Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:20

Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

20. he sat down with the twelve ] Rather, reclined with. This posture had not only become customary at ordinary meals, but was especially enjoined in the passover ritual. The Paschal ceremonial, so far as it bears on the Gospel narrative, may be described as follows:

( a) The meal began with a cup of red wine mixed with water: this is the first cup mentioned, Luk 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,” Joh 13:26.

( c) The second cup was then mixed and blessed like the first. The father then explained the meaning of the rite (Exo 13:8). This was the haggadah or “shewing forth,” a term transferred by St Paul to the Christian meaning of the rite (1Co 11:26). The first part of the “ hallel ” (Psalms 113, 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” (1Co 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” ( Mat 26:26).

( 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 Mat 26:27.

( f) After a fourth cup the company chanted (see Mat 26:30) the second part of the “ hallel ” (Psalms 115-118). (Lightfoot Hor. Hebr. Dr Ginsburg in Kitto’s Encycl., Dr Edersheim Temple Services.)

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

20 30. The Last Supper

Mar 14:17-26; Luk 22:14-38, where the dispute as to who should be the greatest is recorded, and the warning to Peter related as happening before Jesus departed for the Mount of Olives. St John omits the institution of the Eucharist, but relates the washing of the disciples’ feet by our Lord, and has preserved the discourses of Jesus, chs. 13 17 end. 1Co 11:23-26; where the institution of the Eucharist is narrated nearly in St Luke’s words.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

When the even was come – The lamb was killed between the evenings, Exo 12:6 (Hebrew) – that is between three oclock, p. m., and nine in the evening. The Jews reckoned two evenings – one from three oclock p. m. to sunset, the other from sunset to the close of the first watch in the night, or nine oclock p. m. The paschal supper was commonly eaten after the setting of the sun, and often in the night, Exo 12:8.

He sat down – At first the supper was eaten standing, with their loins girded and their staff in their hand, denoting the haste with which they were about to flee from Egypt. Afterward, however, they introduced the practice, it seems, of partaking of this as they did of their ordinary meals. The original word is, he reclined – that is, he placed himself on the couch in a reclining posture, in the usual manner in which they partook of their meals. See the notes at Mat 23:6. While reclining there at the supper, the disciples had a dispute which should be the greatest. See the notes at Luk 22:24-30. At this time, also, before the institution of the Lords supper, Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, to teach them humility. See the notes at John 13:1-20.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Mat 26:20-25

And as they did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me.

Self-distrust

Every man is a mystery to himself. In every soul there lie, coiled and dormant, like hybernating snakes, evils that a very slight rise in the temperature will wake up into poisonous activity. Let no man say, in foolish self-confidence, that any form of sin which his brother has ever committed, is impossible for him. Temperament shields us from much, no doubt. There are sins that we are inclined to, and there are sins that we have no mind to. But the identity of human nature is deeper than the diversity of temperament.

I. All sins are at bottom but varying forms of one root. The essence of every evil is selfishness; and when you have that, it is exactly as with cooks who have the stock by the fireside-they can make any kind of soup out of it, with the right flavouring. All sin is living to oneself instead of to God, and it may easily pass from one form of evil into another, just as light and heat, motion and electricity, are all various forms of one force. Doctors will tell you there are forms of disease which slip from one kind of sickness into another; so, if we have got the infection about us, it is a matter very much of accidental circumstances what shape it takes.

II. All sin is gregarious. The tangled mass of sin is like one of those great fields of sea-weed that you sometimes come across upon the ocean, all hanging together by a thousand slimy growths; which, if lifted from the wave at any point, drags up yards of it inextricably grown together. No man commits only one kind of transgression. All sins hunt in couples.

III. All sin is but yielding to tendencies common to us all. The greatest transgressions have resulted from yielding to tendencies which are common to us all. Cain killed his brother from jealousy; David befouled his name and his reign by animal passion; Judas betrayed Christ because he was fond of money. Many a man has murdered another simply because he had a hot temper. And you have got a temper, and love of money, and animal passions, and that which may stir you up into jealousy. Your neighbours house has caught fire and been blown up. Your house, too, is built of wood, and thatched with straw, and you have as much dynamite in your cellars as he had in his. Do not be too sure that yon are safe from the danger of explosion.

IV. All transgression is yielding to temptations that assail all men. Here are one hundred men in a plague-stricken city; they have all got to draw their water from the same well. If five or six of them died of cholera, it would be very foolish of the other ninety-five to say, There is no chance of my being touched. And we all live in the same atmosphere; and the temptations that have overcome these men, that have headed the count of crimes appeal to you.

V. Men will gradually drop down to the level which, before they began the descent, seemed to be impossible to them. First, the imagination is inflamed, then the wish begins to draw the soul to the sin, then conscience pulls it hack, then the fatal decision is made, and the deed is done. Sometimes all the stages are hurried quickly through, and a man spins downhill as cheerily and fast as a diligence down the Alps. Sometimes, as the coast of a country may sink am inch in a century, until long miles of the fiat sea-beach are under water, and towers and cities are buried beneath the barren waves, so our lives may be gradually lowered, with a motion imperceptible but most real, bringing us down within high-water mark, and at last the tide may wash over what was solid land. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

Is it I?-Sinful possibilities

A moment of dismay among the disciples. The Master had just declared that one of them should commit an act of the basset treachery, and betray Him to His enemies. How do they take His words? Do they break out in indignant remonstrance? Do they fall to accusing one another? Does each draw back from his brother apostle in horror at the thought that possibly that brother apostle is he who is to do this dreadful thing? No; they are all self-engrossed; each mans anxiety is turned, not towards his brother, but towards himself. Now, there are times in the lives of all of us, when that comes to us which came here to Christs disciples.

I. When we see deep and flagrant sin in some other man. While the act from which we recoil is repugnant to our conscientiousness, the powers that did it and the motives that stirred those powers into action are human, and such as we possess and feel.

II. When we do some small sin, and recognize the deep power of sinfulness by which we do it. The slightest crumbling of the earth beneath your feet makes you aware of the precipice. The least impurity makes you ready to cry out, as some image of hideous lust rises before you, Oh, is it I? Can I come to that?

III. The expression of any suspicion about us by another person. Perfectly unwarrantable and false we may know the charge to be; but the mere fastening of the sin and our name together, must turn our eyes in on ourselves and set us to asking, Is it possible? I did not do this thing, indeed. My conscience is clear. But am I not capable of it? Is there not a fund of badness in me which might lead me almost anywhere? And if so, can I blaze up into fiery indignation at mens daring to suspect me? Can I resent suspicion as an angel might, who, standing in the light of God, dreaded and felt sin? No; our disavowal of the sin would be mot boisterously angry, but quiet, and solemn, and humble, with a sense of danger, and gratitude for preservation.

IV. By a strange but very natural process, the same result often comes from just the opposite cause. Unmerited praise reveals to us our unworthiness. A man comes up to our life, and, looking round upon the crowd of our fellow men, he says, See, I will strike the life of this brother of ours, and you shall hear how true it rings. He does strike, and it does seem to them to ring true, and they shout their applause; but we whose life is struck feel running all through us at the stroke the sense of hollowness. Our soul sinks as we hear the praises. They start desire, but they reveal weakness. No true man is ever so humble and so afraid of himself as when others are praising him most loudly.

V. Every temptation which comes to us, however bravely and successfully it may be resisted, opens to us the sight of some of our human capacity for sin. The man who dares to laugh at a temptation which he has felt anal resisted is not yet wholly safe out of its power. (Phillips Brooks, D. D.)

The apostles doubt of themselves

The form of the question in the original suggests that they expected a negative answer, and might be reproduced in English, Surely it is not I? None of them could think that he was the traitor, yet none of them could be sure that he was not. Their Master knew better than they did; and so, from a humble knowledge of what lay in them, coiled and slumbering, but there, they will not meet His words with a contradiction, but with a questions (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

Need for self-control

Do not say. I know when to stop. Do not say, I can go so far; it will not do me any harm. Many a man has said that, and been ruined by it. Do not say, It is natural to me to have these inclinations and tastes, and there can be no harm in yielding to them. It is perfectly natural for a man to stoop down over the edge of a precipice to gather the flowers that are growing in some cranny in the cliff; and it is as natural for him to topple over, and be smashed to a mummy at the bottom! God gave you your dispositions, and your whole nature under lock and key; keep them so! (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

Reward of treason

Philip, Duke of Austria, paid the ambassadors of Charles IV. (who had betrayed their trust) in counterfeit coin; and when they complained, made reply, that false coin is good enough for false knaves. James I., king of Scotland, was murdered in Perth by Waiter, Earl of Athol, in hope to have the crown; and crowned he was indeed, but with a crown of red-hot iron clapped upon his head, being one of the tortures wherewith he ended at once his wicked days and devices. And Guy Gawkes, that Spanish pioneer, should have received his reward of five hundred pounds at an appointed place in Surrey, but instead thereof, he had been paid home with a brace of bullets for his good service, if justice had not come in with a halter by way of prevention. Thus traitors have always become odious, though the treason were commodious. (Spencer.)

Apostates

In the long line of portraits of the Doges, in the palace at Venice, one space is empty, and the semblance of a black curtain remains as a melancholy record of glory forfeited. Found guilty of treason against the State, Marine Falieri was beheaded, and his image as far as possible blotted from remembrance. As we regarded the singular memorial we thought of Judas and Demas, and then, as we heard in spirit the masters warning word, One of you shall betray Me, we asked within our soul the solemn question, Lord, is it I? Every ones eye rests longer on the one dark vacancy than upon any one of the many fine portraits of the merchant monarchs; and so the apostates of the Church are far more frequently the theme of the worlds talk than the thousands of good men and true who adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. Hence the more need of care on the part of those of us whose portraits are publicly exhibited as saints, lest we should one day be painted out of the Churchs gallery, and our persons only remembered as having been detestable hypocrites. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Treachery, audacity, and hypocrisy

We have here an example of fixed determination to do evil, unshaken by the clearest knowledge that it is evil. Judas heard his crime described in its own ugly reality. He heard his fate proclaimed by lips of absolute love and truth; and notwithstanding both, he comes unmoved and unshaken with his question. The dogged determination in the man, that dares to see his evil stripped naked and is not ashamed, is even more dreadful than the hypocrisy and sleek simulation of friendship in his face. Most men turn away with horror from even the sins that they are willing to do, when they are put plainly and bluntly before them. We have two sets of names for wrong things; one of which we apply to our brethrens sins and the other to the same sins in ourselves. What I do is prudence, what you do of the same sort is covetousness; what I do is sowing my wild oats, what you do is immorality and dissipation; what I do is generous living, what you do is drunkenness and gluttony; what I do is righteous indignation, what you do is passionate anger. And so you may go the whole round of evil. Very bad are the men who can look at their deed, described in its own inherent deformity, and yet say, Yes, that is it, and I am going to do it. One of you shall betray Me. Yes, I will betray you. It must have taken something to look into the Masters face, and keep the fixed purpose steady. This obstinate condition of dogged determination to do a wrong thing, knowing it to be a wrong thing, is a condition to which all evil steadily tends. We may not come to it in this world, but we are getting towards it in regard of the special wrong deeds and desires that we cherish and commit. And when a man has once reached the point of saying to evil, Be thou my good, then he is a devil, in the true meaning of the word; and wherever he is, he is in hell! (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

Supper with the twelve

On the eve of the crucifixion Jesus sat down to supper with the twelve, in the room which had been provided and prepared for them.

I. A picture of the poverty of Jesus on the eve of discharging the greatest debt ever owed by man. He must borrow a room and accept the hospitality of a stranger. But in a moral sense he was rich and able to atone for the sins of men. We must not judge the worth of a person by outward circumstances.

II. A picture of the calmness of Jesus on the eve of enduring the greatest anguish ever borne by man. With calmness he sat down with the twelve on the eve of the greatest suffering.

III. A picture of the friendlessness of Jesus on the eve of experiencing the greatest desertion ever known by man, He sat down with the very men who were to forsake him; but He utters no word of stern rebuke. (F. W. Brown.)

Christ foretelling the treachery of Judas

I. There is the prediction and it discovers to us-

1. The close and constant view which the Lord Jesus seems to have taken of His final sufferings.

2. The naturalness of our Lords mind; by this I mean its resemblance to our own minds. He has our inward nature. He felt treachery.

3. The exceeding tenderness of Christ. He cared for the love of the men around Him.

4. The wonderful self-denial of our Lord. He did not treat Judas differently from the other disciples, though so long false.

II. The effect produced on the disciples by this prediction.

1. Their simple faith in their Lords prediction.

2. Their warm love for Christ.

3. Their great self-distrust, (C. Bradley.)

Is it I?-

When the wind is rising it is good for each ship at sea to look to its own ropes and sails, and not stand gazing to see how ready the other ships are to meet it. We all feel that we would rather hear a man asking about himself anxiously than to see him so sure of himself that the question never occurred to him. We should be surer of his standing firm if we saw that he knew he was in danger of a fall. Now, all this is illustrated in Christs disciples. (Phillips Brooks.)

Judas rebuked by Christ

You have here an account of how our Lord, whilst partaking of the last supper with His disciples, predicted His betrayal. The disciples were greatly moved by the declaration: it is a good sign when we are less suspicious of others than of ourselves-Lord, is it I?

I. We regard the sayings of our Lord at this time as uttered with special reference to Judas, with the merciful design of warning him of the enormity of his projected crime, and thus, if possible, of withholding him from its commission. It is easy to see an adaptation between the words used by Christ and the feelings which may have been working in Judas. The Son of Man goeth as it is written of Him. Judas may have thought that he was helping forward the work of the Messiah; the crucifixion was a determined thing. Woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. Judas was free in his treachery, acted from his own will, in obedience to his depraved passions, as if there had been no Divine foreknowledge. Oh! the vanity of the thought that God ever places us under a necessity of sinning, or that because our sins may turn to His glory they will not also issue in our shame.

II. Let us now glance at another delusion to which it is likely that Judas gave indulgence; this is the delusion as to the consequences, the punishment of sin being exaggerated. There is such energy in conscience that it would hardly let a man run on flagrant acts of sin if there were not some drug by which it were lulled. It may be that Judas could hardly persuade himself that a Being so beneficent as Christ, whom he had seen healing the sick, could lay aside the graciousness of His nature, and avenge a wrong by surrendering the evil doer to interminable woe. But our Lords words meet this delusion-It had been good for that man if he had not been born. We expect to find Judas overawed by this saying.

III. It reveals his utter moral hardness. Christ had said, Woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. At this saying Judas asks, Lord, is it I? Numbers bear themselves proudly against Christ and His gospel and go forth from the very sanctuary, with the words of condemnation in their ears, to do precisely the things by which that sentence is incurred. (H. Melvill, B. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 20. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.] It is a common opinion that our Lord ate the passover some hours before the Jews ate it; for the Jews, according to custom, ate theirs at the end of the fourteenth day, but Christ ate his the preceding even, which was the beginning of the same sixth day, or Friday; the Jews begin their day at sunsetting, we at midnight. Thus Christ ate the passover on the same day with the Jews, but not on the same hour. Christ kept this passover the beginning of the fourteenth day, the precise day and hour in which the Jews had eaten their first passover in Egypt. See Ex 12:6-12. And in the same part of the same day in which the Jews had sacrificed their first paschal lamb, viz. between the two evenings, about the ninth hour, or 3 o’clock, Jesus Christ our passover was sacrificed for us: for it was at this hour that he yielded up his last breath; and then it was that, the sacrifice being completed, Jesus said, IT IS FINISHED. See Ex 12:6, c., and De 16:6, &c. See Clarke on Joh 18:28, and the Treatise on the Eucharist, referred to See Clarke on Mt 26:19 and See Clarke on Mt 26:26 and following verses.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Mark hath the same, Mar 14:17-21; And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, one of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. The Son of man indeed goeth as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! Good were it for that man if he had never been born. Luke saith, Luk 22:14-16, &c., And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. Then Luke passeth to our Lords institution of the supper. Luke mixes the discourse about the person that should betray him with the relation about the institution of the supper, contrary to the relation both of Matthew and Mark, and John, so as we may reasonably think that Luke misplaces it, giving us an account of that passage, Luk 22:21-23, within his relation of the history of his receiving the passover, and instituting of the supper, which immediately followed each other, but not strictly in that order in which our Saviour spake them, which appeareth plainly by the other three evangelists to have been during the eating of the passover, and before the institution of the Lords supper. For the understanding of the history, we must understand something of the Jewish order in their eating of the passover: which was this, as we have it described by the learned Doctor Lightfoot;

“Their sitting at meat was commonly upon beds or couches, made for that purpose, with the table before them. Now at other meats they either sat, as we do, with their bodies erect, or when they would enlarge themselves to more freedom of feasting, or refreshing, they sat upon the beds, and leaned upon the table on their left elbow; and this or the other posture they used indifferently at other times, as they were disposed, but on the passover night they thought they were obliged to use this leaning composure, and you may take their reason for it in some of their own words. They used their leaning posture as free men do, in memorial of their freedom. And Levi said, Because it is the manner of servants to eat standing, therefore now they eat sitting and leaning, to show that they were got out of servitude into freedom… Upon this principle and conceit of freedom they used this manner of discumbency frequently at other times, but indispensably this night, so far different from the posture enjoined and practised at the first passover in Egypt, when they ate it with their loins girded, their shoes on their feet, their staves in their hands, and in haste, Exo 12:11. And as the thought of their freedom disposed them to this leaning, reposed, secure composure of their elbow upon the table, and their head leaning on their hand, so, to emblem out the matter the more highly, they laid their legs under them, sitting on them, and laying out their feet behind them.”

(Thus the woman, Luk 7:38, could conveniently come at our Saviours feet to wash, anoint, and wipe them).

“Thus removing and acquitting their legs and feet, as far as possible, from the least show of standing to attend, or readiness to go upon any ones employment, which might carry with it the least colour of servitude, or contrariety to their freedom. Now according to the manner of sitting and leaning are the texts to be understood, about the beloved disciples leaning in the bosom of Jesus, Joh 13:23, and on the breast of Jesus, Joh 13:25

Joh 21:20. A , or , which some translators not having observed, or at least not expressed, they have intricated the reader in such gross conceptions about this matter, as that some have thought, and some have pictured, John reposing himself or lolling on the breast of Jesus, contrary to all order and decency: whereas the manner of sitting together was only thus, Jesus leaning upon the table with his left elbow, and so turning his face and breast away from the table, on one side; John sat in the same posture next before him, with his back towards Jesus, his breast or bosom not so near as that Johns back and Jesuss breast did join together, and touch one another, but at such a distance as that there was space for Jesus to use his right hand upon the table, to reach his meat at his pleasure, and so for all the rest, as they sat in like manner. For it is but a strange fancy with which some have satisfied themselves about this matter, conceiving either that they lay upon the beds before the table, one tumbling upon or before the breast of another; or if they sat leaning on the table, that they sat so close that the back of one joined to the breast of another: they sat leaning, but with such distance between each other, that the right hand of every one of them had liberty to come and go between himself and his fellow, to reach his meat, as he had occasion.”

Thus far that learned man, in his discourse of the temple service, in the time of our Saviour, in Joh 13:1-38. By which discourse we may learn;

1. That the Jews at the eating of the passover used the very same posture as at other times they did eat their meat in.

2. That this was not lying along, but sitting upon their legs, and sometimes leaning their head upon their left elbow, yet at such a distance one front another, as every one that sat might freely use their right hand to take their meat, and reach it to their mouths: nor did they always sit at meat so leaning, but at their pleasure leaned or not leaned; only at the paschal supper they always leaned, as an emblem of their more perfect liberty. By this we easily understand what is meant by Christs sitting down with the twelve, after the manner of that country in eating their meat.

And as they did eat, he said. For the understanding of this we must a little inquire into the Jewish manner of eating that holy supper, which I will take out of the aforementioned learned author in the same book and chapter, paragraph third.

“They being thus set, the first thing towards this passover supper that they went about was, that they every one drank off a cup of wine.”

So do their own directories and rituals about this thing inform us. Now the consideration of this is of mighty use to us to help us to understand the two cups mentioned by Luke, Luk 22:17, and again Luk 22:20. The latter was the cup which our Saviour consecrated for the institution of his supper, as is plain by the consecration of the bread mentioned immediately before it, Luk 22:19. The cup mentioned Luk 22:17 was their first cup of wine, which they drank before the passover supper, mentioned by Luke only. Our Saviours giving thanks when he took it, was but his blessing of the whole paschal supper. Luke before this mentions some words of our Saviour, Luk 22:15,16, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not eat any more thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God: that is, I am now about to suffer, I know that I am betrayed, I have therefore earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I die, to put an end to this legal service, which hath now continued so many years, and hath all this time been but a type of me and my death, and oblation for sin, Joh 1:29; 1Co 5:7. For this is the last passover I shall eat with you or that you shall eat before you see those things fulfilled in gospel providences which this service doth but typify. This indeed was but the preface to the paschal supper, nor doth Luke mention more of it, only addeth, Luk 22:18, For I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come; of which words I shall here say nothing, for they are doubtless by Luke put out of the true order, being both by Mark and Matthew mentioned as spoken after that our Saviour had blessed and taken the sacramental cup. So as, questionless, Luk 17:21,22 should have been before the Luk 17:18, according to the order in which Matthew and Mark put them, and Luk 22:18 should be put after Luk 22:20, and so also both Matthew and Mark do place them. Luke mentions no more of the paschal supper; let us therefore return to our evangelist.

And as they did eat, that is, the paschal supper, which (according to the law, Exo 12:8) was the lamb or kid roasted, which they were to eat with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. The Jews had a hundred traditional rites, which they observed about the paschal supper; but there seems to have none of them been of any Divine institution. The law required no more than the eating of the lamb or kid roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. As to their drink, it prescribed nothing, they were left to liberty: for their tradition of four cups of wine to be drank, &c., I cannot find any of the evangelists mentioning our Saviours usage of any such thing, but very probably he drank wine at his pleasure, as at other meals, keeping only to the rule of the law. Now saith Matthew and Mark, And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. He had before told them the Son of man should be betrayed, Mat 17:22; Mat 20:18, where he had also told them he should be scourged, mocked, and crucified; but he now cometh to discover the traitor to them, One of you. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one to say unto him, Lord, is it I? They were sorrowful that he should be betrayed by any, but more troubled that one of themselves should be so accursed an instrument: every one mistrusts his own heart, and saith, Is it I? Christ replies, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The dish here could be no other than the dish at the passover supper; probably the hand of Judas was at that time with our Saviours in the dish, for we read of no more reply from any but from Judas. Our Saviour addeth, The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born. By these words our Saviour dooms the traitor, though withal he tells them, that for his suffering it was determined by God, foretold by the prophets, and so eventually necessary; he was not dragged to it, The Son of man goeth. But Gods decree as to the thing did neither take away the liberty of Judass will in acting, nor yet excuse the fact he did. Woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! A text worthy of their study, who will not understand how God should decree to permit sin, and make a sinful act as to the event necessary, without being the author of sin. As to our Saviours death, God had determined it, foretold it, it was necessary to be; but yet Satan put the evil motion into the heart of Judas, and Judas acted freely in the doing what he did.

Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. This (as I said) maketh it very probable that the hand of Judas was in the dish with our Saviours, dipping in the sauce, when our Saviour spake these former words. That Judas, as well as the other disciples, was with our Lord at this action, is out of doubt. That he stayed any longer may very well be questioned, not only because Joh 13:30, He then having received the sop went immediately out; but because one cannot in reason think that his guilty conscience should suffer him to stay beyond that word, or that our Saviour would have admitted of the society of so prodigious a traitor at his last supper, the institution of which immediately followed.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

Now when the even was come,…. The second evening, when the sun was set, and it was dark, and properly night; for

“on the evenings of the passovers near the Minchah, a man might not eat , “until it was dark” p.”

This was according to the rule, Ex 12:8,

he sat down with the twelve, his twelve disciples; so the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel; and which also adds, “at table”; even all the twelve apostles, who were properly his family, and a sufficient number for a passover lamb q: for

“they do not kill the passover for a single man, according to the words of R. Judah, though R. Jose permits it: yea, though the society consists of an hundred, if they cannot eat the quantity of an olive, they do not kill for them: nor do they make a society of women, servants, and little ones?”

Judas was now returned again, and took his place among the disciples, as if he was as innocent, and as friendly, as any of them: this he might choose to do, partly to avoid all suspicion of his designs; and partly that he might get intelligence where Christ would go after supper, that he might have the opportunity he was waiting for, to betray him into the hands of his enemies. “He sat, or lay down with them”, as the word signifies; for the posture of the Jews, at the passover table especially, was not properly sitting, but reclining, or lying along on coaches, not on their backs, nor on their right side, but on their left;

[See comments on Joh 13:23]. The first passover was eaten by them standing, with their loins girt, their shoes on, and staves in their hands, because they were just ready to depart out of Egypt: but in after passovers these circumstances were omitted; and particularly sitting, or lying along, was reckoned so necessary to be observed, that it is said r, that

“the poorest man in Israel might not eat, , “until he lies along”, or leans;”

that is, as some of their commentators s note, either upon the couch, or on the table, after the manner of free men, and in remembrance of their liberty: and another of them t says,

“we are bound to eat, , “lying along”, as kings and great men eat, because it is a token of liberty.”

Hence they elsewhere say u,

“it is the way of servants to eat standing; but here (in the passover) to eat, , “sitting”, or “lying along”, because they (the Israelites) went out of bondage to liberty. Says R. Simon, in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi, that which a man is obliged to in the passover, though it be but the quantity of an olive, he must eat it, , “lying along”.”

The account Maimonides gives of this usage, is in these words w:

“even the poorest man in Israel may not eat until he “lies along”: a woman need not lie; but if she is a woman of worth and note, she ought to lie: a son by a father, and a servant before his master ought to lie: “but a disciple before his master does not lie, except his master gives him leave” (as Christ did his); and lying on the right hand is not lying; and so he that lies upon his neck, or upon his face, this is not lying; and when ought they to lie? at the time of eating, the quantity of an olive, of unleavened bread, and at drinking of the four cups; but at the rest of eating and drinking, if he lies, lo! it is praiseworthy: but if not, there is no necessity.”

This custom was so constantly and uniformly observed at the passover, that it is taken particular notice of in the declaration, or showing forth of the passover by the master of the family, when he says x, “how different is this night from all other nights”, c. and among the many things he mentions, this is one

“in all other nights we eat either sitting, or lying along; that is, which way we please, but this night all of us

, “lie along”.”

p Ib. c. 10. sect. 1. q Ib. c. 8. sect. 7. r Misn. Pesachim, c. 10. sect. 1. s Jarchi & Bartenora in ib. t Maimonides in ib. u T. Hieros. Pesach. fol. 37. 2. w Hilch. Chametz Umetzah, c. 7. sect. 8. x Maimon ib. c. 8. 2. Haggadah Shel Pesach. p. 5.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

He was sitting at meat (). He was reclining, lying back on the left side on the couch with the right hand free. Jesus and the Twelve all reclined. The paschal lamb had to be eaten up entirely (Exod 12:4; Exod 12:43).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

He sat down [] . But this rendering missed the force of the imperfect tense, which denotes something in progress. The Evangelist says he was sitting or reclining, introducing us to something which has been going on for some time.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

20. When the evening was come, he sat down at table. Not to eat the passover, which they were bound to do standing, as travelers, when they are in haste, are wont to take food hastily,

with shoes on their feet, and a staff in their hand, (Exo 12:11😉

but I consider the meaning to be, that after having observed the solemn rite, he sat down at table to supper. Accordingly, the Evangelists say, when the evening was come: for, at the commencement of the evening, they killed the lamb, and ate the flesh of it roasted.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(20) He sat down with the twelve.Reserving special Notes for the Gospels which contain the narratives, we may call to mind here the words of strong emotion with which the feast was opened (Luk. 22:15), the dispute among the disciples, probably connected with the places which they were to occupy at the table (Luk. 22:24), and our Lords practical reproof of that dispute in washing His disciples feet (Joh. 13:1-11). Picturing the scene to ourselves, we may think of our Lord as recliningnot sittingin the centre of the middle table, St. John next to Him, and leaning on His bosom (Joh. 13:23), St. Peter probably on the other side, and the others sitting in an order corresponding, more or less closely, with the three-fold division of the Twelve into groups of four. Upon the washing of the feet followed the teaching of Joh. 13:12-20, and then came the blessing or thanksgiving which opened the meal. This went on in silence, while the countenance of the Master betrayed the deep emotion which troubled His spirit (Joh. 13:21), and then the silence was broken by the awful words which are recorded in the next verse.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

122, 124 SUPPER AND INTIMATION OF HIS BETRAYAL, Mat 26:20-25 .

20. Now when the even was come The passover evening. Between three and six o’clock the paschal lamb was slain. Not less than ten, nor more than twenty persons sat down to the same supper. If our Lord followed in the main the usual custom of the Jews, as described by Maimonides, the following things were done. Our Lord, being master of the family, as they reclined on their meal-couches, took a cup of wine in his right hand, and uttered the prayer of consecration, saying, “Blessed be thy name, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast created the fruit of the vine.” He then drank the first cup and was followed by all the others.

Originally the whole service was performed standing; but when the Jews were settled in Canaan they adopted the reclining posture, to symbolize the repose which God had given them.

A service was then brought in, consisting of bitter herbs, unleavened bread, and a sort of fruit-cake made of raisins, figs, dates, etc., pressed together, to represent the clay with which Israel made brick in Egypt, which was called the charoseth; and besides this was the paschal lamb. The master, and then the rest, first ate a bitter herb, and gave thanks for the fruit of the earth. Then a disciple asks, as being one of the family, according to Exo 12:26, “What mean ye by this?” The Lord answers by explaining the historical import of the paschal commemoration. Psalms 113, 114 were then sung. And then the second cup of wine was drunk.

Then occurs that part which our Lord transferred to the new dispensation. Usually the Hebrew officiating householder took cakes and brake them with benediction, and gave to each one a piece, saying, “ This is” (that is, this represents) “the bread of affliction which our fathers did eat in the land of Egypt.” This our Lord changed to “This is my body,” that is, represents my body. Then was the paschal flesh eaten, a full meal being taken. After this the third cup, which our Lord applied to its higher use in the new dispensation. The old mode was for the master to take the cup, pronounce a blessing, and drink; his example being followed by the others. This is “the cup of blessing” which the apostle mentions, and identifies with the sacramental cup, in 1Co 10:16. Then by custom followed the fourth cup, (which our Lord omitted,) followed by the chant of the Great Hallel. See note on Mat 26:30.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Now when evening was come, he was reclining at meat with the twelve disciples,’

The evening introduced the new day of the 15th of Nisan, the time for partaking in the Passover (the Jewish day began in the evening). At this meal it was specifically required that they ‘recline’, that is, lay on cushions at the table so as to partake of the meal. The reclining indicated the joy and certainty of the meal and its significance. Up to this point therefore the meal follows the normal pattern. (All pictures of Jesus and His disciples sitting at table should therefore be binned). The reclining was intended to indicate the restfulness of the hearts of the participants because of their confidence in God and His certain deliverance.

On the table would be dishes containing unleavened bread, vegetables, sauces and bitter herbs. The unleavened bread symbolised both the need for the removal of corruption (all leaven was to be removed from their houses) and the haste with which the original participants expected to have to leave (no time to leaven the bread). The bitter herbs symbolised the bitterness of life that had been theirs and the afflictions that they had endured. There would also be sufficient wine for the passing around of four cups.

It is interesting that Jesus has restricted those at the meal to the twelve. It makes it very clear that He has something very special to say to them

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Reveals That He Is About To Be Betrayed (26:20-25).

In accordance with his usual method Matthew gives an abbreviated account of that Passover meal at which they ‘eat the Passover’, concentrating only on what he sees as essential for the picture that he wants to build up. It is a picture of Jesus’ triumph and compassion in the face of the failure of those whom He loved. Unlike the other Gospels, apart from the institution of the Lord’s Supper, it gives no specific teaching. Matthew is rather focusing in on the new covenant against a dark background of betrayal and failure. The light is shining in the midst of the darkness of man’s failure and ignorance (Mat 4:16). Matthew also very much patterns it on the Passover.

We must remember that Jesus and His disciples would probably have celebrated a number of Passovers together in the previous two or three years (Joh 1:13; Joh 6:4; Joh 12:1, and see also Mat 5:1; Mat 7:2 for other feasts). This was not their first time together in Jerusalem. They would therefore feel that they were very much aware of how the feast would go (as often with Jesus they were so wrong). For fuller details of the background to the Passover see our commentary on Mark at this point.

We may surmise how each of these previous feasts would have gone. After Jesus had blessed God and they had drunk the first cup of wine mingled with water, they would partake of the bitter herbs dipped in salt. At this point Jesus might well say something about the bitterness of the afflictions that Israel had suffered in Egypt. Then after a second cup of wine He would take bread, break it, bless God and hand it to His disciples, reminding them of how the bread was unleavened because of the haste with which the children of Israel had left Egypt, and that it was the bread of affliction (Deu 16:3). He might well at this stage be expected to say something like, ‘This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate when they were delivered from the land of Egypt –’ (This was the pattern in later centuries). All of them would feel themselves as once again participating in that deliverance, and would see it as a reminder of the great deliverance yet to come. They would feel this all the more because they believed that somehow this promised deliverance was at some stage to be connected with Jesus.

The bread having been eaten, along with bitter herbs and other vegetables, all would partake of the Passover lamb whose blood had been offered in the Temple and poured out on the altar, and this would immediately be followed by Jesus again blessing God and then, after giving thanks, offering the third cup of wine, ‘the cup of blessing’, mingled with water. An explanation would at some stage be given of the significance of the Passover lamb. Jesus would have pointed out at this stage that the blood of the lamb had been given so that the firstborn sons of Israel might be redeemed from the avenging angel, and that that blood had been poured on the lintel and the doorposts as a sign of their trust in the promises of God, that is of His covenant with them, made with Moses (Exo 3:7-22; Exo 6:2-8) on the basis of His covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in which they were trusting.

This would shortly probably be followed by a fourth cup of wine (it certainly was in the centuries to come) and the singing of the Hallel (Psalms 115-118), at which point the feast would be over. Thus the major anticipated events in the feast which would be accompanied by explanation at some point would be:

* The dipping of the bitter herbs in salt water accompanied by an explanation of their significance as pointing to Israel’s betrayal by Egypt as revealed in the afflictions that were heaped on them (there was a good deal of freedom offered in how these explanations were given).

* The taking and breaking of the unleavened bread, and the offering it to the participants with a description of its significance opened with the words ‘this is —.’

* The eating of the sacrificed lamb followed by the cup of blessing, where a full explanation would be given of the significance of the offering and its connection with the blood applied to the doorposts of their houses, which was a sign of their trust in God’s promises and of their hope of redemption.

* These would be followed by the singing of the Hallel, a song of triumph in expectation of God’s great deliverance.

But at this particular Passover a totally new picture would be drawn by Jesus, and it takes little imagination to realise the shock that it must have been to the disciples when the time-honoured feast was suddenly taken over by Jesus and portrayed as pointing to something different. They must indeed have wondered what was happening. Had it been anyone but Jesus they would have been horrified and might well have protested. It was a sign of their complete confidence in Him that they did not. Had the Chief Priests known about it they would certainly have considered their charges of blasphemy totally justified, for Jesus openly took the emphasis away from God’s activity in deliverance and focused it on Himself and His own act of deliverance. (We do not know how much of the old was observed, for with regard to it we are only told about the opening of the feast and its closing with the Hallel. The concentration is on the new). The general pattern was being followed, but its significance was being completely altered.

* The significance of the dipping and consumption of the bitter herbs now rather pointed to the fact of the bitterness of a betrayal of a different kind, the betrayal of Jesus, the representative of Israel (see Mat 2:15) by one of His Apostles. ‘He who has dipped his hand into the dish with Me will betray Me’.

* The bread no longer pointed to the afflictions of Israel, but to the affliction which was to be heaped on Jesus, from which His disciples and all who believed as a result of their preaching would benefit. ‘This is my body.’

* The Passover lamb with its shed blood was combined with the cup of blessing, and Jesus declared over the cup (depicting the cup of suffering – Mat 20:22; Mat 26:39), ‘this is My blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’.

* Matthew then connects the promise of the certainly of the coming of the Kingly Rule of His Father with the Hallel (Mat 26:29-30). The Hallel includes many ideas, including the following:

* It speaks of God being their help and their shield (Psa 115:9-11), and the One Who will multiply blessing to His people from Heaven (Psa 115:12-15; compare Mat 5:3-10; Mat 13:16-17; Mat 16:17), so that they will bless the Lord (Psa 115:18).

* It speaks of the One Who will deliver them from death to life even when they are greatly afflicted (Psa 116:8-10; compare Mat 7:14; Mat 16:25; Mat 19:29; Mat 25:46), so that they will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord (Psa 116:13; Mat 26:27-28).

* Thus they will offer to Him the sacrifice of thanksgiving and call on the name of the Lord (Psa 116:17), praising Him for His covenant love towards them (Psa 117:2; Psa 118:2-3), for He is their strength and their song, and has also become their deliverance (Psa 118:14; Mat 1:21).

* The gates of righteousness will be opened to them for them to enter in (Psa 118:19; compare Mat 5:6; Mat 5:20; Mat 21:32), because He is their salvation (Psa 118:21; Mat 1:21), and this because the stone which the builders rejected has become the headstone of the corner (Psa 118:22; compare Mat 21:42).

* Thus ‘blessed is the One Who comes in the name of the Lord’ (Psa 118:26; compare Mat 21:9; Mat 23:39).

Here are all the elements of the ‘drinking of the fruit of the vine (depicting rejoicing and celebration) in the Kingly Rule of His Father’. As Jesus said, ‘I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you within My Father’s Kingly Rule’, for then salvation will have been accomplished and they will have received life out of death (Mat 7:14; Mat 16:25; Mat 19:29; Mat 25:46).

Analysis of Mat 26:20-25 .

a Now when evening was come, He was reclining at meat with the twelve disciples, and as they were eating, He said, “Truly I say to you, that one of you will betray Me (Mat 26:20-21).

b And they were deeply sorry, and began to say to Him, every one, “Is it I, Lord?” (Mat 26:22).

c And He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish, the same will betray Me” (Mat 26:23).

d “The Son of man goes, even as it is written of Him” (Mat 26:24 a).

c “But woe to that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! Good were it for that man if he had not been born” (Mat 26:24).

b And Judas, who betrayed Him, answered and said, “Is it I, Rabbi?” (Mat 26:25 a)

a He says to him, “You have said” (Mat 26:25 b).

Note that in ‘a’ Jesus declares that He will be betrayed, and in the parallel confirms to Judas that he is the one who will betray Him. In ‘b’ the disciples were deeply sorry and ask, ‘Is it I, Lord’, and in the parallel Judas asks, ‘Is it I, Rabbi.’ Note the contrasts. The disciples are deeply sorry, Judas is the betrayer. The disciples call Him ‘Lord’, Judas calls Him ‘Rabbi’. (The contrast is probably mainly Matthew’s). In ‘c’ one who has meal fellowship with Him will betray Him, and in the parallel woe is to the one who will betray Him, it were best for him if he had not even been born. Centrally in ‘d’ the Son of Man goes at is written of Him.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Final Passover And The Declaration Of The New Covenant (26:20-35).

This second subsection is carefully patterned around the Passover meal. It commences with a warning of Jesus’ coming betrayal, describes the Passover and the establishing of the Lord’s Supper, and concludes with a warning of the coming desertion of His disciples and of Peter’s coming threefold denial. Thus the institution of the Lord’s Supper, revealing the Lord’s future provision for His own, is placed within a framework of the betrayal, desertion and denial of those who were closest to Him, which serves to demonstrate how necessary that provision was. It is a mirror-image of God’s grace at work, operating in the midst of a world in turmoil.

It can be analysed as follows:

a Jesus declares that one of His Apostles will betray Him (Mat 26:20-25).

b Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper and then establishes the new covenant in His blood (Mat 26:26-30).

a Jesus declares that the remainder of His Apostles will forsake Him and Peter will deny Him three times (Mat 26:31-35).

The instituting of the Lord’s Supper is therefore enveloped within a picture of the total failure of His chosen Apostles, one in betrayal and the others in great fear, emphasising that what Jesus is to go through He must go through alone. It is clear that this aloneness was necessary to the fulfilment of God’s purpose, for in the very nature of things none other could have a part in the carrying through of the essential saving activity of God in Jesus.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Passover Meal and the Institution of the Lord’s Supper.

The traitor in their midst:

v. 20. Now when the even was come, He sat down with the Twelve.

v. 21. And as they did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you that one of you shall betray Me.

v. 22. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto Him, Lord, is it I?

v. 23. And He answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish, the same shall betray Me.

v. 24. The Son of Man goeth as it is written of Him; but woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born.

v. 25. Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.

By sundown all the lambs that had been presented in the Temple-courts had been slain, and throughout the city of Jerusalem the little bands of ten to twenty Jews gathered about the commemorative meal. Originally, the supper had been eaten standing, Exo 12:11, but the Jews, after entering the Promised Land, had modified this rule, saying that servants stand, masters recline at the table. Jesus had all twelve of His disciples with Him when the meal began. It began with the benediction over the wine and the feast and the drinking of the first cup, the master of the house drinking first, after him the rest. After all had washed their hands, they ate the bitter herbs, dipped in vinegar or salt water, as a reminder of the sorrows of Egypt. In the meantime the paschal dishes were brought in, the charoseth , or broth, the unleavened loaves, the festal offerings, and, above all, the roasted lamb, after which came the explanation of all these dishes by the head of the household. They now sang the first part of the Hallel, Psa 113:1-9; Psa 114:1-8, and drank the second cup. Hereupon began the feast proper, the householder taking two loaves, breaking one in two, laying this upon the whole loaf, blessing it, wrapping it with bitter herbs, dipping it into the broth, and handing it around the circle, with the words: This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in Egypt. The master next blessed the paschal lamb and ate of it; the festal offerings were eaten with the bread, dipped in the broth; and finally also the lamb. The thanksgiving for the meal followed the blessing and the drinking of the third cup. In conclusion, the remainder of the Hallel was sung, Psa 115:1-18; Psa 116:1-19; Psa 117:1-2; Psa 118:1-29, and the fourth cup drunk. “The first cup was thus devoted to the announcement of the feast; and Luke tells us that with this cup Christ announced to the disciples that this was the last feast which He would celebrate with them in this world. The second cup was devoted to the interpretation of the festal act; with it the Apostle Paul connects the exhortation: ‘As oft as ye eat of this bread and drink of the cup. ‘ The third cup followed the breaking of the loaves, which celebrated the unleavened bread and was the cup of thanksgiving; this the Lord consecrated as the cup of the New Covenant. ” It was during the first part of the meal that the Lord made His startling announcement regarding the traitor in their midst. He does not turn directly to the guilty one, but is very considerate with him, as though He were still gently urging him to repentance. Naturally, the greatest consternation and sorrow is caused by these words, and the disciples frantically implore Him: Surely it cannot be I! Jesus gives them a definite sign by which they might know the traitor, namely, the one who with Him would dip his morsel of bread into the broth, and would then receive it at His hands. But in the general excitement, and on account of the fact that all the members of the little circle dipped their bread into the sop, or charoseth , this was overlooked in part. But Christ speaks solemn words of warning in a last effort to keep Judas from carrying out his nefarious undertaking. The Lord must indeed enter upon His Passion according to the Scriptures and the will of God, but he that would betray Him into the hands of His enemies was a cursed being, for whom it would have been far better had he never been born. Judas, however, had utterly hardened his heart. The searching, warning words of Christ only served to make him impudent. Note: While the other disciples all address Jesus as Lord, Judas calls Him merely Rabbi, either from fear of a bad conscience or from the depth of insolence. Also: When people deliberately refuse to accept the sweet promises of the Gospel, this will finally become unto them a savor of death unto death, 2Co 2:15-16.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 26:20. Now when the even was come When the Jews celebrated the passover, they assembled together from ten to twenty in number, at some private house, or more properly speaking, laid down, and ate the lamb with unleavened bread. After this repast was finished, they washed again, and, lying down the second time, they had for the second course, a dish of sallad, consisting of bitter herbs, into which they put a kind of sauce named haroseth, made of palm-tree branches, or raisins and berries, bruised and mixed with vinegar and seasoning, to represent the clay of which their fathers made bricks in Egypt; for haras, is the Hebrew word for a brick. Then the master of the family, dividing the bread into two parts, is said to have blessed one of them in the following form of words: “Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, the king of the whole world, in the eating of unleavened bread;” but he hid the other part under the napkin till the feast was ended. Afterwards he took the piece of bread that was hidden, and having divided it into as many parts as there were persons present, distributed to every one of them, using these words; “This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in theland of affliction. Let him that is hungry come, and eat the passover; let him that hath need come, and eat the passover.” Then taking the cup he first tasted it himself, and afterwards presented it to each of them, saying, “Blessed be thou, O Lord, who hast created the fruit of the vine.” We should observe, that after eating the unleavened bread and bitter herbs, one of the younger persons present (generally a child) asked the reason of what was peculiar in that feast, according to Exo 12:26; Exo 12:51 which introduced the haggadah, that is to say, the shewing forth or declaration of it: in allusion to which we read of shewing forth the Lord’s death, 1Co 11:26. After these things they sung Psalm, cxiii,and the five Psalms following, which they called the greathallelujah; and thus the feast ended. See the authors above quoted, Josephus’s war, b. 6: ch. 9: and the Religious Ceremonies, vol. 1 p. 215.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 26:20 . ] for the enactment (Exo 12:11 ) requiring the Passover lamb to be eaten standing , staff in hand, and in travelling attire, had been subsequently superseded by the necessity of reclining. See Hieros Pesachim f. 37. 2 : “Mos servorum est, ut edant stantes, at nunc comedant recumbentes, ut dignoscatur, exisse eos e servitute in libertatem.” See Usteri, Comment. Joh. ev. genuin. esse . 1823, p. 26 ff.

It was considered desirable that no Passover party should ever consist of fewer than ten guests (Joseph. Bell. vi. 9. 3), for the lamb had to be entirely consumed (Exo 12:4 ; Exo 12:43 ff.)

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

Ver. 20. He sat down with the twelve ] With Judas among the rest; though Hilary hold otherwise, for what reason I know not. Christ sat at the sacrament, when yet the gesture imported in the law was standing; and this sitting at the Passover was nowhere commanded, yet by the godly Jews was generally used. Let this “heap of wheat” (the Lord’s supper, as some interpret it) be “set about with lilies,” Son 7:2 , that is, with Christians, white, and of holy life; that is the main matter to be looked to.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

20 25. ] JESUS, CELEBRATING THE PASSOVER, ANNOUNCES HIS BETRAYER. Mar 14:17-21 . Joh 13:21 ff. Our Lord and the twelve were a full Paschal company; ten persons was the ordinary and minimum number. Here come in (1) the expression of our Lord’s desire to eat this Passover before His suffering , Luk 22:15-16 ; (2) the division of this first cup , ib. Luk 22:17 , Mat 18:3 ) the washing of the disciples’ feet , Joh 13:1-20 (? see note, Joh 13:22 ). I mention these, not that I have any desire to reduce the four accounts to a harmonized narrative, for that I believe to be impossible, and the attempt wholly unprofitable; but because they are additional circumstances, placed by their narrators at this period of the feast. I shall similarly notice all such additional matter, but without any idea of harmonizing the apparent discrepancies of the four (as appears to me) entirely distinct and independent reports.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 26:20-25 . The presence of a traitor announced (Mar 14:18-21 , Luk 22:21-23 ).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 26:20-21 . . It is evening, and the company are at supper, and during the meal ( ., Mat 26:21 ) Jesus made a startling announcement. At what stage is not indicated. Elsner suggests a late stage: “Cumfere comedissent; vergente ad finem coen,” because an early announcement would have killed appetite.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 26:20-25

20Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples. 21As they were eating, He said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me.” 22Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him, “Surely not I, Lord?” 23And He answered, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me. 24The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” 25And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, “Surely it is not I, Rabbi?” Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself.”

Mat 26:20 “reclining at the table” Tables and chairs were only used in Egypt in this period of time. In Palestine they laid on their left elbows at a low table with their feet behind them (cf. Mar 14:18). This is how Mary could easily anoint His feet (cf. Joh 12:3).

Mat 26:21 “betray” This is the Greek term “to give over” (paradidmi). It is always translated “betray” by English Bibles, but this is not an established meaning. It can mean

1. a positive meaning of entrust (cf. Mat 11:27)

2. restore or commend (cf. Act 14:26; Act 15:40)

3. a negative sense of to hand someone over to the authorities

4. to put someone in Satan’s hands (cf. 1Co 5:5; 1Ti 1:20)

5. for God to abandon someone to his own idolatry (cf. Act 7:42)

It is obvious that context must determine the meaning of the common verb.

Mat 26:22 “Surely not I, Lord” Each disciple asked the question. The Greek grammatical construction expected a negative answer. Their asking the question shows their confusion.

Mat 26:23 “He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me” For one to betray a host was the height of shame in the East (cf. Psa 41:9). Judas had the seat of honor next to Jesus on His left side. Jesus was still trying to reach Judas!

“the bowl” This was a traditional Passover sauce of nuts, raisins, dates, figs, and vinegar.

Mat 26:24 Jesus knew who He was and what He must do (cf. Joh 13:1). Jesus came to reveal God, to give mankind an example to follow, and to die for their sin (cf. Mar 10:45; Act 2:23-24; 2Co 5:21). His life was revealed in OT prophecy (cf. Mat 26:31; Mat 26:54; Mat 26:56; Mat 11:10; Mat 21:42).

“if” This is a second class conditional sentence. Judas’betrayal was a necessary, predicted act for which he will suffer the punishment. This is the mystery of election and free will!

Mat 26:25 “Surely it is not I, Rabbi” Note Judas used the title “rabbi” (i.e., my teacher) not “Lord” as the other disciples had.

“You have said it yourself” Jesus was still trying to reach Judas. The idiomatic phrase was also used in Mat 26:64; Mat 27:11.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

He sat down. Thus showing us that this could not be the Passover lamb, which must be eaten standing. See Exo 12:11.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

20-25.] JESUS, CELEBRATING THE PASSOVER, ANNOUNCES HIS BETRAYER. Mar 14:17-21. Joh 13:21 ff. Our Lord and the twelve were a full Paschal company; ten persons was the ordinary and minimum number. Here come in (1) the expression of our Lords desire to eat this Passover before His suffering, Luk 22:15-16; (2) the division of this first cup, ib. Luk 22:17, Mat 18:3) the washing of the disciples feet, Joh 13:1-20 (? see note, Joh 13:22). I mention these, not that I have any desire to reduce the four accounts to a harmonized narrative, for that I believe to be impossible, and the attempt wholly unprofitable; but because they are additional circumstances, placed by their narrators at this period of the feast. I shall similarly notice all such additional matter, but without any idea of harmonizing the apparent discrepancies of the four (as appears to me) entirely distinct and independent reports.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 26:20. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

Why so many people celebrate the Lords supper in the morning, I cannot imagine, unless it be that they desire to do everything contrary to their Lords command and example: When the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. I do not think there is any binding ordinance making the evening the only time for the observance of this ordinance; but to make the morning the only time is certainly not according to the Word of God.

Mat 26:21-22. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful,

There was enough to make them sorrowful in the fact that their Lord had just told them that one of the twelve who were his body-guard, his closest companions, his nearest and dearest friends, would betray him. They were exceeding sorrowful,

Mat 26:22. And began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?

It shows a beautiful trait in their character that they did not suspect one another, and least of all, I suppose, did they suspect Judas; but each one asked, Lord, is it I? It is an admirable way of hearing a sermon to take it home to yourself, especially if there be a rebuke or a caution in it.

Mat 26:23-24. And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

The doom of the wicked is something far worse than non-existence, or Christ would not have said, concerning Judas Iscariot, It had been good for that man if he had never been born. This is especially true of all those who, having for a while consorted with Christ, afterwards deny it and betray him. O brothers and sisters, may all of us be kept from this terrible sin! May none of us ever betray our Master after all the fellowship we have had with him! It would be better to die for him than to deny him; and it would be better never to have been born than to have been in intimate association with him, and then to have betrayed him.

Mat 26:23. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.

It is even so, With a sorrowful gesture, he made it plain to his sad little circle of friends and followers that he knew all that was going to happen, and that Judas was the man who was going to turn traitor.

Mat 26:26. And as they were eating,

As they were eating the Passover. The one ordinance gradually melted into the other: As they were eating,

Mat 26:26-27. Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

Each one of you, my disciples, take a draught of this cup.

Mat 26:28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

They had had gross sin brought prominently to their minds; they had had a personal reminder of their own liability to sin; and now they were to have a personal pledge concerning the pardon of sin: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sin.

Mat 26:29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom.

Taking, as it were, the great Nazarite vow never to taste of the fruit of the vine until that day. He will keep his tryst with us, my brethren; and we shall drink the new vine of his Fathers kingdom with him by-and by; but, until then, he waits.

Mat 26:30. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

This exposition consisted of readings from Mat 26:20-30; And 1Co 11:20-26.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

sat down with the twelve

The order of events on the night of the Passover supper appears to have been:

(1) The taking by our Lord and the disciples of their places at the table;

(2) the contention who should be greatest;

(3) the feet washing;

(4) the identification Judas as the traitor;

(5) the withdrawal of Judas;

(6) the institution of the supper;

(7) the words of Jesus while still in the room Mat 26:26-29; Luk 22:35-38; Joh 13:3-35; Mat 14:1-31

(8) the words of Jesus between the room and the garden Mat 26:31-35; Mar 14:26-31; Joh 15:16; Joh 15:17 it seems probable that the high-priestly prayer Joh 17:1-26 was uttered after they reached the garden;

(9) the agony in the garden;

(10) the betrayal and arrest;

(11) Jesus before Caiaphas; Peter’s denial.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

when: Mar 14:17-21, Luk 22:14-16, Joh 13:21

he: Exo 12:11, Son 1:12

Reciprocal: Deu 16:6 – at even Mat 10:1 – called

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

6:20

One of the great advantages of having more than one account of the life of Christ is the fact that the same details are not given in all of them. The things that happened on this last night of Christ before his death are not given in strict chronological order. For the convenience of the reader I shall write a list of references, and if he will read them in exactly the order as given he will have a connected record of what took place on that night. Luk 22:14-18; Luke 21-23; Joh 13:23-30; Luk 22:19-20. It is important that the passages be read just as the references show, not taking in a single verse not indicated nor leaving out one. I shall now comment on the verses of this chapter in their order. Even is from OPSIOS and has a somewhat indefinite meaning as to any exact hour, but all lexicons agree that it means toward the end of the day.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

[He sat down with the twelve.]

I. The schools of the Rabbins distinguish between sitting at the table, and lying at the table: “If they sit to eat; every one says grace for himself; if they lie; one says grace for all.” But now “that lying,” as the Gloss on the place saith, “was when they leaned on their left side upon couches, and ate and drank as they thus leaned.” And the same Gloss in another place; “They used to eat lying along upon their left side, their feet being on the ground, every one on a single couch”: Babyl. Berac. As also the Gemara; to lie on one’s back is not called lying down; and to lie on one’s right side is not called lying down.

II. The Israelites accounted such lying down in eating a very fit posture requisite in sacred feasts, and highly requisite and most necessary in the Paschal supper: “We do not use lying down but only to a morsel,” etc. “And indeed to those that did eat leaning, leaning was necessary. But now our sitting is a kind of leaning along. They were used to lean along every one on his own couch, and to eat his meat on his own table: but we eat all together at one table.”

Even the poorest Israelite must not eat till he lies down. The canon is speaking about the Paschal supper; on which thus the Babylonians: “It is said that the feast of unleavened bread requires leaning or lying down, but the bitter herbs not: concerning wine, it is said in the name of Rabh Nachman that it hath need of lying down: and it is said in the name of Rabh Nachman, that it hath not need of lying down: and yet these do not contradict one another; for that is said of the two first cups, this of the two last.” They lie down on the left side, not on the right, “because they must necessarily use their right hand in eating.” So the Gloss there.

III. They used and were fond of that custom of lying down, even to superstition, because it carried with it a token and signification of liberty: “R. Levi saith, It is the manner of slaves to eat standing: but now let them eat lying along, that it may be known that they are gone out of bondage to liberty. R. Simon in the name of R. Joshua Ben Levi, Let that which a man eats at the Passover, and does his duty, though it be but as big as an olive, let it be eaten lying along.” “They eat the unleavened bread the first night lying down, because it is a commemoration of deliverance. The bitter herbs have no need of lying down, because they are in memory of bondage. Although it be the bread of affliction, yet it is to be eaten after the manner of liberty.” See more there. “We are obliged to lie down when we eat, that we may eat after the manner of kings and nobles.”

IV. “When there were two beds, the worthiest person lay uppermost; the second to him, next above him. But when there were three beds, the worthiest person lay in the middle, the second above him, the third below him.” On which thus the Gloss: “When there were two, the principal person lay on the first couch, and the next to him lay above him, that is, on a couch placed at the pillow of the more worthy person. If there were three, the worthiest lay in the middle, the next above him, and the third below him; that is, at the coverlids of his feet. If the principal person desires to speak with the second, he must necessarily raise himself so as to sit upright; for as long as he sits bending he cannot speak to him; for the second sat behind the head of the first, and the face of the first was turned another away: and it would be better with the second [in respect of discourse] if he sat below him; for then he might hear his words, even as he lay along.” This affords some light to that story, Joh 13:23-24; where Peter, as seems likely, lying behind our Saviour’s head in the first place next after him, could not discourse with him, nor ask about the betrayer: therefore looking over Christ’s head upon John, he gave him a sign to inquire. He sitting in the second place from Christ with his face towards him, asketh him…

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 26:20. Even. Luke: the hour. Both point to the regular time.

He was sitting at meat, or, reclining at table. The original requirement was, to eat the Passover standing (Exo 12:11). The Jews altered this when they came to the land of promise and rest.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, The impudent forehead of this bold traitor, Judas, who presumed, as soon as he had sold his Master, to sit down at the table with him, and partake with the other disciples of the solemn ordinance of the passover; had the presence of Judas polluted the ordinance to any besides himself, doubtless our Saviour would never have permitted this bold intrusion.

Learn hence, 1. That nothing is more ordinary than for unholy persons presumptuously to rush in upon the solemn ordinances of God, which they have no right, whilst such, to partake of.

2. That the presence of such persons pollutes the ordinances only to themselves; holy persons are not polluted by the sins of such: for to the pure all things are pure.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 26:20-25. And when the even was come At the proper hour; he sat down with the twelve To taste first, according to the custom of those days, the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs, before the lamb was served up. After which they proceeded as is related in the note on Mat 26:2. And as they did eat he said One of you shall betray me He had before told them, namely, Mat 17:22, that the Son of man should be betrayed; he now comes to acquaint them, that one of them would be the traitor, and to point out the guilty person. And they were exceeding sorrowful They were sorrowful that he should be betrayed by any one, but more so that one of themselves should be the instrument of so horrible a crime: and began every one to say, Lord, is it I, that am this guilty creature? They do not appear to have asked this question because they mistrusted themselves, not knowing to how great a wickedness their hearts might lead them; but because each of them wanted to be freed from the suspicion of such an iniquity. He answered, He that dippeth, &c. Grotius and others think this implies that Judas had placed himself so near his Master as to eat out of the same dish with him. But their way of lying on couches at meat must have made it inconvenient for two or more persons to eat in that manner. It is more probable that the disciples, being in the deepest distress, had left off eating, only Judas, to conceal his guilt, continued the meal, and was dipping his meat in a kind of a sauce named haroseth, (which they used on these occasions,) when Jesus happened to be putting his into it; which sauce, according to custom, was served up in a separate dish. Macknight. The Son of man goeth through sufferings to glory, as it is written of him In the Scriptures; and determined in the divine counsels. See note on Act 2:23. Yet this was no excuse for him that betrayed him: but wo to that man, &c. In pronouncing this wo upon the man by whom he should be betrayed, our Lord manifestly shows that the foreknowledge and prediction that he should suffer, and that by the treachery of Judas, laid no antecedent necessity upon Judas of doing this action, for if it had, it not only would have lessened the wo due to him, but would have taken away all his guilt. For no guilt can attach to any action which a man is laid under an absolute necessity of doing, and which to him is unavoidable. All that the prediction of Judass treachery implies is, that God with certainty foreknew how his will, left entirely to its own freedom, would determine on this occasion: and, it must be observed, it would have determined in the same way, if such determination had neither been foreknown nor foretold. See note on 1Pe 1:2. It had been good for that man if he had not been born May not the same be said of every man that finally perishes? But who can reconcile this, if it were true of Judas alone, with the doctrine of universal salvation? For, if the torments of hell were not eternal, but, after suffering in them, though it might be millions of millions of years, guilty sinners should be rescued from them and brought to the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness, it still would be good for them that they had been born, inasmuch as they would still have a never-ending state of felicity before them. Then Judas, who betrayed him Who had in fact already betrayed him, Mat 26:15, and was now waiting for an opportunity to deliver him privately into the hands of the chief priests, answered, Master Gr. Rabbi, or teacher, Is it I? The other disciples, in asking the same question, said each of them, , Lord, is it I? a title implying greater reverence than Judas was disposed to show his Master. As Judas was conscious of what he had already done, and was resolved still further to do, in betraying and delivering up his Divine Master, and could not but know that his whole conduct, and the very secrets of his heart, lay open to his inspection, he manifests by this question unparalleled impudence, as well as excessive hardness of heart. One would almost suppose, that he intended to insult Christs prescience as well as long-suffering. He, Jesus, said unto him, Thou hast said That is, It is as thou hast said: thou art the guilty person. Before this, when Christ discovered that he should be betrayed, he only told it in Johns ear, that Judas would be the traitor: and John told it to Peter, (see Joh 13:23-26;) but the rest knew nothing of it. Now Jesus plainly points him out before them all; which, impudent as he was, evidently confounded and struck him speechless. But whether he immediately left the company, as some infer from Joh 13:30; or whether that passage refers to what happened at a former supper, as others think, is a question which it is not easy to decide. One thing seems clear: if he withdrew at this time, he must have soon returned, as it appears, from Luk 22:21, that he was present when the Lords supper was instituted.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

THE PASSOVER

Mat 26:20; Mar 14:17; Luk 22:14-18. It is now about 6 P. M. on Thursday preceding our Lords crucifixion, when they proceed to eat the Passover meal. And when the hour arrived, He and His twelve apostles along with Him sat down at the table. And He said to them, With desire I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffered; for I say unto you, that I no more eat of it until it may be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. This is really not only His last Passover meal, but the last of all that He ate before He laid down His life. I do not wonder that He intensely desired to enjoy this Passover with His disciples, an institution so significant to every faithful Jew, commemorative of their national birth, and of course pre-eminently significant to the Savior, because it emblematized His expiatory death, then looking Him in the face, as the swift hours rolled on and brought the bloody morrow. As the lamb died to provide that meal for the teeming thousands of Israel to feast upon, so the Lamb of God must die in order that the millions of earth may not starve through all eternity, but feast upon that Passover meal through the flight of eternal ages. The Passover was fulfilled in the kingdom of God when Jesus bled and died on the cross, the Great Antitype typified by the millions of bleeding lambs the last fifteen hundred years. O what rivers of blood quantity symbolizing quality!

And receiving the cup, blessing it, He said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I say unto you, that I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God may come. There is a sense in which the kingdom of God has been in the world from the days of Eden, as the redemptive scheme was launched before the expulsion out of Paradise. The advent of Jesus into the world was a glorious epoch in the kingdom; but you must remember He came to die to redeem the lost. Hence His first advent culminates at Calvary, the grandest and most important epoch in the kingdom of God, and here denominated the coming of the kingdom.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 26:20-25. Jesus Reveals the Treachery of Judas (Mar 14:17-21*, Luk 22:14 ff., Luk 22:21 ff.).

Mat 26:25, which (cf. Joh 13:26) makes Jesus fix the guilt on Judas, is peculiar to Mt. The phrase thou hast said is found again in Mat 6:4 and Mat 27:11. In Mat 26:23 note he that dipped instead of Mk.s dippeth.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

26:20 Now when the even was come, he {h} sat down with the twelve.

(h) Because the Law appointed them to be wearing footwear, and to have their staffs in their hands, as though they were is haste, therefore it is to be gathered that they did not sit down when they ate the Passover, but stood, for normally when they went to eat they took off their shoes: therefore he speaks here in this place, not of the Passover, but of the supper which was celebrated after the Passover was solemnly done.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Jesus’ prediction of His betrayal 26:20-25 (cf. Mar 14:17-21; Luk 22:14-16; Luk 22:21-30; Joh 13:21-30)

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

This Passover would have taken place on Thursday evening. I have dealt with the problems involving the harmonization of Joh 13:1; Joh 13:27; Joh 18:28; Joh 19:14; Joh 19:36 with the observance of the Passover that the Synoptic evangelists recorded in my notes on the Gospel of John. The Jews did not eat the Passover meal until after sundown. Those of them living in Palestine ate it in Jerusalem or not at all. [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 534.] This fact helps us understand that a large number of pilgrims would have been in Jerusalem then. Sometime during the meal Jesus announced that one of the Twelve would betray Him to His enemies. As the significance of this new prediction sank in, each of the disciples present asked Jesus if it was he. The form of the question in the Greek text expected a negative reply.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)