Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:50
And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
50. Friend, wherefore art thou come? ] The Greek word denotes, not friendship, but companionship. It is used in rebuke, ch. Mat 20:13 and Mat 22:12. Here the word is relative to the Rabbi, Mat 26:49, “thou, my disciple.”
St Luke preserves a further answer to Judas, “betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?”
Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus ] St John, who does not mention the kiss of Judas, sets the self-surrender of Jesus in a clear light: “I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 50. Jesus said – Friend] Rather, companion, , (not FRIEND,) wherefore, rather, against whom (‘ , the reading of all the best MSS.) art thou come? How must these words have cut his very soul, if he had any sensibility left! Surely, thou, who hast so long been my companion, art not come against me, thy Lord, Teacher and Friend! What is the human heart not capable of, when abandoned by God, and influenced by Satan and the love of money!
Laid hands on Jesus] But not before they had felt that proof of his sovereign power by which they had all been struck down to the earth, Joh 18:6. It is strange that, after this, they should dare to approach him; but the Scriptures must be fulfilled.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark saith nothing of what Christ said to him. Luke, Luk 22:48, adds, that Christ said to him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? Whether Christ used this compellation of friend to Judas, to mind him what he formerly had been, and still ought to have been, or as a common compellation, (as we oft use it), is not much material. A kiss is the symbol of friendship and kindness, and therefore very improperly used by a traitor and professed enemy; yet so used by Joab to Amasa, 2Sa 20:9. That makes our Saviour ask him if he were not ashamed to betray the Son of man by a kiss. Judas, by calling him Master, master, acknowledged he had been once his disciple. By his kiss he pretended friendship to him, yet betrayed him. Oh the depth of desperate wickedness which is in the heart of man! Especially such as apostatize from a former profession; they are commonly the worst and most false enemies of Christ and his gospel.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And Jesus said unto him, friend,…. Not in an ironical and sarcastic way, but because he pretended to be his friend, by saluting and kissing him, in the manner he had done; or rather, because Christ had always used him as his friend, his familiar friend, who had been of his councils, and had ate at his table; and therefore this carried in it something very cutting, had Judas had any conscience, or sense of gratitude:
wherefore art thou come? The Ethiopic version reads, “my friend, art thou not come?” that is, art thou come as my friend? is thy coming as a friend, or as an enemy? if as a friend, what means this company with swords and staves? if as an enemy, why this salutation and kiss? or what is thine end in coming at this time of night? what is thy business here? thou hast left my company, and my disciples, what dost thou do here? The Syriac version reads it, “to that”; and the Arabic, “to this art thou come?” to kiss me, and by a kiss to deliver me into the hands of my enemies? to which agrees what is said in Luke, “Judas, betrayest thou the son of man with a kiss?”
Lu 22:48. This he said, to let him know he knew him, and therefore he calls him by name; and that he knew his design in kissing him, and that what he was doing was against light and knowledge; he, at the same time, knowing that he was the son of man, the true Messiah.
Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him; that is, the multitude, the Roman band, the captains and officers of the Jews, when Judas had given the sign; though not till Christ had given them a specimen of his power, in striking them to the ground; to let them know, that Judas could never have put him into their hands, nor could they have laid hold on him, had he not thought fit to surrender himself to them. The seizing and apprehending him is related by Luke and John as after the following circumstance; though the Ethiopic version here reads, “they lift up their hands, and did not lay hold on the Lord Jesus”.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Do that for which thou art come (‘ ). Moffatt and Goodspeed take it: “Do your errand.” There has been a deal of trouble over this phrase. Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, pp. 125 to 131) has proven conclusively that it is a question, ‘ in late Greek having the interrogative sense of (Robertson, Grammar, p. 725). The use of ‘ for “why here” occurs on a Syrian tablet of the first century A.D. 50 that it “was current coin in the language of the people” (Deissmann). Most of the early translations (Old Latin, Old Syriac) took it as a question. So the Vulgate has ad quid venisti. In this instance the Authorized Version is correct against the Revised. Jesus exposes the pretence of Judas and shows that he does not believe in his paraded affection (Bruce).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Wherefore art thou come? [ ] . The interrogation of the A. V. is wrong. The expression is elliptical and condensed. Literally it is, that for which thou art here; and the mind is to supply do or be about. The Lord spurns the traitor ‘s embrace, and says, in effect, “Enough of this hypocritical fawning. Do what you are here to do.” So Rev., Do that for which thou art come.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
50. Friend, for what purpose comest thou? Luke expresses it more fully: Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? except that there is greater force in this reproof, that the benevolence of his Master, and the very high honor conferred on him, are wickedly abused for the purpose of the basest treachery. For Christ does not employ an ironical address when he calls him friend, but charges him with ingratitude, that, from being an intimate friend, who sat at his table, he had become a traitor, as had been predicted in the psalm: If a stranger had done this, I could have endured it; but now my private and familiar friend, with whom I took food pleasantly, who accompanied me to the temple of the Lord, hath prepared snares against me. (214) This shows clearly—what I hinted a little ago—that, whatever may be the artifices by which hypocrites conceal themselves, and whatever may be the pretenses which they hold out, when they come into the presence of the Lord, their crimes become manifest; and it even becomes the ground of a severer sentence against them, that, having been admitted into the bosom of Christ, they treacherously rise up against him. For the word friend, as we have stated, contains within itself a sharp sting.
Let us know that this evil, which Christ once sustained in his own person, is an evil to which the Church will always be exposed—that of cherishing traitors in her bosom; and, therefore, it was said a little before, The traitor approached, who was one of the twelve, that we may not be immediately distressed by such instances; for the Lord intends to try our faith in both ways, when, without, Satan opposes us and the Church by open enemies, and, within, he attempts secret destruction by means of hypocrites. We are taught, at the same time, that we who are his disciples ought to worship God with sincerity; for the apostasies, which we see every day, excite us to fear, and to the cultivation of true godliness, as Paul says,
Let every one that calleth on the name of God depart from iniquity, (2Ti 2:19.)
We are all commanded to kiss the Son of God, (Psa 2:12😉 and we ought, therefore, to see that no one give him a traitor’s kiss, otherwise it will cost us dear to have been elevated to so great an honor.
(214) Our Author, quoting from memory, has blended two passages of a kindred spirit: Psa 41:10, and Psa 55:12. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(50) Friend, wherefore art thou come?The word is the same as in Mat. 20:13; Mat. 22:12; and comrade, and the old and not yet obsolete English mate, come nearer to its meaning. In classical Greek it was used by fellow-soldiers, or sailors, of each other. Socrates used it in conversing with his scholars (Plato, Repub. i., p. 334). It is probably immediately after the kiss had thus been given that we must insert the short dialogue between our Lord and the officers recorded in Joh. 18:2-8.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
50. Friend Rather, companion, associate. For the sincere Saviour could hardly call him friend. Wherefore art thou come? Our Lord puts in this question, as Judas well knows, not in order to learn, but to make Judas think. What errand is it for which you, a disciple, have now come to your Lord? And then he develops his full knowledge by the question supplied by Mark: “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” To betray is bad enough; to betray the Son of man is worse; to betray him with a kiss is worst of all.
With meek majesty, showing even at that very moment that he is Lord, Jesus accepts this beginning of insults from man. But for a brief interval (Joh 18:4-9) he holds his foes at bay by the secret restraint of his power before he yields to the arrest. This he does to demonstrate that he lays down his life of himself. For the same reason he utters the declaration in Mat 26:53.
Took him As soon as the divine influence, by which the multitude were withheld, was in a measure withdrawn, they used their power to apprehend him.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you are come for.” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.’
Jesus’ reply is equally significant. He only uses ‘friend’ of those who are in a doubtful position and as used by a superior to an inferior (Mat 20:13; Mat 22:12). Perhaps this ties in with what we saw about the kiss above. Perhaps He is reminding Judas of his place. For He knows perfectly well why Judas is here and will not pretend. But He still by it leaves open the possibility of repentance.
‘Do what you are come for.’ Literally it is ‘friend, for what you have come’. Some therefore translate as ‘what have you come for?’. But it is more probable that we are expected to add something, ‘I know what you have come for’, or ‘do what you have come for’. But it is certainly an indication that Jesus will not interfere with his purpose.
‘Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.’ Compare, ‘the Son of Man is delivered over into the hands of sinners’ (Mat 26:45). Unlike Pilate they did not wash their hands of Him. They ‘laid hold of Him’. Compare Judas’ words in Mat 26:48. This was their response to the offer of friendship.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 26:50. Friend, Wherefore art thou come? The heroic behaviour of the blessed Jesus, in the whole period or his sufferings, will be observed by every attentive eye, and felt by every pious heart; although the sacred historians, according to their usual but wonderful simplicity, make no encomiums upon it. With what composure does he go forth to meet the traitor! with what composure receive that malignant kiss! with what dignity does he deliver himself into the hands of his enemies! yet plainly shewing his superiority over them, and even then leading as it were captivity captive. See Bishop Hall’s Contemplations on the subject.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 26:50 . ] as in Mat 20:13 .
] As the relative is never used in a direct (see Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 57), but only in an indirect question (Khner, II. 2, p. 942; Ellendt, Lex. Soph . II. p. 372), it follows that the ordinary interrogative interpretation must be wrong; and that to suppose (Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 207 f.]) that we have here one of those corrupt usages peculiar to the Greek of a less classical age, is, so far as is concerned, without any foundation whatever. Fritzsche, followed by Buttmann, Neut. Gr . p. 217 [E. T. 253], understands the expression as an exclamation : “ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades!” But even then, Greek usage would have required that it should have been put in an interrogative form and expressed by , or failing this we might have had the words instead (Ellendt, as above, p. 300 f.). The language, as might be expected from the urgent nature of the situation, is somewhat abrupt in its character: Friend, mind what you are here for! attend to that . With these words He spurns the kisses with which the traitor was overwhelming Him. This suits the connection better than the supplying of (Morison). Instead of this hypocritical kissing, Jesus would prefer that Judas should at once proceed with the dark deed he had in view, and deliver Him to the catchpolls.
Joh 18:3 ff., it is true, makes no mention whatever of the kissing; but this is not to be taken as indicating the legendary character of the incident, especially as there is nothing to prevent us from supposing that it may have taken place just before the question , Joh 18:4 ; see on this latter passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
Ver. 50. Friend ] Since thou wilt needs be so esteemed, though most unfriendly.
Wherefore art thou come? ] As a friend, or as a foe? If as a friend, what mean these swords If as a foe, what means this kiss? Christ knew well enough wherefore he came; but thinks good to sting his conscience by this cutting question.
Laid hands, on Jesus and took him ] By his own consent, and , as Irenaeus hath it, while the Deity rested, and refused to put forth itself.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
50. ] In Luke we have , . . , which sense is involved in the text also: that variation shewing perhaps that one of the accounts is not from an eye-witness.
] see ch. Mat 22:12 and note. . , . Ammonius.
can hardly be a question. No such use of the simple relative has ever been adduced: “pronomen pro interrogativo usurpari, falsa est Hoogeveeni opinio, ad Viger. Mat 26:14 , alienissimo Demosthenis loco (p. 779) abutentis.” Lobeck on Phryn. p. 57 note. It therefore must be either an exclamation, as Fritzsche, “ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades!” which would be equally alien from the usage of , exclamations of this sort in Greek being expressed in an interrogative form: or an aposiopesis; as Euthym [175] , , , . And to this I should incline. “Friend, there needs not this shew of attachment: I know thine errand, hoc age.” But the command itself is suppressed. See Meyer’s note, who also takes this view. On any understanding of the words, it is an appeal to the conscience and heart of Judas, in which sense (see above) it agrees with the words spoken in Luke: see note there. The fact that at this period our Lord was laid hold of and secured (by hand not yet bound ) by the band, is important, as interpreting Luke’s account further on.
[175] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:50 . : so might a master salute a disciple, and disciple or companion is, I think, the sense of the word here (so Elsner, Palairet, Wolf, Schanz, Carr, Camb. N. T.). It answers to in the salute of Judas. , usually taken as a question: “ad quid venisti?” Vulg [140] Wherefore art thou come? A. V [141] “Wozu bist du da?” Weizscker. Against this is the grammatical objection that instead of should have been . Winer, 24, 4, maintains that might be used instead of in a direct question in late Greek. To get over the difficulty various suggestions have been made: Fritzsche renders: friend, for what work you are come! taking = . Others treat the sentence as elliptical, and supply words before or after: e.g. , say for what you are come (Morison), or what you have come for, that do , R. V [142] , Meyer, Weiss. The last is least satisfactory, for Judas had already done it, as Jesus instinctively knew. Fritzsche’s suggestion is ingenious, and puts a worthy thought into Christ’s mouth. Perhaps the best solution is to take the words as a question in effect , though not in form . Disciple, for which, or as which you are present? Comrade, and as a comrade here? So Judas pretended, and by the laconic phrase Jesus at once states and exposes the pretence, possibly pointing to the crowd behind in proof of the contrary. So in effect Beng.: “hoccine illud est cujus causa ades?”; also Schanz. The point is that the Master gives the false disciple to understand that He does not believe in his paraded affection.
[140] Vulgate (Jerome’s revision of old Latin version).
[141] Authorised Version.
[142] Revised Version.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Matthew
THE LAST PLEADING OF LOVE
Mat 26:50
We are accustomed to think of the betrayer of our Lord as a kind of monster, whose crime is so mysterious in its atrocity as to put him beyond the pale of human sympathy. The awful picture which the great Italian poet draws of him as alone in hell, shunned even there, as guilty beyond all others, expresses the general feeling about him. And even the attempts which have been made to diminish the greatness of his guilt, by supposing that his motive was only to precipitate Christ’s assumption of His conquering Messianic power, are prompted by the same thought that such treason as his is all but inconceivable. I cannot but think that these attempts fail, and that the narratives of the Gospels oblige us to think of his crime as deliberate treachery. But even when so regarded, other emotions than wondering loathing should be excited by the awful story.
There had been nothing in his previous history to suggest such sin, as is proved by the disciples’ question, when our Lord announced that one of them should betray Him. No suspicion lighted on him-no finger pointed to where he sat. But self-distrust asked, ‘Lord, is it I?’ and only love, pillowed on the Master’s breast, and strong in the happy sense of His love, was sufficiently assured of its own constancy, to change the question into ‘Lord! who is it?’ The process of corruption was unseen by all eyes but Christ’s. He came to his terrible pre-eminence in crime by slow degrees, and by paths which we may all tread. As for his guilt, that is in other hands than ours. As for his fate, let us copy the solemn and pitying reticence of Peter, and say, ‘that he might go to his own place’-the place that belongs to him, and that he is fit for, wherever that may be. As for the growth and development of his sin, let us remember that ‘we have all of us one human heart,’ and that the possibilities of crime as dark are in us all. And instead of shuddering abhorrence at a sin that can scarcely be understood, and can never be repeated, let us be sure that whatever man has done, man may do, and ask with humble consciousness of our own deceitful hearts, ‘Lord, is it I?’ These remarkable and solemn words of Christ, with which He meets the treacherous kiss, appear to be a last appeal to Judas. They may possibly not be a question, as in our version-but an incomplete sentence, ‘What thou hast come to do’-leaving the implied command, ‘That do,’ unexpressed. They would then be very like other words which the betrayer had heard but an hour or two before, ‘That thou doest, do quickly.’ But such a rendering does not seem so appropriate to the circumstances as that which makes them a question, smiting on his heart and conscience, and seeking to tear away the veil of sophistications with which he had draped from his own eyes the hideous shape of his crime. And, if so, what a wonderful instance we have here of that long-suffering love. They are the last effort of the divine patience to win back even the traitor. They show us the wrestle between infinite mercy and a treacherous, sinful heart, and they bring into awful prominence the power which that heart has of rejecting the counsel of God against itself. I venture to use them now as suggesting these three things: the patience of Christ’s love; the pleading of Christ’s love; and the refusal of Christ’s love.
I. The patience of Christ’s love.
But we, I hope, dear brethren, think more loftily and more truly of our dear Lord than as simply a perfect manhood, the exemplar of all goodness. How He comes to be that, if He be not more than that, I do not understand, and I, for one, feel that my confidence in the flawless completeness of His human character lives or dies with my belief that He is the Eternal Word, God manifest in the flesh. Certainly we shall never truly grasp the blessed meaning of His life on earth until we look upon it all as the revelation of God. The tears of Christ are the pity of God. The gentleness of Jesus is the long-suffering of God. The tenderness of Jesus is the love of God. ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father’; and all that life so beautiful but so anomalous as to be all but incredible, when we think of it as only the life of a man, glows with a yet fairer beauty, and corresponds with the nature which it expresses, when we think of it as being the declaration to us by the divine Son of the divine Father-our loftiest, clearest, and authentic revelation of God.
How that thought lifts these words before us into a still higher region! We are now in the presence of the solemn greatness of a divine love. If the meaning of this saying is what we have suggested, it is pathetic even in the lower aspect, but how infinitely that pathos is deepened when we view it in the higher!
Surely if ever there was a man who might have been supposed to be excluded from the love of God, it was Judas. Surely if ever there was a moment in a human life, when one might have supposed that even Christ’s ever open heart would shut itself together against any one, it was this moment. But no, the betrayer in the very instant of his treason has that changeless tenderness lingering around him, and that merciful hand beckoning to him still.
And have we not a right to generalise this wonderful fact, and to declare its teaching to be-that the love of God is extended to us all, and cannot be made to turn away from us by any sins of ours? Sin is mighty; it can work endless evils on us; it can disturb and embitter all our relations with God; it can, as we shall presently have to point out, make it necessary for the tenderest ‘grace of God to come disciplining’-to ‘come with a rod,’ just because it comes in ‘the spirit of meekness.’ But one thing it cannot do, and that is-make God cease to love us. I suppose all human affection can be worn out by constant failure to evoke a response from cold hearts. I suppose that it can be so nipped by frosts, so constantly checked in blossoming, that it shrivels and dies. I suppose that constant ingratitude, constant indifference can turn the warmest springs of our love to a river of ice. ‘Can a mother forget her child?-Yea, she may forget.’ But we have to do with a God, whose love is His very being; who loves us not for reasons in us but in Himself; whose love is eternal and boundless as all His nature; whose love, therefore, cannot be turned away by our sin-but abides with us for ever, and is granted to every soul of man. Dear brethren, we cannot believe too firmly, we cannot trust too absolutely, we cannot proclaim too broadly that blessed thought, without which we have no hope to feed on for ourselves, or to share with our fellows-the universal love of God in Christ.
Is there a worst man on earth at this moment? If there be, he, too, has a share in that love. Harlots and thieves, publicans and sinners, leprous outcasts, and souls tormented by unclean spirits, the wrecks of humanity whom decent society and respectable Christianity passes by with averted head and uplifted hands, criminals on the gibbet with the rope round their necks-and those who are as hopeless as any of these, self-complacent formalists and ‘Gospel-hardened professors’-all have a place in that heart. And that, not as undistinguished members of a class, but as separate souls, singly the objects of God’s knowledge and love. He loves all, because He loves each. We are not massed together in His view, nor in His regard. He does not lose the details in the whole; as we, looking on some great crowd of upturned faces, are conscious of all but recognise no single one. He does not love a class-a world-but He loves the single souls that make it up-you and me, and every one of the millions that we throw together in the vague phrase, ‘the race.’ Let us individualise that love in our thoughts as it individualises us in its outflow-and make our own the ‘exceeding broad’ promises, which include us, too. ‘God loves me; Christ gave Himself for me. I have a place in that royal, tender heart.’
Nor should any sin make us doubt this. He loved us with exceeding love, even when we were ‘dead in trespasses.’ He did not begin to love because of anything in us; He will not cease because of anything in us. We change; ‘He abideth faithful, He cannot deny Himself.’ As the sunshine pours down as willingly and abundantly on filth and dunghills, as on gold that glitters in its beam, and jewels that flash back its lustre, so the light and warmth of that unsetting and unexhausted source of life pours down ‘on the unthankful and on the good.’ The great ocean clasps some black and barren crag that frowns against it, as closely as with its waves it kisses some fair strand enamelled with flowers and fragrant with perfumes. So that sea of love in which we ‘live, and move, and have our being,’ encircles the worst with abundant flow. He Himself sets us the pattern, which to imitate is to be the children of ‘our Father which is in heaven,’ in that He loves His enemies, blessing them that curse, and doing good to them that hate. He Himself is what He has enjoined us to be, in that He feeds His enemies when they hunger, and when they thirst gives them drink, heaping coals of fire on their heads, and seeking to kindle in them thereby the glow of answering love, not being overcome of their evil, so that He repays hate with hate and scorn with scorn, but in patient continuance of loving kindness seeking to overcome evil with good. He is Himself that ‘charity’ which ‘is not easily provoked, is not soon angry, beareth all things, hopeth all things, and never faileth.’ His love is mightier than all our sins, and waits not on our merits, nor is turned away by our iniquities. ‘God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’
II. Then, secondly, we have here-the pleading of Christ’s patient love.
The love of Christ has to come to sinful men with patient pleading and remonstrance, that it may enter their hearts and give its blessings. We are familiar with a modern work of art in which that long-suffering appeal is wonderfully portrayed. He who is the Light of the world stands, girded with the royal mantle clasped with the priestly breastplate, bearing in His hand the lamp of truth, and there, amidst the dew of night and the rank hemlock, He pleads for entrance at the closed door which has no handle on its outer side, and is hinged to open only from within. ‘I stand at the door and knock. If any man open the door, I will come in.’
And in this incident before us, we see represented not only the endless patience of God’s pitying love, but the method which it needs to take in order to reach the heart.
There is an appeal to the traitor’s heart, and an appeal to his conscience. Christ would have him think of the relations that have so long subsisted between them; and He would have him think, too, of the real nature of the deed he is doing, or, perhaps, of the motives that impel him. The grave, sad word, by which He addresses him, is meant to smite upon his heart. The sharp question which He puts to him is meant to wake up his conscience; and both taken together represent the two chief classes of remonstrance which He brings to bear upon us all-the two great batteries from which He assails the fortress of our sins.
There is first, then-Christ’s appeal to the heart. He tries to make Judas feel the considerations that should restrain him. The appellation by which our Lord addresses him does not in the original convey quite so strongly the idea of amity, as our word ‘Friend’ does. It is not the same as that which He had used a few hours before in the upper chamber, when He said, ‘Henceforth I call you not servants, but I have called you friends.-Ye are My friends if ye do whatsoever I command you.’ It is the same as is put into the lips of the Lord of the vineyard, remonstrating with his jealous labourer, ‘Friend, I do thee no wrong.’ There is a tone, then, of less intimate association and graver rebuke in it than in that name with which He honours those who make His will theirs, and His word the law of their lives. It does not speak of close confidence, but it does suggest companionship and kindness on the part of the speaker. There is rebuke in it, but it is rebuke which derives its whole force from the remembrance of ancient concord and connection. Our Lord would recall to the memory of the betrayer the days in which they had taken sweet counsel together. It is as if He had said-’Hast thou forgotten all our former intercourse? Thou hast eaten My bread, thou hast been Mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted-canst thou lift up thy heel against Me?’ What happy hours of quiet fellowship on many a journey, of rest together after many a day of toil, what forgotten thoughts of the loving devotion and the glow of glad consecration that he had once felt, what a long series of proofs of Christ’s gentle goodness and meek wisdom should have sprung again to remembrance at such an appeal! And how black and dastardly would his guilt have seemed if once he had ventured to remember what unexampled friendship he was sinning against!
Is it not so with us all, dear brethren? All our evils are betrayals of Christ, and all our betrayals of Christ are sins against a perfect friendship and an unvaried goodness. We, too, have sat at His table, heard His wisdom, seen His miracles, listened to His pleadings, have had a place in His heart; and if we turn away from Him to do our own pleasure, and sell His love for a handful of silver, we need not cherish shuddering abhorrence against that poor wretch who gave Him up to the cross. Oh! if we could see aright, we should see our Saviour’s meek, sad face standing between us and each of our sins, with warning in the pitying eyes, and His pleading voice would sound in our ears, appealing to us by loving remembrances of His ancient friendship, to turn from the evil which is treason against Him, and wounds His heart as much as it harms ours. Take heed lest in condemning the traitor we doom ourselves. If we flush into anger at the meanness of his crime, and declare, ‘He shall surely die,’ do we not hear a prophet’s voice saying to each, ‘Thou art the man’?
The loving hand laid on the heart-strings is followed by a strong stroke on conscience. The heart vibrates most readily in answer to gentle touches: the conscience, in answer to heavier, as the breath that wakes the chords of an Aeolian harp would pass silent through the brass of a trumpet. ‘Wherefore art thou come?’-if to be taken as a question at all, which, as I have said, seems most natural, is either, ‘What hast thou come to do?’-or, ‘Why hast thou come to do it?’ Perhaps it maybe fairly taken as including both. But, at all events, it is clearly an appeal to Judas to make him see what his conduct really is in itself, and possibly in its motive too. And this is the constant effort of the love of Christ-to get us to say to ourselves the real name of what we are about.
We cloak our sins from ourselves with many wrappings, as they swathe a mummy in voluminous folds. And of these veils, one of the thickest is woven by our misuse of words to describe the very same thing by different names, according as we do it, or another man does it. Almost all moral actions-the thing to which we can apply the words right or wrong-have two or more names, of which the one suggests the better and the other the worse side of the action. For instance what in ourselves we call prudent regard for our own interest, we call, in our neighbour, narrow selfishness; what in ourselves is laudable economy, in him is miserable avarice. We are impetuous, he is passionate; we generous, he lavish; we are clever men of business, he is a rogue; we sow our wild oats and are gay, he is dissipated. So we cheat ourselves by more than half-transparent veils of our own manufacture, which we fling round the ugly features and misshapen limbs of these sins of ours, and we are made more than ever their bond-slaves thereby.
Therefore, it is the office of the truest love to force us to look at the thing as it is. It would go some way to keep a man from some of his sins if he would give the thing its real name. A distinct conscious statement to oneself, ‘Now I am going to tell a lie’-’This that I am doing is fraud’-’This emotion that I feel creeping with devilish warmth about the roots of my heart is revenge’-and so on, would surely startle us sometimes, and make us fling the gliding poison from our breast, as a man would a snake that he found just lifting its head from the bosom of his robe. Suppose Judas had answered the question, and, gathering himself up, had looked his Master in the face, and said-’What have I come for?’ ‘I have come to betray Thee for thirty pieces of silver!’ Do you not think that putting his guilt into words might have moved even him to more salutary feelings than the remorse which afterwards accompanied his tardy discernment of what he had done? So the patient love of Christ comes rebuking, and smiting hard on conscience. ‘The grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men hath appeared disciplining’-and His hand is never more gentle than when it plucks away the films with which we hide our sins from ourselves, and shows us the ‘rottenness and dead men’s bones’ beneath the whited walls of the sepulchres and the velvet of the coffins.
He must begin with rebukes that He may advance to blessing. He must teach us what is separating us from Him that, learning it, we may flee to His grace to help us. There is no entrance for the truest gifts of His patient love into any heart that has not yielded to His pleading remonstrance, and in lowly penitence has answered His question as He would have us answer it, ‘Friend and Lover of my soul, I have sinned against Thy tender heart, against the unexampled patience of Thy love. I have departed from Thee and betrayed Thee. Blessed be Thy merciful voice which hath taught me what I have done! Blessed be Thine unwearied goodness which still bends over me! Raise me fallen! forgive me treacherous! Keep me safe and happy, ever true and near to Thee!’
III. Notice the possible rejection of the pleading of Christ’s patient love.
The incident before us carries another solemn lesson-how simple and easy a thing it is to repel that pleading love. What did Judas do? Nothing; it was enough. He merely held his peace-no more. There was no need for him to break out with oaths and curses, to reject his Lord with wild words. Silence was sufficient. And for us-no more is required. We have but to be passive; we have but to stand still. Not to accept is to refuse; non-submission is rebellion. We do not need to emphasise our refusal by any action-no need to lift our clenched hands in defiance. We have simply to put them behind our backs or to keep them folded. The closed hand must remain an empty hand. ‘He that believeth not is condemned.’ My friend, remember that, when Christ pleads and draws, to do nothing is to oppose, and to delay is to refuse. It is a very easy matter to ruin your soul. You have simply to keep still when He says ‘Come unto Me’-to keep your eyes fixed where they were, when He says, ‘Look unto Me, and be ye saved,’ and all the rest will follow of itself.
Notice, too, how the appeal of Christ’s love hardens where it does not soften. That gentle voice drove the traitor nearer the verge over which he fell into a gulf of despair. It should have drawn him closer to the Lord, but he recoiled from it, and was thereby brought nearer destruction. Every pleading of Christ’s grace, whether by providences, or by books, or by His own word, does something with us. It is never vain. Either it melts or it hardens. The sun either scatters the summer morning mists, or it rolls them into heavier folds, from whose livid depths the lightning will be flashing by mid-day. You cannot come near the most inadequate exhibition of the pardoning love of Christ without being either drawn closer to Him or driven further from Him. Each act of rejection prepares the way for another, which will be easier, and adds another film to the darkness which covers your eyes, another layer to the hardness which incrusts your hearts.
Again, that silence, so eloquent and potent in its influence, was probably the silence of a man whose conscience was convicted while his will was unchanged. Such a condition is possible. It points to solemn thoughts, and to deep mysteries in man’s awful nature. He knew that he was wrong, he had no excuse, his deed was before him in some measure in its true character, and yet he would not give it up. Such a state, if constant and complete, presents the most frightful picture we can frame of a soul. That a man shall not be able to say, ‘I did it ignorantly’; that Christ shall not be able to ground His intercession on, ‘They know not what they do’; that with full knowledge of the true nature of the deed, there shall be no wavering of the determination to do it-we may well turn with terror from such an awful abyss. But let us remember that, whether such a condition in its completeness is conceivable or not, at all events we may approach it indefinitely; and we do approach it by every sin, and by every refusal to yield to the love that would touch our consciences and fill our hearts.
Have you ever noticed what a remarkable verbal correspondence there is between these words of our text, and some other very solemn ones of Christ’s? The question that He puts into the lips of the king who came in to see his guests is, ‘Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having on a wedding garment?’ The question asked on earth shall be repeated again at last. The silence which once indicated a convinced conscience and an unchanged will may at that day indicate both of these and hopelessness beside. The clear vision of the divine love, if it do not flood the heart with joy and evoke the bliss of answering love, may fill it with bitterness. It is possible that the same revelation of the same grace may be the heaven of heaven to those who welcome it, and the pain of hell to those who turn from it. It is possible that love believed and received may be life, and love recognised and rejected may be death. It is possible that the vision of the same face may make some break forth with the rapturous hymn, ‘Lo, this is our God, we have waited for Him!’ and make others call on the hills to fall on them and cover them from its brightness.
But let us not end with such words. Rather, dear brethren, let us yield to His patient beseechings; let Him teach us our evil and our sin. Listen to His great love who invites us to plead, and promises to pardon-’Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
Friend = Comrade. Greek. hetairos. Occurs only in Matthew (here; Mat 11:16; Mat 20:13; Mat 22:12).
wherefore, &c. This is not a question, but an elliptical expression: “[Do that] for which thou art here”, or “Carry out thy purpose”.
took = seized.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
50.] In Luke we have , . . ,-which sense is involved in the text also: that variation shewing perhaps that one of the accounts is not from an eye-witness.
] see ch. Mat 22:12 and note. . , . Ammonius.
can hardly be a question. No such use of the simple relative has ever been adduced: pronomen pro interrogativo usurpari, falsa est Hoogeveeni opinio, ad Viger. Mat 26:14, alienissimo Demosthenis loco (p. 779) abutentis. Lobeck on Phryn. p. 57 note. It therefore must be either an exclamation, as Fritzsche, ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades! which would be equally alien from the usage of , exclamations of this sort in Greek being expressed in an interrogative form:-or an aposiopesis; as Euthym[175], , , . And to this I should incline. Friend, there needs not this shew of attachment: I know thine errand,-hoc age. But the command itself is suppressed. See Meyers note, who also takes this view. On any understanding of the words, it is an appeal to the conscience and heart of Judas, in which sense (see above) it agrees with the words spoken in Luke:-see note there. The fact that at this period our Lord was laid hold of and secured (by hand-not yet bound) by the band, is important, as interpreting Lukes account further on.
[175] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:50. , comrade[1153]) Ammonious says, does not correspond exactly with (a friend) and (in the plural number) are those who have associated together for a long time in conversation and employment. In Luk 22:48 we have , Judas; see Ps. 54:14, and Eccles. 37:5, with ibid. Mat 26:1-4.- , for which thou are come[1154]) An eliptical mode of expression for, Is this the object for which thou art come? Hesychius renders the words, With what aim art thou present, and hast come here?
[1153] Engl. Vers. Friend.-(I. B.)
[1154] Engl. Vers. Wherefore art thou come?-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Friend
Gr. “Hetaire,” “comrade.” Perhaps the most touching thing in the Bible. The Lord does not disown Judas.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Friend: Rather, “Companion, [Strong’s G2083], against whom ( the reading of all the best MSS) art thou come?” Mat 20:13, 2Sa 16:17, Psa 41:9, Psa 55:13, Psa 55:14, Luk 22:48
Reciprocal: Jdg 14:20 – his friend Pro 18:24 – that hath Hos 3:1 – friend Mic 7:6 – a man’s Mat 21:39 – caught Mat 22:12 – Friend Luk 20:21 – Master
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:50
Friend is from ETAIROS which Thayer defines, “a comrade, mate, partner.” Wherefore is from some Greek terms that virtually mean “for what purpose.” The verse denotes as if Jesus said, “Judas, we have been comrades for over three years, then why is it that you come to me in this manner?” Just then the mob took charge of Jesus.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 26:50. Friend. Comp. chap. Mat 20:13. A term of civility, though not necessarily of friendship. Our Lora did not turn away, in holy indignation, from this Judas kiss. His meekness and gentleness under the greatest provocation, surpasses even the standard which He holds up for His disciples; Mat 5:39.
Do that for which thou art come! A slight change of reading makes the common translation incorrect. The expression is elliptical, and may be either an exclamation or a question: Is it this for which thou art come? The former accords much better with the emotion natural at such a time. In any case it is a stinging rebuke to Judas.
Laid their hands, etc. This does not imply undue violence. He was probably not bound until afterwards (comp. Joh 18:12).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 26:50-54. Jesus said, Friend Gr. , companion; wherefore Gr. , For what, or against whom, art thou come? Against me, thy Teacher, Saviour, and Lord? And to put me into the hands of murderers? Our Lord also added, (see Luk 22:48,) Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? Art thou so vile a hypocrite as to betray thy Lord and Master by that which all men use as the symbol either of love or homage, making it the signal of thy treachery? The heroic behaviour of the blessed Jesus, in the whole period of his sufferings, will be observed by every attentive eye, and felt by every pious heart: although the sacred historians, according to their usual but wonderful simplicity, make no encomiums upon it. With what composure does he go forth to meet the traitor! With what calmness receive that malignant kiss! With what dignity does he deliver himself into the hands of his enemies! Yet plainly showing his superiority over them, and even then leading, as it were, captivity captive!
And one of them which were with Jesus Namely, Peter; struck a servant of the high-priest Probably the person that seized Jesus first, or was showing greater forwardness than the rest in this business. This servants name was Malchus, Joh 18:10. But why did not Peter draw his sword upon Judas, rather than Malchus? Doubtless because Judas had concealed his purpose so well from the disciples, that Peter did not suspect him, nor understand the treacherous design of his kiss. Though this might seem a courageous action of Peter, it was really very imprudent; and had not Christ, by some secret influence, overawed their spirits, it is very probable that not only Peter, but the rest of the apostles, might have been cut to pieces. Accordingly, Jesus ordered him to sheath his sword, telling him that his unseasonable and imprudent defence might prove the occasion of his destruction; or rather, as Grotius interprets it, that there was no need of fighting in his defence, because God would punish the Jews for putting him to death. See Rev 13:10; where this very expression, they that take the sword shall perish with the sword, is used in predicting the destruction of the persecutors of true Christians. Christ told him, likewise, that his rash conduct implied both a distrust of the divine providence, which can always employ a variety of means for the safety of his servants, and gross ignorance of the Scriptures. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father Who heareth me always; and he shall give me more than twelve legions of angels The legion was a Roman military term, and as the band which now surrounded them was a Roman cohort, our Lord might make use of this term by way of contrast, to show what an inconsiderable thing the cohort was, in comparison of the force he could summon to his assistance; more than twelve legions, not of soldiers, but of angels Instead of twelve deserting, timorous disciples! How dreadfully irresistible would such an army of angels have been, when one of these celestial spirits was able to destroy 185,000 Assyrians at one stroke!
2Ki 19:35. Peter, it must be observed, had not only wounded the ear of the high-priests servant, but had actually cut it off. Jesus, however, repaired this injury; He touched his ear and healed him, Luk 22:51; either putting the ear on again, which was cut off, or creating a new one in the place of it: or if he performed the cure in any other way, he equally demonstrated both his goodness and power; and it is surprising that such a miracle, done in such circumstances, made no impression on those that came to apprehend him, especially as he put them in mind, at the same time, of his other miracles. For,
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
26:50 {13} And Jesus said unto him, {x} Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
(13) Christ is taken, that we might be delivered.
(x) Christ reprehends Judas tauntingly, and rebukes him sharply, for he knew well enough why he came.