Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:25
Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
25. Thou hast said ] This is a formula of assent both in Hebrew and Greek, and is still used in Palestine in that sense. These words seem also to have been spoken in a low voice inaudible to the rest.
The special mention of Judas is omitted by St Mark and St Luke.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Thou hast said – That is, thou hast said the truth. It is so. Thou art the man. Compare Mat 26:64 with Mar 14:62.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 25. Judas – said, Master, is it I?] What excessive impudence! He knew, in his conscience, that he had already betrayed his Master, and was waiting now for the servants of the chief priests, that he might deliver him into their hands; and yet he says, (hoping that he had transacted his business so privately that it had not yet transpired,) Master, is it I? It is worthy of remark, that each of the other disciples said , LORD, is it I? But Judas dares not, or will not, use this august title, but simply says , TEACHER, is it I?
Thou hast said.] , or atun amaritun, “Ye have said,” was a common form of expression for YES. IT IS so. “When the Zipporenses inquired whether Rabbi Judas was dead? the son of Kaphra answered, Ye have said,” i.e. He is dead. See Schoettgen. Hor. Hebr. p. 225.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Then Judas, which betrayed him,…. Or that was about to betray him, as the Ethiopic version reads it: he had taken a step towards it, was seeking an opportunity to do it, and at length effected it: the Persic version reads, Judas Iscariot; who after all the rest had put the question,
answered and said, Master, is it I? Who though he knew what he had been doing, and what he further resolved to do, and was conscious to himself he was the man; nay, though he had been pointed out as the person, and the most dreadful woe denounced on him, that should be the betrayer, in his hearing; yet all this did not at all affect his marble heart; but in the most audacious manner, and without any concern of mind, or show of guilt, asks if he was the person; suggesting, that surely he could, not mean him. It is observed by some, that the word Rabbi, used by Judas, is a more honourable name than that of Lord, used by the disciples; thereby reigning to give Christ more honour, and exceed in his respect to him, than the rest of the disciples; in order, if he could, to cover his wicked designs:
he said unto him, thou hast said: that is, it is as thou hast said; thou hast said right, thou art the man; a way of speaking used, when what is asked is assented to as truth: thus it being
“said to a certain person, is Rabbi dead? He replied to them, , “ye have said”; and they rent their clothes i.”
Taking it for granted, by that answer, that so it was.
i T. Hieros Kilaim, fol. 32. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Which betrayed [ ] . The article with the participle has the force of an epithet : The betrayer.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
25. And Judas who betrayed him. Though we often see persons trembling, who are conscious of doing wrong, yet along with dread and secret torments there is mingled such stupidity, that they boldly make a fiat denial; but in the end they gain nothing by their impudence but to expose their hidden wickedness. Thus Judas, while he is restrained by an evil conscience, cannot remain silent; so dreadfully is he tormented, and, at the same time, overwhelmed with fear and anxiety, by that internal executioner. Christ, by indirectly glancing, in his reply, at the foolish rashness of Judas, entreats him to consider the crime which he wished to conceal; but his mind, already seized with diabolical rage, could not admit such a sentiment. Let us learn from this example, that the wicked, by bold apologies, do nothing more than draw down upon themselves a more sudden judgment.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(25) Then Judas, which betrayed him . . .The words appear to have been spoken in the spirit of reckless defiance, which St. John indicates by saying that after the sop Satan entered into him (Joh. 13:27). Did his Master (he calls Him by the wonted title of honour, Rabbi) indeed know his guilt? It would appear from St. Johns narrative (Joh. 13:29) that the dread answer, Thou hast said; was not heard by all. All that they did hear was the command, What thou doest, do quickly; and some at least, probably the rest who were not in the secret of the signal, thought that that command referred to some matter connected with his customary work as the bursar of the company. He was to buy what was needed for the feast (i.e., probably, the customary solemn meal, or Chagigah, of the day that followed on the Paschal Supper), or to give alms to the poor. He, however, understood the meaning of the words, and straightway went out (Joh. 13:27-30). It follows, from this view of the sequence of events, that though he had eaten bread with his Master, he did not partake of the bread and the cup that were to be the signs of the New Covenant. At this stage St. John inserts the words as to the new commandment, that ye should love another, which was embodied in that act of fellowship.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
25. Master, is it I? After Jesus gave Judas the sop, which was the sign of guilt, then Judas, as out of due season, and quite mechanically, repeats the question. Thou hast said This is an affirmative answer, and identifies the traitor to himself. The gradual exposure is brought to the final point.
He is the man. And John tells us that the traitor forthwith arose and went out into the congenial darkness of surrounding night.
Ingenious men have in modern times exerted their skill in framing apologies for Judas, and discovering innocent motives in his case. He might, forsooth, have expected that our Lord would deliver himself by miracle. He might have purposed to compel our Lord to declare himself openly as king of the Jews, and set up his government. Very plainly this is not the view of the Saviour or the evangelists. Reserved as the sacred writers are in declaring the character of the various men whose acts they describe, they speak very plainly of Judas. Whatever his previous character was, in process of time he was “ a devil,” “a thief, and carried the bag.” A hypocrite in feigning care for the poor, he hastened, under the immediate impulse of resentment for a trifling offence, to join the Saviour’s enemies. But impetuous passion so blended with cold calculation that he gratified revenge and avarice together. He seems not to have calculated upon our Lord’s miraculous interference, or his asserting his royalty. He simply meant to obtain a price by surrendering his life to his enemies. Hence our Lord’s terrible woe upon him, and the terms of detestation with which the apostles uniformly load him. His repentance was wrung by divine compulsion from him, in order to place on record the testimony of Christ’s vilest enemy to the innocence of his character. It was not a repentance like that of Peter, restoring him to holiness and apostleship; but the repentance of the devils, by which, in the agony of remorse, they throw out their involuntary testimony for God and goodness. And the fact of this final attestation of the innocence of Jesus justifies the remark, that the truth of Christianity is not more sustained by the life of Paul than by the death of Judas.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He says to him, “You have said.” ’
At His words Judas the Betrayer looked at him, being no doubt not a little disturbed, and challenged Him saying, ‘Rabbi, is it I?’ And Jesus replied, ‘It is you who have said it.’ It was an indirect positive affirmation turning the question back on the questioner. He knew it because he was guilty! Now Judas could have no doubt that Jesus knew what was in his heart. But his heart was now hardened and he could not draw back. His question, as with the other disciples, is put in a form that demonstrated that he expected a negative answer. How could he do otherwise in a crowded room? But perhaps he had still hoped that he was undetected. Now, however, he knew differently.
It is noteworthy that in Matthew’s Gospel Judas is the only one who is depicted as addressing Jesus as ‘Rabbi’. Matthew does not feel that he can put the word ‘Lord’ on Judas’ lips as he had with the other disciples (that may also have been a translation of Rabbi, ‘my Great One’). The word on Judas’ lips is left untranslated from the Hebrew/Aramaic, possibly because Matthew is bringing out that Judas belonged to the old Judaism, to the Israel that was now rejected. He had not moved into the new. Was it Jesus’ clear knowledge of his activities that now precipitated Judas into premature action? Or was the betrayal already planned for that night? We will never know. But from that moment Judas was doomed, for instead of breaking down in repentance he hardened his heart, and his opportunity had slipped away.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 26:25. Thou hast said This expression is equivalent to a positive assertion, both in sacred and prophane authors. Compare Mat 26:64. The first time our Lord discovered that he should be betrayed, he only told it in John’s ear, that Judas was to be the author of that atrocious villany. John told it to Peter; but the rest knew nothing of it. Now Jesus plainly points him out.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 26:25 . This final direct intimation regarding the betrayer ( ), and addressed to this latter himself, is at variance with Joh 13:26 ff., where Mat 26:29 presupposes that it had not been given. Mat 26:25 is an outgrowth of tradition, the absence of which from the older narrative of Mark is unquestionably correct.
] a Rabbinical formula by which an emphatic affirmation is made, as in Mat 26:64 . See Schoettgen. There is no such usage in the Old Testament or among classical writers. At this point in the narrative of Matthew, just after this declaration on the part of Jesus, we must suppose the withdrawal (mentioned at Joh 13:30 ) of Judas (who, notwithstanding the statement at Luk 22:21 , was not present at the celebration of the last supper; see on Joh 13:38 , Remark) to have taken place. Matthew likewise, at Mat 26:47 , presupposes the withdrawal of the betrayer, though he does not expressly mention it; so that his account of the matter is less precise. The objection, that it was not allowable to leave before the Passover lamb was eaten, is sufficiently disposed of by the extraordinary nature of the circumstances in which Judas found himself; but see on Mat 26:26 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
25 Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
Ver. 25. Master, is it I? ] Desperate impudency! debauched hypocrisy! Had he the face to ask such a question? He could not but know that Christ knew all; yet hoped he, perhaps, that of his wonted gentleness, he would conceal him still, as he had done for certain days before. But incorrigible and incurable persons are no longer to be borne with. He heareth, therefore, “Thou hast said it,” that is, Thou art the man I mean. Thus Christ pulls off his vizor, washeth off his varnish, and maketh him to appear in his own colours, a covetous caitiff (wretch), an impudent dog, a breathing devil, as Chrysostom hath it, a mischievous monkey; which creature hath the gravest countenance of any other, but is incessantly doing mischief. Talis res est avaritia, amentes, stolidos, impudentes, canes pro hominibus, et daemones ex canibus facit. (Chrys.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
25. ] I cannot understand these words (which are peculiar to our Gospel) otherwise than as an imperfect report of what really happened, viz. that the Lord dipped the sop, and gave it to Judas , thereby answering the general doubt, in which the traitor had impudently presumed to feign a share. If the question ; before, represented , and was our author’s impression of what was in reality not a spoken but a signified question, why now also should not this question and answer represent that Judas took part in that , and was, not by word of mouth, but by a decisive sign , of which our author was not aware, declared to be the traitor? Both cannot have happened; for ( Joh 13:28 ) no one knew (not even John, see note there) why Judas went out ; whereas if he had been openly (and it is out of the question to suppose a private communication between our Lord and him) declared to be the traitor, reason enough would have been furnished for his immediately leaving the chamber. (Still, consult the note on Luk 22:24-30 , where I have left room for modifying this view.) I am aware that this explanation will give offence to those who believe that every part of each account may be tessellated into one consistent and complete whole. Stier (Reden Jesu, vi. 46) handles the above supposition very roughly, and speaks of its upholders in no measured terms. Valuable as are the researches of this Commentator into the inner sense of the Lord’s words, and ready as I am to acknowledge continual obligation to him, I cannot but think that in the whole interpretation of this part of the Gospel-history, he and his school have fallen into the error of a too minute and letter-serving exposition. In their anxiety to retain every portion of every account in its strict literal sense, they are obliged to commit many inconsistencies. A striking instance of this is also furnished in Mr. Birks’s Hor Evangelic, p. 411: where in treating of this difficulty he says, “If we suppose St. Matthew to express the substantial meaning of our Lord’s reply, rather than its precise words , the two accounts are easily reconciled. The question of Judas might concur with St. John’s private enquiry, and the same sign which revealed the traitor to the beloved disciple, would be an affirmative reply to himself, equivalent to the words in the Gospel ‘Thou hast said.’ ” Very true, and nearly what I have maintained above: but the literal harmonizers seem to be quite blind to the fact, that this principle of interpretation, which they use when it suits them , is the very one against which they so vehemently protest when others use it, and for the use of which they call them such hard names. On , see below, Mat 26:64 , note.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Master = Rabbi. App-98. as in Mat 26:49; not the same as in Mat 26:18. Literally, “Not I, is it. Master? “
Thou hast said = Thou thyself hast said [it].
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
25.] I cannot understand these words (which are peculiar to our Gospel) otherwise than as an imperfect report of what really happened, viz. that the Lord dipped the sop, and gave it to Judas, thereby answering the general doubt, in which the traitor had impudently presumed to feign a share. If the question ; before, represented , and was our authors impression of what was in reality not a spoken but a signified question,-why now also should not this question and answer represent that Judas took part in that , and was, not by word of mouth, but by a decisive sign, of which our author was not aware, declared to be the traitor? Both cannot have happened;-for (Joh 13:28) no one knew (not even John, see note there) why Judas went out; whereas if he had been openly (and it is out of the question to suppose a private communication between our Lord and him) declared to be the traitor, reason enough would have been furnished for his immediately leaving the chamber. (Still, consult the note on Luk 22:24-30, where I have left room for modifying this view.) I am aware that this explanation will give offence to those who believe that every part of each account may be tessellated into one consistent and complete whole. Stier (Reden Jesu, vi. 46) handles the above supposition very roughly, and speaks of its upholders in no measured terms. Valuable as are the researches of this Commentator into the inner sense of the Lords words, and ready as I am to acknowledge continual obligation to him, I cannot but think that in the whole interpretation of this part of the Gospel-history, he and his school have fallen into the error of a too minute and letter-serving exposition. In their anxiety to retain every portion of every account in its strict literal sense, they are obliged to commit many inconsistencies. A striking instance of this is also furnished in Mr. Birkss Hor Evangelic, p. 411: where in treating of this difficulty he says, If we suppose St. Matthew to express the substantial meaning of our Lords reply, rather than its precise words, the two accounts are easily reconciled. The question of Judas might concur with St. Johns private enquiry, and the same sign which revealed the traitor to the beloved disciple, would be an affirmative reply to himself, equivalent to the words in the Gospel-Thou hast said. Very true, and nearly what I have maintained above: but the literal harmonizers seem to be quite blind to the fact, that this principle of interpretation, which they use when it suits them, is the very one against which they so vehemently protest when others use it, and for the use of which they call them such hard names. On , see below, Mat 26:64, note.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:25.[1125] , Master) It is not recorded in Scripture that Judas ever called Jesus, Lord.- , thou hast said) A formula of replying affirmatively, first to those who affirm, thence also to those who enquire, when the interrogation is taken away (as though it were a mode) and the sentence is left categorical.[1126] The question is asked, JUDAS is the traitor? the interrogation is taken away, and the categorical reply remains: Judas IS the traitor. A similar form of expression is found in Exo 10:29, , So it is as thou hast said;[1127] cf. 1Ki 20:40, and Gnomon on Mat 26:64.
[1125] ) Is it I? [Surely it is not I?] Hypocrites counterfeit by imitation that which the sincere-hearted speak under the influence of genuine love.-V. g.
[1126] i.e. a simple and absolute affirmation.-(I. B.)
[1127] S. V. thou hast said.-E. V. Thou hast spoken well.-(I. B.)
Categorical, naked, and absolute, as opposed to a sentence in which there is a modus, i.e. some accompanying expression of feeling, thanksgiving, a prayer, or such like. See Append. on Sermo Modalis.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Judas: 2Ki 5:25, Pro 30:20
Thou: Mat 26:64, Mat 27:11, Joh 18:37
Reciprocal: Deu 8:4 – General 2Ch 18:22 – and the Lord Psa 55:21 – The words Jer 26:15 – ye shall Mat 26:2 – betrayed Mar 14:21 – good Joh 13:11 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:25
Judas could not have asked the question for information, for he had already contracted with the chief priests to betray his Lord. All of the others had asked the same question and if he kept silent it would be so conspicuous that his guilt would be manifest to all in the group.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 26:25. And Judas. John, who was next to our Lord (Joh 13:23), gives a more detailed account of what he saw and heard; which probably took place before the question of Judas, after the giving of the sop. The hypocrisy of that question at such a time is an indication that, after the sop Satan entered into him (Joh 13:27).
Thou hast said it. An affirmative answer (see Mat 26:64; comp. Mar 14:62), uttered in close connection with the words: What thou doest, do quickly (Joh 13:27). The misunderstanding of these words and the immediate withdrawal of Judas, prevented the disciples from seeing, even now, the purpose of Judas.
Judas not present. Matthew and Mark place the institution after the announcement respecting the betrayal. Luke hints at the latter after the account of the former, but his order is obviously less exact. John shows that Judas went out after the announcement, but does not mention the institution at all. It is therefore most probable that Judas went out (Joh 13:30) before the institution. As however dipping into the dish (Mat 26:23), indicates that the supper was in progress, which usually began with the breaking of the unleavened bread, it is possible that Judas was present at the distribution of the bread, but not at the giving of the cup. (In that case, the laity in the Romish Church have only Judas portion.) The breaking of bread may have been deferred in this case, or, as is more likely still, was an act altogether distinct from the usual distribution of the Passover cakes. The account of Luke favors the latter view. Practical exhortations based on the presence of Judas at the Lords Supper are of very doubtful propriety.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 25
Thou hast said; it is so.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
26:25 Then Judas, {k} which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
(k) Who was thinking of nothing else but to betray him.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Judas’ hypocritical question, which Matthew only among the evangelists recorded, stresses again the awfulness of Judas’ action in betraying Jesus. Probably Judas felt pressure to repeat the question the other disciples had asked or give himself away. "Rabbi" was a respectful title. The other disciples had called Jesus "Lord" (Mat 26:22). Perhaps the different title indicated that Judas viewed Jesus differently from the other disciples. [Note: Lenski, p. 1019.] Jesus’ reply was sufficiently vague to lead the other disciples to conclude that Judas was not guilty and Judas himself to wonder if Jesus had found him out. "You said it, not I," gives the sense of Jesus’ response. The Greek text reads "su eipas." [Note: Cf. Carr, p. 290; M’Neile, p. 381; Plummer, p. 361.] The NIV translation, "Yes, it is you," is too strong. Jesus later said the identical words to Pilate (Mat 26:64). Judas then left the room (Joh 13:30).