Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 26

The portion of the Gospel narrative we are now entering is common to all four Gospels regarding its main facts, which gives every detail a special interest. We cannot ignore that it also brings some unique difficulties.

The first three Gospels are in substantial agreement about the order of events and the time they occurred. However, the fourth Gospel, which is in some respects the fullest and most striking, differs from the other three in that:

1. It omits any mention that the Last Supper of our Lord with His disciples was also the Paschal Supper, and at least seems to imply that it was before it (John 13:1; John 18:28).
2. It also omits any record of:
   1. the institution of the Lord’s Supper as the sign of the New Covenant.
   2. the agony in Gethsemane.
3. It records much about our Lord’s acts and words that the other three Gospels do not.

It will be sufficient to discuss these problems once and for all, and we believe the right place for that discussion is in the notes on the Gospel that first presents them. Therefore, our work here will be confined to the text before us, with only passing references to John's narrative as needed. Regarding the variations in the first three Gospels, they are sufficiently explained by the hypothesis of a common origin—a history first delivered orally and later reduced to writing, which would naturally include the kinds of diversities inherent in such a process.

All these sayings—The words clearly point to the great discourse of Matthew 24:25. The "disciples" to whom our Lord spoke of His betrayal and death may have been either the four named in Mark 13:3 or the entire company of the Twelve. In the latter case, we must assume the rest had joined Him, either during the discourse or after it was finished.

After two days is the feast of the passover — Assuming the Last Supper coincided with the actual Passover feast (as the facts of the case suggest, though see the notes on John 13:1), then these words were spoken at one of two possible times. It could have been sometime on what we would call Tuesday evening of Passion Week. Alternatively, following the Jewish way of speaking which counted three days in the interval between our Lord’s burial and resurrection, it could have been on the morning or afternoon of Wednesday.

Then assembled together — We learn from John 11:49-50 that the plan, as far as Caiaphas was concerned, had been formed before, immediately after the raising of Lazarus. What had happened since—the kingly entry, the expulsion of the money-changers, and the way in which our Lord had baffled their attempt to entrap Him in His speech—would all serve as motives for immediate action. The meeting now assembled may have been either a formal session of the Sanhedrin or an informal conference of its chief members before the regular meeting. The former seems, on the whole, the more probable. The “chief priests” were the heads of the twenty-four courses; the elders of the people were the representatives—how elected or selected we do not know—of the citizens of Jerusalem. St. Mark and St. Luke name “scribes” instead of “elders.” These two bodies may have been identical, but it is more probable that the scribes of the Council represented the whole class of interpreters of the Law, who bore that name in its wider sense.

The high priest, who was called Caiaphas — The name was a distinctive one added to his proper name of Joseph. Of his previous history, we know that he had married the daughter of Annas, who had held the office of high priest before him (John 18:13). Annas still occupied an influential position in the Council, possibly as Nasi or President, and retained his titular pre-eminence (see the note on Luke 3:2). He had been high priest from the beginning of our Lord’s ministry and had, therefore, watched His work in Jerusalem with a jealous fear. We can probably trace his influence in the mission of the scribes from Jerusalem, whom we have seen as opponents of that ministry in Galilee (Mark 3:22; Luke 5:17). The meeting in his house implied a coalition of parties that were normally opposed, for Caiaphas and his personal adherents were Sadducees (Acts 5:17) and, as such, courted the favor of their Roman rulers (John 11:48), while the scribes were, for the most part, Pharisees and advocates for national independence.

That they might take Jesus by deceit — The plan implied in these words and in the phrase that follows, “not on the feast day,” seems to have been hastened by the unexpected treachery of Judas.

They had intended to wait until the feast was over, but the temptation this offered was too great to resist. As a result, they went beyond the limits their own caution had suggested, becoming willing to risk an “uproar among the people” during the Paschal Feast.

Now when Jesus was in Bethany — The narrative is given out of its proper order because of its connection (as indicated in St. John’s record) with the act of the Traitor. St. John places it (John 12:1) at six days before the Passover, that is, on the evening that preceded the entry into Jerusalem. It was, therefore, a feast such as Jews were accustomed to hold at the close of the Sabbath.

In the house of Simon the leper — We know nothing about this man beyond what is mentioned here. It is not likely, had he been a leper at the time, that people would have gathered for a feast at his house. It is natural to infer that our Lord had healed him, but that the name still remained with him to distinguish him from other Simons. We learn from St. John (John 12:2) that Lazarus was there and that Martha, true to her character, was busy “serving.” The Twelve were also there, and probably many others. The incident that follows is narrated by all the Evangelists except St. Luke, who may have either not heard it from his informants or, if he had, may have passed it over, having already recorded a similar event (Luke 7:37–40).