jesus had just healed—was in all probability standing at the side of Caiaphas and watching it all happen! These religious leaders didn’t stop with just humiliating Jesus. After spitting on Him, they each doubled up their fists and whacked Him violently in the face! Matthew 26:67+ says, “Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him.…” The word “buffet” is the Greek word kolaphidzo, which means to strike with the fist. It is normally used to picture a person who is violently beaten. As if it wasn’t insulting enough to spit on Jesus, approximately one hundred men viciously and cruelly struck Him with their fists. Not only was this brutal—it was sadistic! Humiliating Jesus with their spit and curses didn’t satisfy the hatred of these men; they wouldn’t be satisfied until they knew He had been physically maltreated. To ensure that this goal was accomplished, their own fists became their weapons of abuse. It appears that these scribes and elders were so paranoid about Jesus getting more attention than themselves that they simply wanted to destroy Him. Every time they spit on Him, they were spitting on the anointing. Every time they struck Him, they were leveling a punch against the anointing. They hated Jesus and the anointing that operated through Him to such an extent that they voted to murder Him. But first they wanted to take some time to personally make sure He suffered before He died. What a strange way to render “thanks” to One who had done so much for them! When I get disappointed at the way others respond to me or to what I have done for them, I often think of what happened to Jesus on that night when He came before these Jewish leaders. John 1:11+ tells us, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” Although these men who spit on and hit Jesus refused to acknowledge Him, He still went to the Cross and died for them. His love for them was unwavering—unshaken and unaffected by their wrong actions. As you think of how people have wronged you, does it affect your desire to love them? What have these conflicts revealed about you? Is your love for those unkind people consistent, unwavering, unshaken, and unaffected? Or have the conflicts revealed you have a fickle love that you quickly turn off when people don’t respond to you the way you wished they would? The same Holy Spirit who lived in Jesus now lives in you. Just as the Spirit of God empowered Jesus to love people consistently, regardless of what they did or didn’t do, the Holy Spirit can empower you to do the same. So why don’t you take a few minutes today to pray about the people who have let you down or disappointed you? Then forgive those people, and decide to love them the way Jesus loved those who wronged Him! J J Knap - Then Did They Spit in His Face Matthew 26:67+ Jesus was in His suffering also subjected to contempt. They were not only just cruel and unjust towards Him. They did not only call upon false witness against Him in the room of Caiaphas. He was not only betrayed by an apostle and deserted by His friends. He was not even spared the lowest treatment, because, we read concerning the servants after the hearing of Caiaphas: “Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him.” What is our face? It is called the mirror of the soul and that is well said. Whatever happens in our soul is reflected on our face. When we are ashamed, it is covered with a deep glow. When we are angry, the eye glitters and flares. In wrath and hatred our face falls like that of Cain’s, who had to hear: “Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?” Is our heart happy within us, a flood of light beams from our eye. There is hardly any affection or it can be read from the human face,—no wonder that the face is counted as the most honourable part of our body. This explains how humiliating it was that the servants hit Christ with clenched fists in His face. This was already a humiliation of the severest kind. But the contempt went to the extreme when they spit Him in His holy face, that was a derision much more grievous than the buffeting. To have that countenance, hit by fists, dirtied by spittle, before us! And then to consider that He suffered this humiliation on our account and that He was willing to suffer it all quietly! There is here a compassion that made Him not only give His life but also His honour for sinners. This spit-upon face reminds us that He truly bore sin in its fullest and its most hideous form to cover it redemptively for His saved ones. Thanks be to God that this foul face, dripping of spittle, misfitted and bruised by buffetings, was later glorified and is now covered with more than an earthly radiance. It is like the sun when it shines in its strength and it radiates upon our soul with comforting light. Formerly spit upon, but now a shining sun. Formerly spit upon, to make it now a radiant sun for all brokenhearted ones—is not that the peace of our soul? He is our light because He bore that humiliation. His goodness shines upon us because He has redeemed us by His sorrows. When that face lifts itself up in grace over us, everything within us becomes peaceful and we thank Him that there is to be found grace with Him for even the most contemptible of heart. Matthew 26:68 and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?” Prophesy: Mt 27:39-44+ Ge 37:19,20 Jdg 16:25+ Mk 14:65+ Lu 22:63-65+ You Christ: Mt 27:28,29+ Mk 15:18,19+ Jn 19:2,3,14,15+ 1Pe 2:4-8+ Related Passage: Mark 14:65+ Some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, “Prophesy!” And the officers received Him with slaps in the face. Luke 22:63-65+ Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking Him and beating Him, 64 and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?” 65 And they were saying many other things against Him, blaspheming. JESUS MOCKED BY THE SANHEDRIN And - Links this heinous act with the spitting, hitting and slapping! (See chart of Mocking of Jesus) Said, “Prophesy (propheteuo - aorist imperative - Do it now!) to us, You Christ ("You Messiah" - of course they were speaking this derogatorily); who is the one who hit You - Mark 14:65+ and Lk 22:64+ both tell us that they had Jesus blindfolded. And then they began commanding (aorist imperative = Do this now!) Him to tell them something that could only be discerned by divine revelation. They were making fun of His divinity, but see Grassmick's comment. Luke 22:65+ adds that "they were saying many other things against Him, blaspheming." What irony, true blasphemers blaspheming the One falsely accused of blasphemy! Jesus could hardly blaspheme since He was truly God!

Mateus 26

MacArthur summarizes the pathogenesis of Peter's denial in 5 interesting descriptions which would make a most interesting sermon with which to feed the sheep! (Borrow - The Murder of Jesus : A Study of How Jesus Died - see page 124). He Boasted Too Loudly - Mt 26:33+, Lk 22:22+ He Prayed Too Little - Mt 26:38+ He Slept Too Much - Lk 22:40+, He Acted Too Fast - Lk 22:50+ He Followed Too Far - Mt 26:58+ THOUGHT - John MacArthur has a very interesting comment that I would agree with (especially it you combine it with boasting which reflects an element of pride saying "I can handle this temptation!"). MacArthur writes "I’m convinced that most of the problems and failures Christians face are directly related to prayerlessness. “You do not have because you do not ask” (James 4:2+). Perhaps Peter’s failure could have been averted if he had been obedient to the Lord and spent that time in the garden praying that the Lord would grant him grace to endure." (Theoretically that is correct but Jesus had prophesied denial would occur. Perhaps He would not have needed to make this prophecy had Peter prayed in the Garden instead of sleeping! O my am I convicted by this spiritual dynamic - prayerlessness predisposing to falling into temptation!) (Borrow - The Murder of Jesus : A Study of How Jesus Died - see page 127 or see Moments of Truth: Unleashing God's Word One Day at a Time). ILLUSTRATION - Balthasar Hubmaier has been called “the Simon Peter” of the evangelical Anabaptist of the 16th century. The movement’s greatest theologian, he would see 6,000 believers baptized at Nikolsburg in 1526-27. And because of vicious and severe persecution, he would compromise and deny his commitment to Christ at least on two different occasions. And yet, like Peter, he would be brought by God to deep repentance and confession. In a work entitled Short Apology he would write, “O God, pardon me my weakness. It is good for me that you have humbled me” (Estep, The Anabaptist Story, 63). On what appears to be a third occasion of torture, Hubmaier “grew strong” and with uncompromising fortitude remained true to Jesus. The date was March 2, 1528. One week later, on March 10, Hubmaier was burned at the stake with his precious wife nearby encouraging him to remain faithful to Jesus. Three days later she would be executed as well by drowning in the Danube River. As Hubmaier prepared to be burned, he shouted loud for the on looking crowd to hear, “O my gracious God, grant me grace in my great suffering.” As the flames engulfed his beard and hair, his last words were simple, “O my heavenly Father! O my gracious God!” “O Jesus!” Witnesses said that in his death “he appeared to feel more joy than pain.” Such is the grace of God poured out on any sinner, no matter what the sin, who flees to Jesus in repentance, who flees to God in his hour of need. The Great King in His passion has made it possible for all of us without exception! Praise His Name! (Daniel Akin)