Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XXII

I have often told young believers, especially new Christians, when you are made fun of, ridiculed, laughed at, degraded, assaulted, and even persecuted for the sake of Christ, He is the one they are venting their anger at, not you. So let Him defend Himself, and thereby defend you. And what can you give to Him for all He’s done for you? Time, effort, expense, emotions, words, or deeds? Yes, all of these. But most of all, be willing to give your all to the One who gave His all for you.

How could these people who expected nothing but the fullest respect from others, now treat a prophet who was admired and revered by thousands of their fellow Jews with such dishonor? Even their own traditions spoke against such behavior. The Rabbis taught: “He that spits before, or in the presence of his master, is guilty of death.”¹ In other words, spitting in the presence of those who are admired was considered a nauseous and filthy act. But how much more must it be so, to spit in the face of a prophet, a healer, a Savior, a Lord, and a soon to be King? How could they ignore the very laws they required and enforce on others?

The Rabbis also taught: “If one makes a fist and boxes another man’s ear, he has to pay him on account of degradation a set fee of a sela² for degradation. If he slapped him the Rabbis set a higher fee for greater shame and he has to pay him two hundred zuz;³ if he did it with the back of his hand, he has to pay him four hundred zuz. If he pulled his ear, plucked his hair, spat so that the spittle reached him, removed his garment from upon him… he must pay four hundred zuz.”⁴ We read nowhere that those who tried to humiliate and mock the Son of God this way were ever given such punishment. Not because they weren’t liable, but because no penalty or fine could be set high enough for doing such to the Messiah.

But our Lord took it without murmur. According to Mark,⁵ and Luke,⁶ they blindfolded Him. And being defenseless with His hands tied, it gave His attackers one more opportunity to insult Him by asking Him to guess who had just hit Him. It was so rude and uncivil that these religious leaders would play a children’s game we know today as “Blindman’s Bluff.” Not only was it disgraceful and childish, but approved by the high priest. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tells this story about how high priest Caiaphas were regarded by the Romans at this point in Jesus’ journey to the cross.

NOTE: Caesar Vitellius, the 8^th Emperor of Rome, made a fateful decision for the high priest Caiaphas just a few years after this in 36 AD: Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover. Vitellius was there magnificently received, and released the inhabitants of Jerusalem from all the taxes upon the fruits that were bought and sold, and gave them permission to take care of the high priest’s vestments, with all their ornaments, and to have them under the custody of the priests in the temple, which power they used to have formerly, although at this time they were laid up in the tower of Antonia, the citadel so called, and that on the following occasion: There was one of the [high] priests, named Hyrcanus; and as there were many of that name, he was the first of them; this man built a tower near the temple, and after he had so done, he lived there, and had these vestments with him, because it was lawful for him alone to put them on, and he had them stored there when he went down into the closet and took his ordinary garments; the same things were continued to be done by his sons, and by their sons after them. But when Herod came to be king, he rebuilt this tower, which was very conveniently situated, in a magnificent manner; and because he was a friend to Antonius, he called it by the name of Antonia. And as he found these vestments lying around there, he kept them in the same place, believing, that while he had them in his custody, the people would initiate no opposition against him. The things credited to Herod was done by his son Archelaus, who was made king after him; after whom the Romans, when they entered on the government, took possession of these vestments of the high priest, and had them stored in a stone-chamber, under the seal of the priests, and of the keepers of the temple, the captain of the guard lighting a lamp there every day; and seven days before a festival they were delivered to them by the captain of the guard, when the high priest having purified them, and made use of them, stored them again in the same chamber where they had been stored before, and this the very next day after the feast was over. This was the practice at the three yearly festivals, and on the fast day; but Vitellius put those garments under control of the Jews, as in the days of their forefathers, and ordered the captain of the guard not to trouble himself to inquire where they were laid, or when they were to be used; and this he did as an act of kindness, to obligate the nation to him. Besides which, he also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch.⁷

Verses 69-70: While Peter was sitting outside in the yard, a servant girl came up to him. She said, “You were with Jesus, that man from Galilee.” But Peter told everyone there that this was not true. “I don’t know what you are talking about,” he said.

It’s interesting to note that these girls must have seen Peter with Christ on some previous occasion in another location. It could have been almost anyplace, but what happened here after Jesus was arrested caused them to believe and identify him not only as being “in” Jesus’ company at one time but here they were able to identify Peter as being “of” Jesus’ company. How true that is with Christians. One may see someone at a religious concert, or convention, or church, but there is something that makes them look different when you know they are not just present but in His presence. If Jesus had an opportunity to look over at Peter from inside the palace, perhaps these words from the prophet Isaiah came to His mind, “You did not remember me. You did not even notice me! So who were you worrying about? Who were you afraid of? Why did you lie? Look, I have been quiet for a long time. Is that why you didn’t honor me?”⁸

Verses 71-72: Then he left the yard. At the gate, another girl saw him and said to the people there, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” Again, Peter said he was never with Jesus. He said, “I swear to God I don’t know the man!”

You would think, that dismissing any association with Jesus just to throw off those who were suspicious would be the most Peter would have done. But it got worse. The next girl to point him out as a disciple, not only got a denial, but it was done in God’s name! Didn’t he know how God felt about this, “When you take an oath, I, the LORD, the God of Israel, am the one whose name you use, but you are not honest and sincere.”⁹

Early church leader Jerome had something to say about Peter’s swearing by God’s name that he didn’t know who Jesus was. He writes: “I know that some people with a soft spot in their hearts for the apostle Peter have interpreted this passage to the effect that Peter did not deny God but man, and what he meant was ‘I do not know the man because I know God.’ The wise reader realizes how frivolous this interpretation is, for those who thus defend the apostle make the Lord guilty of a lie. If Peter did not deny Him, then the Lord lied in saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ Notice what He says: ‘You will deny me’—not ‘the man.’”¹⁰

It is obvious that Jerome had little patience with those in the early church who elevated Peter to such a high status of reverence that they did not want to hear any criticism of him. But Peter’s sobbing and weeping under conviction after his denial, tells us all we need to know about how guilty he felt. Yet this same double standard is practiced by some individuals today when someone reacts to their bad words or conduct by saying, “I thought you were a Christian,” only to have them respond, “I am, but not like those holiness people.”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XXI

The question now is, did Jesus use the unmentionable four Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH, which we know today as Yahweh, or was Caiaphas wrong in what he claimed Jesus did? Whatever the case, with his face flushed in anger and his clothing torn, the high priest turns to those in the room and screams, “Did you hear what He just said! Is there anything more you need to hear! What do all of you have to say to a man who just insulted God?” This so enraged those assembled that they screamed back, “Kill Him for what He just said! He needs to die! He is guilty as charged!” That is, except for one person. Luke tells us that Joseph of Arimathea did not join the mob in calling for Jesus to be executed. Not only because, we find out later, that he believed in Him as the Messiah,¹ but also because he may have been against their not finishing the proper examination of evidence as required by their own laws.

In the Jewish Mishnah, we read, “Both civil and capital cases require inquiry and examination. As it is written: ‘One and the same law will be demanded for you.’² Therefore, the Torah compares civil and capital cases. Regarding capital cases it is written: ‘Then you will inquire and investigate and ask thoroughly.’³”⁴ Furthermore, Rabbi Maimonides comments, “What are the differences between cases involving financial matters and cases involving capital punishment? Cases involving financial matters are adjudicated by three judges, while cases involving capital punishment are adjudicated by 23… For this reason, we do not adjudicate cases involving capital punishment on Fridays, nor on the days preceding festivals. The rationale is that the defendant may be convicted and it is impossible to execute him on the following day, but it is forbidden to postpone his execution until after the Sabbath. Hence, we imprison him and begin his trial on Sunday.”⁵

Not only that but the older Jerusalem Talmud has these restrictions: “…do they judge capital cases by night [as David was judging Nabal]! He said to her, ‘The trial concerning him was completed while it was still day.’”⁶ Furthermore: “In capital cases, they try the case by day and complete it the following day.”⁷ Also, we read: “In capital cases, they come to a final decision or acquittal on the same day, but on the following day for conviction.”⁸ That leads to this: “Therefore they do not judge capital cases on the eve of the Sabbath or on the eve of a festival.”⁹ We might ask, did any of the accusers of Jesus even care that they were breaking their own law?

Verse 67: Then some standing around Jesus spit in His face, and they punched Him with their fists. Others slapped Him. They teased Him by saying, “Show us that you are a prophet, Messiah! Tell us who just hit you!”

Now we see, that in Jesus’ case they began the trial late at night, examined a few false witnesses, stopped abruptly based on the high priest’s charge of blasphemy, and passed the sentence of condemnation, and all of it on the eve of a grand festival, their Passover. Then Matthew reveals that some became so infuriated that they began to physically abuse our Lord. Spitting was a sign of disrespect and demeaning.¹⁰ Remember, His hands were tied, and Luke tells us: “They blindfolded Him and said, ‘Prophesy to us! Who hit you that time?’”¹¹ But Jesus already knew that this had been prophesied.¹² The same way with His beating that almost made Him unrecognizable.¹³ But He was just doing what the prophet Jeremiah said.¹⁴

Early church writer Chrysostom gives us his impression of this account and the courage it took for the Gospel writers to record it. He says: “Note with admiration the self-restraint of the disciples. Observe how carefully they relate these things. This clearly shows their disposition to love the truth. They relate with all truthfulness the things that seem to be insulting. They disguise nothing. They are not ashamed of anything. Rather, they account it as a very great glory, as indeed it was, that the Lord of the universe should endure suffering such things for us. This shows both His unutterable tenderness and the inexcusable wickedness of those men who had the heart to do such things to Him that was so mild and meek. His words were such as to change a lion into a lamb.… All of these things the prophet Isaiah had foretold. He had proclaimed it beforehand: ‘Like as many were astonished at you, so shall your form be held inglorious of men, and your glory of the sons of men.’¹⁵”¹⁶

Early church scholar Origen also had impassioned words for what took place here. He writes: “It was necessary for Him to teach these things by example, ‘giving His back to whips and His cheeks to fists’ and not turning His face away ‘from insults and spitting.’¹⁷ Thus He would, by suffering these things in our place, deliver us (as I believe) who should have suffered all that disgrace. Truly He did not ‘die for us’¹⁸ that we might not die but that we need not die for ourselves. And He was spat upon and beaten for us, so that we who were liable for all these things because of our sins might not just suffer them, but gracefully accept and suffer them for the sake of justice. Paul makes it clear that the Savior ‘humbled Himself becoming obedient all the way to death, even to the death of the cross.”¹⁹ … ‘On account of all this, God exalted Him.’²⁰ God not only exalted Him because of the death He underwent for our sake but also because of the buffeting and the spitting and all the rest.”²¹

Origen continues: “Christ did not turn His face away ‘from insult and spitting,’²² so His face might be glorified more than the face of Moses²³ — with so much glory that compared to the glorification of Moses’ face was outshone, even as the light of a lamp is outshone by that of the sun and even as knowledge, which knows in part, is outshone ‘when that which is perfect has come.’²⁴ But they also buffeted the holy head of the church.”²⁵

Then Origen finishes: “Not content with spitting in His face and buffeting Him, they even struck His face with the palms of their hands, and, mocking Him, they said, ‘Prophesy to us, O Christ! who is it that struck you?’ On account of this … they have been struck and punished. Yet they were unwilling to accept any discipline, as Jeremiah had prophesied about them: ‘You admonished them and they did not grieve; they were unwilling to receive correction.’²⁶ And now whoever harms anyone in the church and does these things to Him spits on the very face of Christ, and, buffeting Christ, they slap Him with the palms of their hands.”²⁷ Some believe that Origen was not talking about the punishment that came to those who at Jesus’ trial did such horrible things to our Lord, but to Jews as a whole, over the centuries that followed. This no doubt reveals the disgust that Christians had during the Middle Ages for Jews that culminated in the concentration camps during WWII.

It is amazing to imagine that the One who could turn water into wine, calm the stormy winds and waves on the Sea of Galilee, curse a fig tree so that it withered in moments, and drive out demons by the thousands into a herd of swine, just stood there and took all this disgraceful punishment without striking back or saying a word. But the most remarkable factor is that He did it for all those He came to redeem and save. As the prophet Isaiah said: “He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet He never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth.”²⁸

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XX

Verse 64: Jesus answered, “Let it be as you have said. But let me tell you, in the future, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right side of God. And you will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Our Lord was not about to leave anything hanging in the air, so He replies quickly. British Bible commentator Charles Elliott puts it as succinctly as it can be said: “No words in the whole Gospel records are more decisive against the views of those who would be inclined to see in our Lord only a great moral teacher, like Socrates or Cakya Mouni.¹ At the very crisis of His history, when denial would have saved His life. He asserts His claim to be much more than this, to be all that the most devout Christians have ever believed Him to be. At such a moment, when men stand face to face with seeming failure and with death, dreams, and delusive claims, for the most part, melt away. Here claims that men have presumed to think of as delusive were strengthened and intensified, and reproduced as in the calmness of assured conviction.”²

Jesus knew what their intentions were if He made such a claim. So He quickly out maneuvered and nonplussed His prosecutors by letting them know that killing Him will not end His mission. He is bound for heaven to sit at the Father’s right hand, and nothing they can do will be able to stop Him. But what really concerned them, is that being at the right hand of God means having direct access to divine power and authority.

This came from a clear understanding that here on earth, the one who stood by the right hand of the king was the spokesman for the king. And for Jesus to claim that position was the ultimate insult to these Jewish leaders. It was like saying, He will be more revered and higher than Moses. In fact, in the Babylonian Talmud, we find this perception of the power behind the words that God spoke to Moses on Mount Moriah in Sinai. “Rabbi Ishmael recited; [The words] ‘I’ and ‘Thou’… were heard from the mouth of Omnipotence.”³ The “I” is the first word of the first commandment, and “Thou” is the first word of the second commandment.⁴

So how could this disillusioned itinerant teacher from Galilee believe He would one day speak with the omnipotence voice of God? No doubt this is what the apostle John was getting at,⁵ and the writer of Hebrews as well.⁶ We can also believe that many of these same individuals would be there that day when Stephen was stoned for his witnessing, and heard him exclaim, “I see the Son of Man standing at God’s right side.”⁷ Not only that, but Jesus mentions the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven.

There is an interesting correlation between Exodus 13:22 and 1 Chronicles 3:24 concerning such a positioning to represent God’s presence. In the Jewish Bible, Exodus 13:22 reads in the Hebrew: “Lo-yamish amud he’anani yomam ve’amud ha’esh laylah lifney ha’am.” (The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire at night never left their position in front of the people). The term “he’anani” is a name that has been associated with the Messiah. In a Jewish Targum we read this comment: “And he’Anani – ‘This is the King Messiah who is to be revealed.’ – Rabbi Jarchi says the same, and refers to Daniel 7:13: “Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds (ananey) of heaven.”⁸ So Jesus was not making up some story here, it was already contained in their Scriptures.

This may also give us a new understanding of Matthew’s quote: “The people living in darkness have seen a great light; upon those living in the region, in the shadow of death, light has dawned.”⁹ Maybe this will also help you better understand why the high priest was so furious at what Jesus said. As a result, the high priest tore his clothes in the customary display of anger or grief.¹⁰ How could this peasant prophet from Galilee ever claim to be the One spoken of by Daniel?¹¹ Was this carpenter’s son from Nazareth so arrogant as to believe He was the One David spoke of in his psalm?¹²

Verses 65-66: When the high priest heard this, he tore his clothes in anger. He said, “This man has said things that insult God! We don’t need any more witnesses. You all heard his insulting words. What do you think?” The Jewish leaders answered, “He is guilty, and He must die!”

Could it be that by tearing his clothes, the high priest himself was guilty of violating the word of God? Doesn’t it say in their teachings: “The high priest was chosen from among his brothers. The anointing oil was poured on his head. In this way, he was chosen for the special job of being high priest. He was chosen to wear the special clothes, so he must not do things to show his sadness in public. He must not let his hair grow wild. He must not tear his clothes?”¹³

As a matter of fact, one respected Rabbi, in his commentary on priestly garments, states: “Priests are forbidden from entering the Temple grounds when their garments are torn. The source of this prohibition is God’s statement, ‘Your garments must not be torn; otherwise, you will die.’” This commandment is also repeated regarding the high priest in the verse, ‘He may not tear his garments.‘”¹⁴

However, we find this taboo was lifted under certain conditions. “Whoever hears the blasphemy of God’s name is obligated to rend his garments. Even when one hears the blasphemy of other terms used to describe God, one is obligated to rend his garments. The above applies when one hears the blasphemy from a fellow Jew. In that instance, both the one who hears the actual blasphemy and the one who hears it from the witnesses is obligated to rend his garments… Before his execution, all the witnesses, and the judges place their hands on the head of the blasphemer and tell him: ‘You are responsible for your death. You brought it upon yourself.’ Only a blasphemer – and none of the other offenders executed by the court – has the judges and witnesses place their hands upon his head, as Leviticus 24:14 states: ‘And all those who hear shall place their hands on his head.’”¹⁵

So it looks like the high priest was in line with the commandments by tearing his clothes. It also appears that the “placing their hands upon his head,” was carried out in a violent form by those standing by when this took place. But wait a minute, we also read, “The blasphemer is liable only if he utters the Divine Name. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karhah says: The entire day of the trial, the witnesses are examined by using a substitute for the Divine Name [i.e., the witnesses testify that he said] May Yose smite Yose [Yose having four letters which, numerically, adds up to Elokim which was substituted for the Divine Name]… Thereupon, he did so by using the Divine Name. The judges then stood up and rent their garments, which were not resewn in a manner so that the tear would no longer be noticeable.”¹⁶

When it came to wearing their sacred garments, Jewish verbal law gives the guidelines: “Come and hear: As to priestly garments, it is forbidden to go out in them in the province, but in the Sanctuary whether during or outside the time of the service (i.e. outside the Temple), it is permitted to wear them, because priestly garments are permitted for private use.”¹⁷ This is repeated in, “Come and hear: It is forbidden to go out into the town in priestly garments, but it is permissible to walk about in them in the Temple whether at the time of service or otherwise, since the priestly garments may be made general use of. This is conclusive.”¹⁸

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XIX

One highly regarded Jewish scholar, Moses Maimonides, gives the following clarification on such individuals. “The laws which pertain to a “mesit”, a person who entices others to serve false gods, differ from those pertaining to others liable for capital punishment. We hide witnesses to observe his act. He does not need a warning as must be given to others who are executed. If he departed from the court after being acquitted, and someone said: ‘I know a rationale that will lead to his conviction,’ he is returned and retried. If he was sentenced to death and someone said: ‘I know a rationale that will lead to his release,’ he is not retried. The court does not advance arguments in defense of a mesit. An elderly person, a eunuch, and a person who does not have sons will not be placed on the court which judges him so that they will not have mercy on him. For cruelty to those who sway the people after empty promises brings mercy to the world, ‘so that God will turn away from His fierce anger and grant you mercy.’¹ A “mesit” is a Jew who seduces an individual to idolatry, while a “maddiah” is someone who publicly entices many into idolatry.”²

The Hebrew word for Messiah is “Mashiah.” Could this have been a case of sinister satire? In the Talmud, we find an interesting teaching on the trial of such mesits and maddiahs. The main commentary (Gemara) points this out: “A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is in darkness] so that they can see and hear him, but he cannot see them. Then the person he wished to persuade says to him, ‘Tell me confidentially your proposition to me’; and he does so. But the person objects; ‘How can we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols’? If he retracts, it is well. But if he replies: ‘It is our duty and proper for us’, the witnesses who were listening outside bring him before the Beit Din,³ and have him stoned.”⁴

In this same folio we find an interesting anecdote:

“In the uncensored editions of the Talmud there follows this important passage: ‘And this they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ben Stada was Ben Padira. Rabbi Hisda said: ‘The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But was not the husband Pappos ben Judah? — His mother’s name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman’s hair? This woman has turned away from her husband, (i.e., committed adultery). R. Travers Herford, identifies this Ben Stada as Jesus of Nazareth.⁵ As to the meaning of the name, he connects it with ‘seditious’, and suggests⁶ that it originally denoted ‘that Egyptian’,⁷ who claimed to be a prophet and led his followers to the Mount of Olives, where he was routed by the Procurator Felix,⁸ and that in later times he might have been confused with Yeshua ha-Nōtzri (Jesus of Nazareth). This hypothesis, however, involves the disregard of the Talmudic data, for Pappos ben Judah lived a century after Jesus.⁹ Although the mother’s name, Miriam (Mary), would raise no difficulty, yet the Hebrew “megaddela neshayia” [hair dresser] may be the result of a confusion with Mary Magdalene.¹⁰ Also, Joseph Derenburg, a Franco-German orientalist, denies the identity of Ben Stada with Jesus, and regards him simply as a false prophet executed during the second century at Lydda.”¹¹

Verse 63a: But Jesus said nothing.

So in true fashion of the Messiah, He fulfilled the words of the prophet: “Though mistreated, He was submissive — He did not open His mouth. Like a lamb led to be slaughtered, like a sheep silent before its shearers, He did not open His mouth.”¹² After all, He was standing here as the Lamb of God who must be sacrificed to provide forgiveness for those who believe.

Some have compared our Lord’s silence before the court with Apollonius (15-100 AD), a Greek philosopher from the town of Tyana in the Roman province of Cappadocia in Asia Minor, who some have identified as the Apollos who became a friend of the apostle Paul. Little is known about him with certainty. Being a 1st-century orator and philosopher around the time of Christ, he was compared to Jesus of Nazareth by Christians in the 4th century. On one occasion, Apollonius was threatened with being tried before emperor Domitian, and later gives a summary of his defense:

“If,” said Apollonius, “I am allowed to plead as long as the necessities of the suit require me to, the whole of the Tiber river might run through the meter before I could have finished; but if I am only to answer the questions put to me, then it depends on the cross-examiner how long I shall take to give my answers.” “You have refined,” remarked the other, “conflicting talents when you thus engage in talking about one and the same matter both with brevity and with verbosity.” “They are not conflicting talents,” said Apollonius, “but resemble each other. And moreover, there is a balance between the two…and for my own part I am sure that silence constitutes an excellence much required in a law-court.”¹³

So even among the Greeks, remaining silent was considered a virtue that works to the good of the defendant in court. The apostle James may have been aware of this concept, because he also promoted a basic premise for all believers to follow in such circumstances: “My dear brothers and sisters, always be more willing to listen than to speak.”¹⁴

Verse 63b: Again the high priest said to Jesus, “You are now under oath. I command you by the power of the living God to tell us the truth. Tell us, are you the Messiah, the Son of God?”

The high priest’s insistence that Jesus swear by the living God that He was, in fact, the Messiah, the Son of God, was not to get the truth out in the open for all to hear and believe but to accuse Him of lying under oath. This is one of the rare places where we find “Messiah, Son of God,” spoken of in the same sentence by a Jewish opponent of our Lord. It appears that the high priest accepted what the Psalmist said about the Anointed One.¹⁵ But this was not all that out of line.

The great Jewish commentator Rabbi Rashi made this observation on what the Psalmist said: “Our Sages expounded the passage as referring to the King Messiah.¹⁶”¹⁷ So the question about being the Messiah was bait. He wanted an admission in order to accuse Jesus of blasphemy, a sin worthy of death. The truth was revealed but the mind-searing rage of hate hid this reality from their eyes. How often are sinners confronted with the truth but yet fail to see it because they are blinded by doubt and fear?

How ironic those false witnesses could not convict Jesus, but the truth found Him guilty of being honest. What a wonderful dilemma! If anyone accuses you of being a Christian, or a Bible Believer; or a Jesus Fanatic, let the truth convict you. Before, when Jesus was asked if He had anything to say in His defense against the witnesses that were brought against Him, He remained silent. But now He is asked a question under oath. If He remained silent, then it would be interpreted by the interrogator as sufficient to prove his point that Jesus was making such a blasphemous claim.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XVIII

Verses 59-60a: The leading priests and the high council tried to find something against Jesus so that they could kill Him. They tried to find people to lie and say that Jesus had done wrong. Many people came and told lies about Him. But still, the council could find no real grounds for a death sentence.

Here, Matthew dutifully points out the fact that as Jesus stood in front of this ad hoc kangaroo court, they “tried to find” some evidence that would allow them to find cause for a guilty verdict that would demand the death penalty. They couldn’t deny His miracles. His teachings made too much sense. His conduct was impeccable. So they resorted to collecting false evidence.

This is the same conclusion that Origen came to. He writes: “From this, it is clear that Jesus committed no sin; no deceitfulness was uttered from His lips.¹ His life was unimpeachable and completely blameless, leaving His enemies no opportunity for provocation. Clearly, they found nothing to say against Him or to insinuate by shading the truth. There is room for false testimony when it is given with a shading of the truth; however, no shading of the truth was found which could further their lies against Jesus—although there were many who wished to find favor with Caiaphas and the chief priests and the scribes and the elders and the whole council. They were the ones who went out looking for such witnesses.”²

These people were properly called, “false witnesses.” But there is a twist here we must not miss. They are not false witnesses because of what they said, but because of who they were. Notice, they didn’t call Bartimaeus who was once blind or Simon who was once a Leper, or Lazarus who once was a dead man. Had Bartimaeus been touched by Jesus and nothing happened, or Simon the leper Jesus was supposed to have healed was still covered with flesh-eating sores, or Lazarus was still rotting in the grave after Jesus called him to come out several times, yes, then they could give an accurate testimony. But those called in to testify had never been touched by Jesus. They only repeated the falsehoods they were told to say.

Yet, all of this fit God’s plan. Remember, the lamb that was to be slain for the Passover meal had to be found without blemish, injury, or flaw in order to qualify. So in a sense, this was the examination necessary to declare that the Lamb of God was, in fact, perfect for sacrifice. That was the only way God the Father could then proclaim that mankind’s sins had been atoned for and the curse of the death sentence for those sins had been repealed. But only for those who put their faith in Him as their Savior and Lord.

Verses 60b-61: Then two people came forward and said, “This man claimed, ‘I can destroy the Temple of God and build it again in three days.”’

Early church leader Jerome raises an interesting point: “How can they be false witnesses if they said what we read the Lord had said before? Because a false witness takes the truth and twists its meaning. The Lord had spoken of the temple of His body,³ but they falsely accused Him with those very words. With a few things added or changed, they made it into an understandably false accusation. The Savior had said, ‘Destroy this temple.’ They changed His words to say, ‘I can destroy God’s temple.’ … But the Lord, indicating the living and breathing temple, had said, ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’⁴” It is one thing to build and another to raise up.”⁵ In other words, they were not false witnesses because of what they said but because of the way they twisted what they heard Him say to give it their own meaning.

Verse 62: Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Don’t you have anything to say about these charges against you? Are they telling the truth?”

Now we can clearly see that this was not a spontaneous hearing. The people who came to bear false witness had been chosen some time ago, just waiting to do what they were being paid to do. Obviously, the high priest and his cohorts were attempting to make laws that fit their charges.⁶ And our Lord knew that His royal ancestor King David had been through the same thing.⁷ But in spite of the collaboration with liars and bogus reports, the Sanhedrin members were unable to find a particular law that Jesus violated which was worthy of death.

At least we can give Caiaphas credit for giving Jesus an opportunity to say something in His defense. The question is, why didn’t our Lord do so? It’s my opinion, that He felt there was no need to defend Himself against lies and fabrications. Besides, He knew what His mission was, and He decided not to allow anything to interfere with His completing that mission. But what happened here also says a lot about the people trying to destroy our Lord’s name and ministry.

From Jewish writings, we find that Jews appointed to the Sanhedrim – both to the Supreme council and to a Minor council – only men of wisdom and understanding, of unique distinction in their knowledge of the Torah and who possess a broad intellectual potential. The qualifications were listed as follows: “They should also have some knowledge concerning other intellectual disciplines, e.g., medicine, mathematics, the fixation of the calendar, astronomy, astrology, and also the practices of fortune-telling, magic, sorcery, and the hollow teachings of idolatry, so that they will know how to judge them. We appoint to the Sanhedrin only priests, Levites, and Israelites of the lineage of fine repute who can marry into the priesthood. This is derived from Numbers 11:16: ‘And they shall stand there with you.’ Implied is that they should resemble you, Moses in wisdom, the fear of heaven, and in the lineage. It is a law for there to be priests and Levites in the Supreme Sanhedrin, as Deuteronomy 17:9 states: ‘And you shall come to the priests and to the Levites.’ If appropriate ones are not found, it is then permissible for any Israelite to be a judge.”⁸

So this was not a ragtag group of malcontents. These were the elite of Israel. Why is it that both in the past and present, the most acclaimed atheist, agnostics, and skeptics have been those with intellectual skills and laudable degrees from fine universities. Yet they cannot see the truth in God’s Word. Let me illustrate it this way: If you took five of the most brilliant individuals with degrees from the world’s finest universities who are blind, and five people off the street who never finished grade school who are also blind and live as beggars, put them all inside a museum and ask to give the proper name for some piece of fine art you are describing to them, the astute ones would have no better chance of naming those objects than the ones considered ignorant. Why? Because they are equal in their blindness.

Likewise, these religious leaders could not see that the man standing in front of them was the true Messiah because they were all spiritually blind. No doubt that’s why they violated their own legal tradition that said: “A court should not begin adjudicating a case at night. According to the verbal teachings, this concept was derived as follows: Based on Deuteronomy 21:5 which mentions: ‘Every dispute and every blemish,’ an equation⁹ is established between the adjudication of disputes and blemishes. Just as blemishes are viewed only during the day; so, too, disputes should be adjudicated only during the day. Similarly, we do not listen to the testimony of witnesses or validate the authenticity of legal documents at night. With regard to cases involving monetary law, if the judges began hearing the matter during the day, it is permitted for them to conclude the judgment at night.”¹⁰ But they were not only spiritually blind, their jealousy and hatred for Jesus drove them to classify Him as someone they could legally and successfully oppose and depose.

In his commencement address at Yale University on June 11, 1962, President John F. Kennedy gave the graduating students this to think about: “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic… We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

Perhaps all of us have been guilty at one time or another of speaking before we think. Sometimes it is easy to walk those opinions back without too much harm, but on other occasions, it is shot like an arrow from a bow and we cringe when we see the reaction of the person or persons we’ve hurt with such darts of thoughtless persuasion. King Solomon recognized this even in his day. That’s why he said: “Every cautious person acts with knowledge, but a fool parades his folly.”¹

And this is never more true than what we say before God, either in our hearts, minds, or with out lips. Solomon also gives these words of wisdom: “Don’t speak impulsively — don’t be in a hurry to give voice to your words before God. For God is in heaven, and you are on earth; so let your words be few.”² Solomon went on to say, that such rash words can give you nightmares and cause you great anxiety. Only a thoughtless person speaks in endless chatter without giving much thought to what they say. In other words, say what you mean, and mean what you say because you have proof that what you say is meaningful. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

Last week, here in the United, we celebrated Veterans Day. The people watching or attending many of these memorials, no doubt heard the lone bugler play a haunting tune on his trumpet that has become known as “Taps.” It’s the song that gave me a lump in my throat when I conducted funeral services for veterans, and it brought tears to my eyes as I stood at the graveside of my youngest brother. But, most people do not know the story behind the song? I found this story and I hope you will be interested in finding out something about its humble beginnings.

Reportedly, it all began in 1862 during the Civil War, when Union Army Captain Robert Ellicombe was with his men near Harris’s Landing in Virginia. The Confederate Army was on the other side of the narrow strip of land. During the night, Captain Ellicombe heard the moans of a soldier who lay severely wounded on the field. Not knowing if it was a Union or Confederate soldier, the Captain decided to risk his life and bring the stricken man back for medical attention. Crawling on his stomach through the gunfire, the Captain reached the stricken soldier and began pulling him toward his encampment. When the Captain finally reached his own lines, he discovered it was actually a Confederate soldier, but the soldier was dead. The Captain lit a lantern and suddenly caught his breath and went numb with shock. In the dim light, he saw the face of the soldier. It was his own son. The boy had been studying music in the South when the war broke out. Without telling his father, the boy enlisted in the Confederate Army. The following morning, heartbroken, the father asked permission of his superiors to give his son a full military burial, despite his enemy status. His request was only partially granted. The Captain had asked if he could have a group of Army band members play a funeral dirge for his son at the funeral. The request was turned down since the soldier was a Confederate. But, out of respect for the father, they did say they could give him only one musician. The Captain chose a bugler. He asked the bugler to play a series of musical notes he had found on a piece of paper in the pocket of the dead youth’s uniform. This wish was granted. The haunting melody, we now know as “Taps” … used at military funerals was immortalized. It became a standard component to U. S. military funerals in 1891.

There are many variations of where this melody was born, how it was used, and how it became part of the United States Military funerals. Here are some of the words from Taps as copyrighted by the Pennsylvania Military College:

To hear Taps played while reading the lyrics, please access this video:

Day is done . . . Gone the sun . . . From the lakes . . . From the hills . . . From the sky . . . All is well . . . Safely rest . . . God is nigh . . .

Fading light . . . Dims the sight . . . And a star . . . Gems the sky . . . Gleaming bright . . . From afar . . . Drawing nigh . . . Falls the night . . .

Thanks and praise . . . For our days . . . Neath the sun . . . Neath the stars . . . Neath the sky . . . As we go . . . This we know . . . God is nigh . . .

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XVII

Verse 56: But all these things have happened to show the full meaning of what the prophets wrote. Meanwhile, all of Jesus’ followers ran off and left Him.

Many Bible scholars take the opening portion of this verse as a note from the transcriber of Matthew’s journal since it comes at the end of the narration of what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane. Others see it as Matthew’s way of closing out this portion of his record on what happened. In fact, the oldest Hebrew version of Matthew does not put it in parentheses.¹ In any case, it does not do any harm to the text and should not be voided as being something other than that which was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Living in Germany I heard of many Germans who, during the time of Hitler in WWII, risked their lives and fortunes to help those being persecuted escape torture and death in the ovens of concentration camps. What would you think if you heard that after the war was over, some of those same people turned on their benefactors, denying that they knew them, even trying to pretend that they did not receive any help from them, instead of standing up for those they once looked on as heroes? This same conduct, however, seems less offensive today when we hear of many forsaking the Son of God for even fewer reasons.

At this point, all of the disciples had no reason to forsake their Lord. We know that John and Peter followed Him to the high priest’s house, but there was no need for the others to have fled in such haste. Matthew is quite clear when he said (no doubt including himself), they all forsook Him and fled. In the midst of His enemies, while in great distress and trouble, such action was very unkind and ungrateful. This account of Matthew pretty much agrees what the Jews themselves say of in their concocted story.² They also stipulate that the citizens of Jerusalem killed many of Jesus’ followers and that the rest fled to the mountains. But this was never proven of the eleven disciples. However, when applied to the many, many others who followed Him, it may have some merit.

Verse 57: The men who arrested Jesus led Him to the house of Caiaphas the high priest. The teachers of the law and the older Jewish leaders were gathered there.

This first stop was what we would call today a “preliminary hearing” to find out if there was enough evidence to proceed with a trial. There has been some debate over who the high priest was, because the next stop was at Ananus’ palace, also a high priest. However a check of Jewish history will show that the high priesthood was frequently changed in those times, and men were put in that position by the Roman governor, as a result of favor or bribery. And just like today, after a person is no longer a serving senator, governor, or even president, they are still referred to by that title.

Leading up to Jesus’ arrest, Valerius Gratus was the Roman Prefect of Judea under Tiberius. He succeeded Annius Rufus, and was replaced by Pontius Pilate. During his tenure, Valerius appointed several people to the post of the high priest. His first was Ishmael ben Phabi (Fabi), followed by Eleazer ben Ananus, then Simon ben Camithus, and finally Joseph Kuppai, known better by his Greek name, Caiaphas, who was the son-in-law of Ananus.³

Two early church scholars give us the history as they understood it on Caiaphas’ role in this sordid affair with an innocent man. Jerome, who lived in this area of Israel for thirty years, tell us: “In accordance with God’s command, Moses ordered that high priests should succeed their fathers and a line of descent should be woven among priests. Josephus relates that the disreputable Caiaphas purchased the high priesthood from Herod for one year only.⁴ No wonder, then, the dishonorable high priest judges dishonorably.”⁵

Then Origen says: “I believe the word for Jewish slavery whereby poor and abandoned persons now profess to be slaves, is ‘Caiaphas.’ He is known as the high priest who, at odds with the truth, rails against Jesus. But Jesus according to the truth is a priest, the Word of God; under Him are established all who worthily and zealously serve God the Father. Where the high priest Caiaphas is found, however, there the scribes come together, that is, learned men who preside over the perishing written word. While being scribes, they are also elders who preside not over the truth but over the classic usage of a mere word.⁶ They are unwilling to consider anything beyond that.”⁷

Verse 58: Peter followed Jesus but stayed back at a distance. He followed Him to the courtyard of the high priest’s house. Peter went in and sat with the guards. He wanted to see what would happen to Jesus.

Although many of the disciples and followers quickly left the arrest scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, John stayed close to his Master, while Matthew notes that Peter followed off in the distance. Jerome states: “Either out of a disciple’s love or out of human curiosity, Peter wanted to know what judgment the high priest would make concerning the Lord: whether he would have Christ put to death or beaten with whips. There is a difference between the eleven apostles and Peter at this point. They fled, whereas he followed the Savior from a distance.”⁸

It must have been with a heavy heart that Peter lagged behind the arresting squad that guided Jesus to the compound of the high priest. I have to imagine that the words of Jesus rebuking him for being influenced by Satan to try and dissuade Him from continuing on to His destiny with death were running through his mind. And then, when his Master told him how weak his oath of loyalty was and that to the contrary he would deny Him rather than defend Him, even though he did pull the dagger and cut off the high priest servant’s ear. So perhaps Peter felt he had something to prove. Therefore, he’d wait for the right moment to display his willingness to surrender all for the one whom God the Father revealed to him as being the Messiah, the Anointed One, the Son of God.

But whatever his intentions, it didn’t turn out the way he may have imagined it. Because once they got to the high priest’s compound, things seemed to change. Below is an artist’s rendering of what the high priest’s compound may have looked like in that day. And somewhere in the courtyard, just inside the small gate you see on the far wall, is where Peter made his terrible choice to say: “I don’t know Him.”

Palace of Caiaphas during the Second Temple Period according to the model at Jerusalem

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XVI

Verses 50b-51: Then the men went forward and grabbed Jesus and arrested Him. When that happened, one of Jesus’ disciples grabbed his dagger and pulled it out. He swung it at the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear.

Nothing in Jesus’ demeanor seemed to faze these people. But after examining other Gospel accounts we find that according to John, Jesus did exchange words with them and at first they were somewhat intimidated¹ but soon got over it. Also, Luke tells us that at the supper, Jesus told His disciples that if they didn’t have any knives, they should get some. At that point, they told Him they already had two.² John tells us it was Peter who pulled the dagger. In the process, he escalated the tension. But Jesus intervened, and by healing the wounded man’s ear stopped any further violence, but not before Jesus rebuked Peter for his careless actions. If He had wanted to, our Lord could have opened Peter’s eyes just like He did for Elisha’s servant, so he could see the army of angels standing ready to come to the Messiah’s rescue.³

But Jesus was more interested in fulfilling the scriptures,⁴ than impressing His disciples. John Gill has put together an excellent summary of these scriptures:

“The several parts of the sufferings of the Messiah are foretold in the writings of the Old Testament; the spirit of Christ, in the prophets, testified before hand of them; as that he should be reproached and despised of men,⁵ be spit upon, smote, and buffeted,⁶ be put to death,⁷ and that the death of the cross,⁸ and be buried,⁹ and also the several circumstances of His sufferings, which led on to them, or attended them; as the selling Him for thirty pieces of silver,¹⁰ the betraying Him by one of his familiar friends,¹¹ the seizing and apprehending Him, and which is particularly referred to here,¹² His disciples forsaking Him,¹³ and even His God and Father,¹⁴ His suffering between two thieves,¹⁵ the parting of His garments, and casting lots for His clothing,¹⁶ the giving Him gall and vinegar when on the cross,¹⁷ and not breaking any of His bones,¹⁸ yea, the Scriptures not only declared, that these things should be; but the necessity of them also, that they must be; because of the purposes and decrees of God, which are eternal, immutable, and unfrustrable; for as God had determined on His salvation of His people by Christ, and that through His sufferings and death, these were determined by Him also, even the time, nature, manner, and circumstances of them; and which the Scriptures declare, and therefore must be likewise; and because of the covenant of grace, which is sure, unalterable, and unchangeable; in which Christ agreed to assume human nature, to obey, suffer, and die in it, and so do His Father’s will, which was to bear the penalty of the law, and undergo the sufferings of death, and which therefore must be, or Christ’s faithfulness fail.”¹⁹

Verses 52-54: Jesus said to the man, “Put your dagger back in its place. People who use swords will be killed with swords. Surely you know I could ask my Father and He would give me more than twelve legions of angels. But it must happen this way to show the truth of what the Scriptures said.”

Even in this moment of seeming complete helplessness, Christ shows that He is still the Master of the situation. They could not capture Him before this moment, neither were they forced to wait one hour longer. The Scriptures had foretold this point in time, and since they spoke of Him they must be fulfilled through Him to the letter. Jesus would have it no other way. Had Christ been in hiding previous to this hour, but now on this occasion ventured as close to Jerusalem as possible only to be caught, then the nature of His sacrifice would have taken on a different light. But this was the exact hour, ordained of the Father. It could not have been one second sooner nor later.

There are two things I feel are important to make note of in this section. First, after Jesus told Peter to put the dagger back in its sheath, He then stated: “Surely you know.” This means that sometime between when Peter joined Jesus as a disciple and now, he became aware of the special protection that Jesus had with God’s guardian angels. Perhaps it was after Peter learned the whole story of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness,²⁰ or a short time earlier when Jesus was praying and the angels came to comfort Him.²¹

When speaking of the angels available for Him to call, our Lord uses the military term “legions” to describe how big the angelic army was. According to Bible historians, a legion, from the Latin legio, to collect or choose, was a particular division or battalion of the Roman army, which at various times contained different numbers. During the period of our Savior’s journey, it probably consisted of 6,200-foot soldiers and 300 cavalry horses. Therefore, twelve of such legions would amount to about 78,000 men. But what number in a legion meant to the Roman army was not necessarily the same as an angelic legion.

Verse 55: Then Jesus said to the group, “Why do you come to get me with swords and clubs as if I were a criminal. Every day I sat in the Temple area teaching. You did not arrest me there.”

Jesus now challenges this mob to explain why they picked this time and place to arrest Him. But this was a rhetorical question because He was about to give them the answer. This was designed to point out that no one should doubt that the ensuring events were all under the control of God’s will. So when we read that Jesus promised that we may have trials and tribulations, let us not forget that it’s all in God’s plan, so face it, accept it, and let God work a miracle through it. That way, when we experience such moments of exasperation during our journey, we can assure ourselves that God is in control.

Though we may see those in whom we trust fail or forsake us when things get tough, yet we can trust in our God. But the disciples were more than just friends; they counted for more than mere followers. They were the ones that Jesus rescued from lives that were meaningless to the rest of the world and had no chance of ever impacting society for the good in any way. He gave them a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to walk with the Son of God and thereby be qualified to go out and rescue others in the world from similar insignificant lifestyles so they too could make a difference in the world. Then we should rejoice that we were counted worthy to be one of them.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part XV

Verse 47: While Jesus was still speaking, Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve apostles arrived. He had a big crowd of people with him, all carrying swords and clubs. They had been sent from the leading priests and the elders of the people.

The stillness in the garden is now shattered. Just as Jesus awakened His sleeping disciples the final time, an armed crowd shows up at the entrance to the garden. It is interesting to note, the Greek term used to describe the group that arrived is: polys ochlos (large multitude). Most people assume that there was only a small number who arrived, but Matthew tells us is was a big crowd.

Most scholars believe the large crowd consisted of Roman soldiers, Temple guards, officers, chief priests, along with their servants, captains of the Temple, and elders of the people. So this would constitute a much larger crowd than most people think, and greater than that which is often displayed in motion pictures about the life of Christ. However, some spurious attempts have been made to discount what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John record about this event.

Around 600 AD, some fragments of Jesus’ biography made their way into the Babylonian Talmud; and in 827 AD, Archbishop Agobard of Lyon attests to a sacrilegious story of Jesus that circulated among Jews. In the Middle Ages, the book became the object and tool of a most acrimonious controversy. Jews, Christians, and atheists, such as Shem-Tob ben Isaac Shaprut of Tudela, Martin Luther, and François-Marie Arouet, better known as Voltaire, quoted and commented on what became known as the “Toledot Yeshu” (Life of Jesus), trying to disprove the beliefs of Christians yet revealing their own biases and prejudices.

In this spurious document, we find the following recounting of our Lord’s arrest in Gethsemane:

“Then they [Jesus and His disciples] journeyed to Jerusalem, there to celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread [Passover]. Now when the devout men saw Judas Iscariot they rejoiced with great joy, and said to him, ‘Point Him out to us, we ask you, what remains to be done.’ (For he had secretly withdrawn himself and come to the elders and wise men of the city.) Then Judas related all that had happened, and how he had obtained the unpronounceable name YHWH from the illegitimate one. Therefore, they rejoiced, and Judas said to them, ‘If you will obey my orders, tomorrow I will deliver this fellow into your hands.’ Then said the wise men, ‘Have you enough knowledge of his going and coming?’ Judas replied, ‘Everything is known to me. Look, he goes to the temple to attend the sacrifice of the paschal victim, but I have sworn to him by the Ten Commandments not to deliver him into your hands. And he has with him, 2000 men. You should be prepared tomorrow, and know that the man before whom I bow down in adoration, he is the illegitimate one. Act bravely, attack his followers, and seize him.’ Simon, son of Shetach and all the rest of the wise men danced for joy, and they promised Judas to obey his orders. The next day Yeshua came with all his crowd, but Judas went out to meet him, and falling down before him, he worshiped him. Then all the citizens of Jerusalem, being well armed and equipped, captured Yeshua. And when his disciples saw him held captive, and that it was vain to fight, they took to their legs here and there and gave themselves up to bitter weeping. Meanwhile, the citizens of Jerusalem, waxing stronger, conquered the illegitimate one and his crowd, killing many of them, while the rest fled to the mountains.”¹

But the account given to us by Matthew is accepted as the true story of that momentous occasion:

Verse 48: Judas planned to do something to show them which one was Jesus. He said, “The one I kiss on the cheek will be Jesus. Arrest Him.” So he went to Jesus and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!’ Then Judas kissed Him on the cheek. Jesus responded, “Good friend, do the thing you came to do.”

At the head of this crowd stood a passive assassin named Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus’ own followers. This form of ambush was ripe in the early days of Israel after they entered the Promised Land,² and our Lord’s royal ancestor faced a similar situation.³ In this case, the betrayal would be consummated with a kiss on the cheek. The Greek word used here for “kiss” is kataphileō. It means, “to kiss much, kiss again and again, kiss tenderly.” We can see it more clearly in context by looking at examples.⁴ In some countries even today, family, friends, and guests are often treated with alternating kisses on each cheek as many as two times each. Such kissing is also expressed with what is called “cheek to cheek.”

According to the Syriac version of Matthew, it reads that when Judas Iscariot arrived, he came toward Jesus and said, “Shalom Rabbi” (Peace, Teacher). In the Farsi Version, Judas is recorded as saying, “Peace be upon You, Rabbi.” This was the customary form of salutation that disciples rendered to their wise teachers. As a matter of fact, in the Talmud, we find it said: “The greeting of a disciple to his Master is ‘Peace be upon you.’”⁵ Jesus did not dismiss this act of friendship. As a matter of fact, He greets Judas by calling him “good friend.” I can only imagine that at that moment Judas Iscariot’s heart must have burned with conviction as his Lord kindly embraced him.

Many of the early church scholars were impacted by what Judas did here. Chrysostom says: “For having shown His own strength, at once He yielded Himself. But the other Evangelist says that even at that very moment He continued to reprove Him, saying, ‘Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss?’⁶ Are you not ashamed even of the form of your betrayal? Nonetheless, He submitted to being kissed and did not even resist this shameless act. He gave Himself up willingly. They laid their hands on Him. They seized Him that night on which they ate the Passover. To such a degree did they boil with rage and madness. They, however, would have had no strength against Him unless He had permitted it. Yet this did not deliver Judas from unspeakable punishment. He even more exceedingly condemns himself by the manner of his betrayal, by the Lord’s meekness and leniency and gentleness. He became fiercer than any wild beast.”⁷ Jerome has this to say: “It was shameless indeed and a sign of broken trust to call Him master and to plant a kiss on the one he betrayed. But Judas still has something of the modesty of a disciple, for he does not deliver up Christ to His persecutors openly but with the sign of a kiss. This is the mark which God put on Cain lest anyone who came upon him should kill Him.”⁸

Chrysostom then adds this commentary: “How fitting are the instruments of the priests! They came against Him ‘with swords and clubs.’⁹ Judas himself was with them, one of the Twelve. In the interest of fair disclosure, the Evangelist still calls him ‘one of the Twelve,’ unashamedly. ‘Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him.”’ O with what depravity had the traitor’s soul been inflamed! With what kind of eyes did he then look at his Master? With what mouth did he kiss Him? O accursed purpose! What sign did he devise? What did he dare? What sort of clue of betrayal did he give? Whoever I kiss! He was emboldened by his Master’s gentleness. Yet it by itself was sufficient to shame him. The kiss deprived him of all excuse, for he was betraying one incomparably meek. But why does he say [‘Seize the one I kiss’?] Often when Jesus had been under attack and possible seizure, He had gone out from the crowd, through the middle of it, without their even knowing it.‘¹⁰”¹¹

Then Bishop Hilary offers an interesting insight: “There is a certain order to the different facets of Christ’s suffering. But the reason for Judas’s kiss was that we might discern all our enemies and those who we know would delight in raging against us. The Lord does not resist his kiss.”¹² What Hilary seems to be saying is that although Jesus knew the purpose for which Judas Iscariot came, and He was also cognizant that it would lead to His arrest, torture, and death, He opened His arms to Judas and accepted the betrayal kiss without resistance. This then should serve as an example for all of those who followed Him. Whenever those come against us for the sole purpose of trying to embarrass us or have us persecuted for the name of Christ, we should not shout back or make accusatory statements in our defense, but acknowledge that we know why they are there and we are willing to suffer whatever punishment or persecution that may come as a result of being a born again committed Christian, and a dedicated follower of Jesus Christ.

1 Sepher Toldoth Yeshu, Ch. 3

2 II Samuel 3:27; 20:9-10

3 Psalm 28:1-3; cf. Psalm 55:20

4 See Luke 7:45; 15:20; and Acts 20:37

5 Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Masekhet Shevu’oth, folio 32a, fn. (24).

6 Luke 22:48

7 Chrysostom: Matthew, Homily 83.2

8 Jerome: Commentary on Matthew, Bk. 4, Ch. 26.49

9 See verse 47

10 Luke 4:30

11 Chrysostom: ibid.

12 Hilary of Poitiers: On Matthew, 32.2