The Meaning of Matthew 26:6 Explained

Matthew 26:6

KJV: Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,

YLT: And Jesus having been in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,

Darby: But Jesus being in Bethany, in Simon the leper's house,

ASV: Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,

KJV Reverse Interlinear

Now  when Jesus  was  in  Bethany,  in  the house  of Simon  the leper, 

What does Matthew 26:6 Mean?

Context Summary

Matthew 26:1-13 - Love's Fragrant Ministry
How great the contrast between the plotting in the court of Caiaphas and the love-ministry of Bethany! Yet even there, a strain of needless sorrow was added to the cup of our Lord. While His foes were plotting His destruction, it became necessary for Him to speak on behalf of the devoted woman who was suffering criticism for His Name. It is probable that, of all people then living, Mary was the only one who had really entered into the meaning of the Lord's words and had realized the scenes of suffering that lay before Him. Through the succeeding hours the aroma of that ointment, lingering still on His person, must have sweetly reminded Jesus how dearly He was loved.
Mary is not named in this Gospel, perhaps because it was written during her lifetime and such a reference might have exposed her to suffering. But in the fourth Gospel she is named, because by that time the whole family had gone into the presence of Him whom they so devotedly loved. Do not be deterred by utilitarian calculations from the spontaneous expression of love to Jesus. [source]

Chapter Summary: Matthew 26

1  Jesus foretells his own death
3  The rulers conspire against him
6  The woman anoints his feet
14  Judas bargains to betray him
17  Jesus eats the Passover;
26  institutes his holy supper;
30  foretells the desertion of his disciples, and Peter's denial;
36  prays in the garden;
47  and being betrayed by a kiss,
57  is carried to Caiaphas,
69  and denied by Peter

Greek Commentary for Matthew 26:6

In the house of Simon the leper [εν οικιαι Σιμωνος του λεπρου]
Evidently a man who had been healed of his leprosy by Jesus who gave the feast in honour of Jesus. All sorts of fantastic theories have arisen about it. Some even identify this Simon with the one in Luke 7:36., but Simon was a very common name and the details are very different. Some hold that it was Martha‘s house because she served (John 12:2) and that Simon was either the father or husband of Martha, but Martha loved to serve and that proves nothing. Some identify Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman in Luke 7 and even with Mary Magdalene, both gratuitous and groundless propositions. For the proof that Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, and the sinful woman of Luke 7 are all distinct see my Some Minor Characters in the New Testament. John (John 12:1) apparently locates the feast six days before the passover, while Mark (Mark 14:3) and Matthew (Matthew 26:6) seem to place it on the Tuesday evening (Jewish Wednesday) just two days before the passover meal. It is possible that John anticipates the date and notes the feast at Bethany at this time because he does not refer to Bethany again. If not, the order of Mark must be followed. According to the order of Mark and Matthew, this feast took place at the very time that the Sanhedrin was plotting about the death of Jesus (Mark 14:1.). [source]

Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Matthew 26:6

Matthew 21:19 A fig tree [συκην μιαν]
“A single fig tree” (Margin of Revelation Version). But εις — heis was often used = τις — tis or like our indefinite article. See Matthew 8:10; Matthew 26:69. The Greek has strictly no indefinite article as the Latin has no definite article. [source]
Matthew 24:30 The sign of the Son of Man in heaven [το σημειον του υιου του αντρωπου εν ουρανωι]
Many theories have been suggested like the cross in the sky, etc. Bruce sees a reference to Daniel 7:13 “one like the Son of man” and holds that Christ himself is the sign in question (the genitive of apposition). This is certainly possible. It is confirmed by the rest of the verse: “They shall see the Son of man coming.” See Matthew 16:27; Matthew 26:64. The Jews had repeatedly asked for such a sign (Broadus) as in Matthew 12:38; Matthew 16:1; John 2:18. [source]
Matthew 26:6 In the house of Simon the leper [εν οικιαι Σιμωνος του λεπρου]
Evidently a man who had been healed of his leprosy by Jesus who gave the feast in honour of Jesus. All sorts of fantastic theories have arisen about it. Some even identify this Simon with the one in Luke 7:36., but Simon was a very common name and the details are very different. Some hold that it was Martha‘s house because she served (John 12:2) and that Simon was either the father or husband of Martha, but Martha loved to serve and that proves nothing. Some identify Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman in Luke 7 and even with Mary Magdalene, both gratuitous and groundless propositions. For the proof that Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, and the sinful woman of Luke 7 are all distinct see my Some Minor Characters in the New Testament. John (John 12:1) apparently locates the feast six days before the passover, while Mark (Mark 14:3) and Matthew (Matthew 26:6) seem to place it on the Tuesday evening (Jewish Wednesday) just two days before the passover meal. It is possible that John anticipates the date and notes the feast at Bethany at this time because he does not refer to Bethany again. If not, the order of Mark must be followed. According to the order of Mark and Matthew, this feast took place at the very time that the Sanhedrin was plotting about the death of Jesus (Mark 14:1.). [source]
Matthew 26:68 Thou Christ [Χριστε]
With definite sneer at his claims under oath in Matthew 26:63. With uncontrolled glee and abandon like a lot of hoodlums these doctors of divinity insulted Jesus. They actually spat in his face, buffeted him on the neck (εκολαπισαν — ekolaphisan from κολαπος — kolaphos the fist), and struck him in the face with the palms of their hands (εραπισαν — erapisan from ραπις — rapis a rod), all personal indignities after the legal injustice already done. They thus gave vent to their spite and hatred. [source]
Matthew 27:29 Hail, King of the Jews [χαιρε ασιλευ των Ιουδαιων]
The soldiers added the insults used by the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:67), spitting on him and smiting him with the reed. Probably Jesus had been unbound already. At any rate the garments of mockery were removed before the via dolorosa to the cross (Matthew 27:31). [source]
Matthew 27:41 The chief priests mocking [οι αρχιερεις εμπαιζοντες]
The Sanhedrin in fact, for “the scribes and elders” are included. The word for mocking (εμπαιζοντεσ εν — empaizontes παιζω — en and παις — paizō from pais child) means acting like silly children who love to guy one another. These grave and reverend seniors had already given vent to their glee at the condemnation of Jesus by themselves (Matthew 26:67.). [source]
Mark 14:62 I am []
See on Matthew 26:64. [source]
Mark 14:64 Guilty of death []
See on Matthew 26:66. [source]
Mark 14:65 Buffet []
See on Matthew 26:67. [source]
Mark 14:3 As he sat at meat [κατακειμενου αυτου]
Matthew 26:7 uses ανακειμενου — anakeimenou both words meaning reclining (leaning down or up or back) and in the genitive absolute. See note on Matthew 26:6 in proof that this is a different incident from that recorded in Luke 7:36-50. See Matthew 26:6-13 for discussion of details. [source]
Mark 14:62 I am [εγο ειμι]
Matthew has it, “Thou hast said,” which is the equivalent of the affirmative. But Mark‘s statement is definite beyond controversy. See notes on Matthew 26:64-68 for the claims of Jesus and the conduct of Caiaphas. [source]
Mark 14:65 Cover his face [περικαλυπτειν αυτου το προσωπον]
Put a veil around his face. Not in Matthew, but in Luke 22:64 where Revised Version translates περικαλυπσαντες — perikalupsantes by “blind-folded.” All three Gospels give the jeering demand of the Sanhedrin: “Prophesy” Matthew 26:67 alludes to their treatment of Jesus without clearly indicating who they were. [source]
Mark 14:65 With blows of their hands [ραπισμασιν]
The verb ραπιζω — rapizō in Matthew 26:67 originally meant to smite with a rod. In late writers it comes to mean to slap the face with the palm of the hands. The same thing is true of the substantive ραπισμα — rapisma used here. A papyrus of the sixth century a.d. uses it in the sense of a scar on the face as the result of a blow. It is in the instrumental case here. “They caught him with blows,” Swete suggests for the unusual ελαβον — elabon in this sense. “With rods” is, of course, possible as the lictors carried rods. At any rate it was a gross indignity. [source]
Mark 14:66 Beneath in the court [κατω εν τηι αυληι]
This implies that Jesus was upstairs when the Sanhedrin met. Matthew 26:69 has it without in the court Both are true. The open court was outside of the rooms and also below. [source]
Mark 14:67 The Nazarene [του Ναζαρηνου]
In Matthew 26:69 it is “the Galilean.” A number were probably speaking, one saying one thing, another another. [source]
Mark 14:69 To them that stood by [τοις παρεστωσιν]
This talk about Peter was overheard by him. “This fellow (ουτος — houtos) is one of them.” So in Mark 14:70 the talk is directly to Peter as in Matthew 26:73, but in Luke 22:59 it is about him. Soon the bystanders (οι παρεστωτες — hoi parestōtes) will join in the accusation to Peter (Mark 14:70; Matthew 26:73), with the specially pungent question in John 18:26 which was the climax. See notes on Matthew 26:69-75 for discussion of similar details. [source]
Luke 6:22 Son of Man []
The phrase is employed in the Old Testament as a circumlocution for man, with special reference to his frailty as contrasted with God (Numbers 23:19; Psalm 8:4; Job 25:6; Job 35:8; and eighty-nine times in Ezekiel). It had also a Messianic meaning (Daniel 7:13 sq.), to which our Lord referred in Matthew 24:30; Matthew 26:64. It was the title which Christ most frequently applied to himself; and there are but two instances in which it is applied to him by another, viz., by Stephen (Acts 7:56) and by John (Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14:); and when acquiescing in the title “Son of God,” addressed to himself, he sometimes immediately after substitutes “Son of Man” (John 1:50, John 1:51; Matthew 26:63, Matthew 26:64). The title asserts Christ's humanity - his absolute identification with our race: “his-DIVIDER-
having a genuine humanity which could deem nothing human strange, and could be touched with a feeling of the infirmities of the race which he was to judge” (Liddon, “Our Lord's Divinity”). It also exalts him as the representative ideal man. “All-DIVIDER-
human history tends to him and radiates from him; he is the point in which humanity finds its unity; as St. Irenaeus says, ' He recapitulates it.' He closes the earlier history of our race; he inaugurates its future. Nothing local, transient, individualizing, national, sectarian dwarfs the proportions of his world-embracing character. He rises above the parentage, the blood, the narrow horizon which bounded, as it seemed, his human life. He is the archetypal man, in whose presence distinction of race, intervals of ages, types of civilization, degrees of mental culture are as nothing” (Liddon). -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
But the title means more. As Son of Man he asserts the authority of judgment over all flesh. By virtue of what he is as Son of Man, he must be more. “The absolute relation to the world which he attributes to himself demands an absolute relation to God … .He is the Son of Man, the Lord of the world, the Judge, only because he is the Son of God” (Luthardt). Christ's humanity can be explained only by his divinity. A humanity so unique demands a solution. Divested of all that is popularly called miraculous, viewed simply as a man, under the historical conditions of his life, he is a greater miracle than all his miracles combined. The solution is expressed in Hebrews 1:1-14. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
[source]

Luke 22:56 Looking steadfastly [ατενισασα]
Favourite word in Luke (Luke 4:20, etc.) for gazing steadily at one.This man also (και ουτος — kai houtos). As if pointing to Peter and talking about him. The other Gospels (Mark 14:67; Matthew 26:69; John 18:25) make a direct address to Peter. Both could be true, as she turned to Peter. [source]
Luke 22:56 This man also [και ουτος]
As if pointing to Peter and talking about him. The other Gospels (Mark 14:67; Matthew 26:69; John 18:25) make a direct address to Peter. Both could be true, as she turned to Peter. [source]
Luke 22:64 Blindfolded [περικαλυπσαντες]
First aorist active participle of περικαλυπτω — perikaluptō old verb, to put a veil around. In the N.T. only here and Mark 14:65. See note on Mark and Matthew 26:67. for further discussion. [source]
Luke 22:67 If I tell you [Εαν υμιν ειπω]
Condition of the third class, undetermined, but with likelihood of being determined. This is the second appearance of Jesus before the Sanhedrin merely mentioned by Mark 15:1; Matthew 27:1 who give in detail the first appearance and trial. Luke merely gives this so-called ratification meeting after daybreak to give the appearance of legality to their vote of condemnation already taken (Mark 14:64; Matthew 26:66).Ye will not believe (ου μη πιστευσητε — ou mē pisteusēte). Double negative with the aorist subjunctive, strongest possible negative. So as to Luke 22:68. [source]
Luke 22:70 Ye say [υμεις λεγετε]
Just a Greek idiom for “Yes” (compare “I am” in Mark 14:62 with “Thou has said” in Matthew 26:64). [source]
Luke 6:22 For the Son of man‘s sake [ενεκα του υιου του αντρωπου]
Jesus foretold what will befall those who are loyal to him. The Acts of the Apostles is a commentary on this prophecy. This is Christ‘s common designation of himself, never of others save by Stephen (Acts 7:56) and in the Apocalypse (Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14). But both Son of God and Son of man apply to him (John 1:50, 52; Matthew 26:63.). Christ was a real man though the Son of God. He is also the representative man and has authority over all men. [source]
Luke 6:22 Cast out your name as evil [εχβαλωσιν το ονομα υμων ως πονηρον]
Second aorist active subjunctive of εκβαλλω — ekballō common verb. The verb is used in Aristophanes, Sophocles, and Plato of hissing an actor off the stage. The name of Christian or disciple or Nazarene came to be a byword of contempt as shown in the Acts. It was even unlawful in the Neronian persecution when Christianity was not a religio licita.For the Son of man‘s sake (ενεκα του υιου του αντρωπου — heneka tou huiou tou anthrōpou). Jesus foretold what will befall those who are loyal to him. The Acts of the Apostles is a commentary on this prophecy. This is Christ‘s common designation of himself, never of others save by Stephen (Acts 7:56) and in the Apocalypse (Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14). But both Son of God and Son of man apply to him (John 1:50, 52; Matthew 26:63.). Christ was a real man though the Son of God. He is also the representative man and has authority over all men. [source]
Luke 7:37 A woman which was in the city, a sinner [γυνη ητις εν τηι πολει αμαρτωλος]
Probably in Capernaum. The use of ητις — hētis means “Who was of such a character as to be” (cf. Luke 8:3) and so more than merely the relative η — hē who, that is, “who was a sinner in the city,” a woman of the town, in other words, and known to be such. αμαρτωλος — Hamartōlos from αμαρτανω — hamartanō to sin, means devoted to sin and uses the same form for feminine and masculine. It is false and unjust to Mary Magdalene, introduced as a new character in Luke 8:2, to identify this woman with her. Luke would have no motive in concealing her name here and the life of a courtesan would be incompatible with the sevenfold possession of demons. Still worse is it to identify this courtesan not only with Mary Magdalene, but also with Mary of Bethany simply because it is a Simon who gives there a feast to Jesus when Mary of Bethany does a beautiful deed somewhat like this one here (Mark 14:3-9; Matthew 26:6-13; John 12:2-8). Certainly Luke knew full well the real character of Mary of Bethany (Luke 10:38-42) so beautifully pictured by him. But a falsehood, once started, seems to have more lives than the cat‘s proverbial nine. The very name Magdalene has come to mean a repentant courtesan. But we can at least refuse to countenance such a slander on Mary Magdalene and on Mary of Bethany. This sinful woman had undoubtedly repented and changed her life and wished to show her gratitude to Jesus who had rescued her. Her bad reputation as a harlot clung to her and made her an unwelcome visitor in the Pharisee‘s house. [source]
John 18:37 Was I born - came I [γεγέννημαι - ἐλήλυθα]
Both perfects. Have I been born - am I come. So Rev. The Greek order is I for this have been born, etc., throwing the emphasis on Christ's person and destiny. The perfect describes His birth and coming not merely as historical facts, but as abiding in their results. Compare this confession before Pilate (1 Timothy 6:13) with the corresponding confession before the high-priest (Matthew 26:64). “The one, addressed to the Jews, is framed in the language of prophecy; the other, addressed to a Roman, appeals to the universal testimony of conscience. The one speaks of a future manifestation of glory, the other speaking of a present manifestation of truth. The one looks forward to the Return, the other looks backward to the Incarnation” (Westcott). [source]
John 18:22 Struck - with the palm of his hand [ἔδωκε ῥάπισμα]
Literally, gave a blow. Interpreters differ as to whether it was a blow with a rod, or with the hand. The kindred verb ῥαπίζω , from ῥαπίς , a rod, is etymologically related to ῥαβδίζω , from ῥάβδος , a rod, and occurs Matthew 5:39, of smiting on the cheek, and Matthew 26:67, where it is distinguished from κολαφίζω , to strike with the fist. This latter passage, however, leaves the question open, since, if the meaning to smite with a rod can be defended, there is nothing to prevent its being understood there in that sense. The earlier meaning of the word was, undoubtedly, according to its etymology, to smite with a rod. So Herodotus of Xerxes. “It is certain that he commanded those who scourged ( ῥαπι.ζοντας ) the waters (of the Hellespont) to utter, as they lashed them, these barbarian and wicked words” (vii., 35). And again: “The Corinthian captain, Adeimantus, observed, 'Themistocles, at the games they who start too soon are scourged ( ῥαπίζονται )'” (viii., 59). It passes, in classical Greek, from this meaning to that of a light blow with the hand. The grammarian Phrynichus (A. D. 180) condemns the use of the word in the sense of striking with the hand, or slapping, as not according to good Attic usage, and says that the proper expression for a blow on the cheek with the open hand is ἐπὶ κόρρης πατάξαι . This shows that the un-Attic phrase had crept into use. In the Septuagint the word is clearly used in the sense of a blow with the hand. See Isaiah 50:6: “I gave my cheeks to blows ( εἰς ῥαπι.σματα ). Hosea 11:4, “As a man that smiteth ( ῥαπίζων ) upon his cheeks” (A.V. and Rev., that take off the yoke on their jaws ). In 1 Kings 22:24, we read, “Zedekiah - smote Micaiah on the cheek ( ἐπάταξε ἐπὶ τὴν σιαγόνα ).” The word in John 18:23, δέρεις , literally, flayest, hence, do beat or thrash (compare Luke 12:47), seems better to suit the meaning strike with a rod; yet in 2 Corinthians 11:20, that verb is used of smiting in the face ( εἰς πρόσωπον δέρει ), and in 1 Corinthians 9:27, where Paul is using the figure of a boxer, he says, “So fight I ( πυκτεύω , of boxing, or fighting with the fists ), not as one that beateth ( δέρων ) the air.” These examples practically destroy the force of the argument from δέρεις . It is impossible to settle the point conclusively; but, on the whole, it seems as well to retain the rendering of the A.V. and Rev. [source]
John 1:29 Behold [ἴδε]
The imperative in the singular number, though the company of his followers is addressed. This construction, however, is not uncommon. See Matthew 26:65; Acts 13:46. [source]
John 1:51 Son of man []
See on Luke 6:22. Notice the titles successively applied to our Lord in this chapter: the greater Successor of the Baptist, the Lamb of God, the Son of God, the Messiah, the King of Israel. These were all given by others. The title Son of man He applies to Himself. In John's Gospel, as in the Synoptists, this phrase is used only by Christ in speaking of Himself; and elsewhere only in Acts 7:56, where the name is applied to Him by Stephen. It occurs less frequently in John than in the Synoptists, being found in Matthew thirty times, in Mark thirteen, and in John twelve. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
Jesus' use of the term here is explained in two ways. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
I. That He borrows the title from the Old Testament to designate Himself either: (a ) as a prophet, as in Ezekiel 2:1-3; Ezekiel 3:1, etc.; or (b ) as the Messiah, as prefigured in Daniel 7:13. This prophecy of Daniel had obtained such wide currency that the Messiah was called Anani, or the man of the clouds. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(a.) This is untenable, because in Ezekiel, as everywhere in the Old Testament, the phrase Son of man, or Sons of men, is used to describe man under his human limitations, as weak, fallible, and incompetent by himself to be a divine agent. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(b.) The allusion to Daniel's prophecy is admitted; but Jesus does not mean to say, “I am the Messiah who is prefigured by Daniel.” A political meaning attached in popular conception to the term Messiah; and it is noticeable throughout John's Gospel that Jesus carefully avoids using that term before the people, but expresses the thing itself by circumlocution, in order to avoid the complication which the popular understanding would have introduced into his work. See John 8:24, John 8:25; John 10:24, John 10:25. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
Moreover, the phrase Son of man was not generally applied to the Messiah. On the contrary, John 5:27and John 12:34show that it was set off against that term. Compare Matthew 16:13, Matthew 16:15. Son of God is the Messianic title, which, with one exception, appears in confessions (John 1:34, John 1:49; John 11:27; John 20:31). -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
In Daniel the reference is exclusively to the final stage of human affairs. The point is the final establishment of the divine kingdom. Moreover, Daniel does not say “the Son of man,” but “one like a Son of man.” Compare Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14, where also the article is omitted. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
II. The second, and correct explanation is that the phrase Son of man is the expression of Christ's self-consciousness as being related to humanity as a whole: denoting His real participation in human nature, and designating Himself as the representative man. It thus corresponds with the passage in Daniel, where the earthly kingdoms are represented by beasts, but the divine kingdom by a Son of man. Hence, too, the word ἄνθρωπος is purposely used (see on a man, John 1:30, and compare John 8:40). -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
While the human element was thus emphasized in the phrase, the consciousness of Jesus, as thus expressed, did not exclude His divine nature and claims, but rather regarded these through the medium of His humanity. He showed Himself divine in being thus profoundly human. Hence two aspects of the phrase appear in John, as in the Synoptists. The one regards His earthly life and work, and involves His being despised; His accommodation to the conditions of human life; the partial veiling of His divine nature; the loving character of His mission; His liability to misinterpretation; and His outlook upon a consummation of agony. On the other hand, He is possessed of supreme authority; He is about His Father's work; He reveals glimpses of His divine nature through His humanity; His presence and mission entail serious responsibility upon those to whom He appeals; and He foresees a consummation of glory no less than of agony. See Matthew 8:20; Matthew 11:19; Matthew 12:8, Matthew 12:32; Matthew 13:37; Matthew 16:13; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 26:64; Mark 8:31, Mark 8:38; Mark 14:21; Luke 9:26, Luke 9:58; Luke 12:8; Luke 17:22; Luke 19:10; Luke 22:69. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
The other aspect is related to the future. He has visions of another life of glory and dominion; though present in the flesh, His coming is still future, and will be followed by a judgment which is committed to Him, and by the final glory of His redeemed in His heavenly kingdom. See Matthew 10:23; Matthew 13:40sqq.; Matthew 16:27sqq.; Matthew 19:28; Matthew 24:27, Matthew 24:37, Matthew 24:44; Matthew 25:31sqq.; Mark 13:26; Luke 6:22; Luke 17:24, Luke 17:30; Luke 18:8; Luke 21:27. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
[source]

John 1:34 I have seen [εωρακα]
Present perfect active of οραω — horaō John repeats the statement of John 1:32 Have borne witness Perfect active indicative of μαρτυρεω — martureō for which verb see John 1:32. This is the Son of God The Baptist saw the Spirit come on Jesus at his baptism and undoubtedly heard the Father‘s voice hail him as “My Beloved Son” (Mark 1:11; Matthew 3:17; Luke 3:22). Nathanael uses it as a Messianic title (John 1:49) as does Martha (John 11:27). The Synoptics use it also of Christ (Mark 3:11; Matthew 14:33; Luke 22:70). Caiaphas employs it to Christ as a Messianic title (Matthew 26:63) and Jesus confessed under oath that he was (verse Matthew 26:64), thus applying the term to himself as he does in John‘s Gospel (John 5:25; John 10:36; John 11:4) and by implication (the Father, the Son) in Matthew 11:27 (Luke 10:22). Hence in the Synoptics also Jesus calls himself the Son of God. The phrase means more than just Messiah and expresses the peculiar relation of the Son to the Father (John 3:18; John 5:25; John 17:5; John 19:7; John 20:31) like that of the Logos with God in John 1:1. [source]
John 10:24 Came round about him [εκυκλωσαν αυτον]
Aorist active indicative of κυκλοω — kukloō old verb from κυκλος — kuklos (cycle, circle). See Acts 14:20 for the circle of disciples around Paul when stoned. Evidently the hostile Jews cherished the memory of the stinging rebuke given them by Jesus when here last, particularly the allegory of the Good Shepherd (10:1-19), in which he drew so sharply their own picture. How long dost thou hold us in suspense? Literally, “Until when dost thou lift up our soul?” But what do they mean by this metaphor? Αιρω — Airō is common enough to lift up the eyes (John 11:41), the voice (Luke 17:13), and in Psalm 25:1; Psalm 86:4 (Josephus, Ant. III. ii. 3) we have “to lift up the soul.” We are left to the context to judge the precise meaning. Clearly the Jews mean to imply doubt and suspense. The next remark makes it clear. If thou art the Christ Condition of first class assumed to be true for the sake of argument. Tell us plainly Conclusion with ειπον — eipon rather than the usual ειπε — eipe as if first aorist active imperative like λυσον — luson The point is in “plainly” Jesus declined to use the word Χριστος — Christos (Messiah) then as now because of the political bearing of the word in their minds. The populace in Galilee had once tried to make him king in opposition to Pilate (John 6:14.). When Jesus does confess on oath before Caiaphas that he is the Christ the Son of God (Mark 14:61.; Matthew 26:63.), the Sanhedrin instantly vote him guilty of blasphemy and then bring him to Pilate with the charge of claiming to be king as a rival to Caesar. Jesus knew their minds too well to be caught now. [source]
John 11:27 Yea, Lord [Ναι κυριε]
Martha probably did not understand all that Jesus said and meant, but she did believe in the future resurrection, in eternal life for believers in Christ, in the power of Christ to raise even the dead here and now. She had heroic faith and makes now her own confession of faith in words that outrank those of Peter in Matthew 16:16 because she makes hers with her brother dead now four days and with the hope that Jesus will raise him up now. I have believed (πιστευω — pepisteuka). Perfect active indicative of οτι συ ει ο Χριστος ο υιος του τεου — pisteuō It is my settled and firm faith. Peter uses this same tense in John 6:69. That thou art the Son of God (ο εις τον κοσμον ερχομενος — hoti su ei ho Christos ho huios tou theou). The Messiah or the Christ (John 1:41) was to be also “the Son of God” as the Baptist said he had found Jesus to be (John 1:34), as Peter confessed on Hermon for the apostles (Matthew 16:16), as Jesus claimed to be (John 11:41) and confessed on oath before Caiaphas that he was (Matthew 26:63.), and as John stated that it was his purpose to prove in his Gospel (John 20:31). But no one said it under more trying circumstances than Martha. Even he that cometh into the world (ho eis ton kosmon erchomenos). No “even” in the Greek. This was a popular way of putting the people‘s expectation (John 6:14; Matthew 11:3). Jesus himself spoke of his coming into the world (John 9:39; John 16:28; John 8:37). [source]
John 18:17 The maid [η παιδισκη]
Feminine form of παιδισκος — paidiskos diminutive of παις — pais See Matthew 26:69. When “the maid the portress” (apposition). Art thou also? Expecting the negative answer, though she really believed he was. This man‘s Contemptuous use of ουτος — houtos with a gesture toward Jesus. She made it easy for Peter to say no. [source]
John 19:9 Whence art thou? [ποτεν ει συ]
Pilate knew that Jesus was from Galilee (Luke 23:6.). He is really alarmed. See a like question by the Jews in John 8:25. Gave him no answer See same idiom in John 1:22. Αποκρισις — Apokrisis (old word from αποκρινομαι — apokrinomai) occurs also in Luke 2:47; Luke 20:26. The silence of Jesus, like that before Caiaphas (Mark 14:61; Matthew 26:63) and Herod (Luke 23:9), irritates the dignity of Pilate in spite of his fears. [source]
John 12:2 So they made him a supper there [εποιησαν ουν αυτωι δειπνον εκει]
Here again ουν — oun is not inferential, but merely transitional. This supper is given by Mark (Mark 14:3-9) and Matthew (Matthew 26:6-13) just two days (Mark 14:1) before the passover, that is on our Tuesday evening (beginning of Jewish Wednesday), while John mentions (John 12:2-9) it immediately after the arrival of Jesus in Bethany (John 12:1). One must decide which date to follow. Mark and Matthew and Luke follow it with the visit of Judas to the Sanhedrin with an offer to betray Jesus as if exasperated by the rebuke by Jesus at the feast. Bernard considers that John “is here more probably accurate.” It all turns on John‘s purpose in putting it here. This is the last mention of Jesus in Bethany and he may have mentioned it proleptically for that reason as seems to me quite reasonable. Westcott notes that in chapter 12John closes his record of the public ministry of the Lord relative to the disciples at this feast (John 12:1-11), to the multitude in the triumphal entry (John 12:12-19), to the world outside in the visit of the Greeks (verses 20-36a), and with two summary judgments (John 12:36-50). There is no further reason to refer to the feast in the house of another Simon when a sinful woman anointed Jesus (Luke 7:36-50). It is no credit to Luke or to John with Mark and Matthew to have them all making a jumble like that. There were two anointings by two absolutely different women for wholly different purposes. See the discussion on Luke for further details. And Martha served Imperfect active of διακονεω — diakoneō picturing Martha true to the account of her in Luke 10:40 But this fact does not show that Martha was the wife of this Simon at all. They were friends and neighbours and Martha was following her bent. It is Mark (Mark 14:3) and Matthew (Matthew 26:6) who mention the name of the host. It is not Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36), but Simon the leper (Mark 14:3; Matthew 26:6) in whose house they meet. The name is common enough. The Simon in Luke was sharply critical of Jesus; this one is full of gratitude for what Jesus has done for him. That sat at meat “That lay back,” reclined as they did, articular participle (ablative case after εκ — ek) of the common verb ανακειμαι — anakeimai Perhaps Simon gave the feast partly in honour of Lazarus as well as of Jesus since all were now talking of both (John 12:9). It was a gracious occasion. The guests were Jesus, the twelve apostles, and Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. [source]
John 18:15 Followed [ηκολουτει]
Imperfect active of ακολουτεω — akoloutheō “was following,” picturesque and vivid tense, with associative instrumental case τωι Ιησου — tōi Iēsou Another disciple Correct text without article ο — ho (genuine in John 18:16). Peter‘s companion was the Beloved Disciple, the author of the book (John 21:24). Was known unto the high priest Verbal adjective from γινωσκω — ginōskō to know (Acts 1:19) with dative case. How well known the word does not say, not necessarily a personal friend, well enough known for the portress to admit John. “The account of what happened to Peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of the servants‘ hall” (Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 101). Entered in with Jesus Second aorist active indicative of the double compound συνεισερχομαι — suneiserchomai old verb, in N.T. here and John 6:22. With associative instrumental case. Into the court It is not clear that this word ever means the palace itself instead of the courtyard (uncovered enclosure) as always in the papyri (very common). Clearly courtyard in Mark 14:66 (Matthew 26:69; Luke 22:55). Apparently Annas had rooms in the official residence of Caiaphas. [source]
John 18:22 When he had said this [ταυτα αυτου ειποντος]
Genitive absolute of second aorist active participle of ειπον — eipon to say. Standing by Perfect active (intransitive) participle of παριστημι — paristēmi (transitive), to place beside. One of the temple police who felt his importance as protector of Annas. Struck Jesus with his hand Late word ραπισμα — rapisma is from ραπιζω — rapizō to smite with a rod or with the palm of the hand (Matthew 26:67). It occurs only three times in the N.T. (Mark 14:65; John 18:22; John 19:3), in each of which it is uncertain whether the blow is with a rod or with the palm of the hand (probably this, a most insulting act). The papyri throw no real light on it. “He gave Jesus a slap in the face.” Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:20. So As Jesus had done in John 18:21, a dignified protest in fact by Jesus. [source]
John 18:37 Art thou a king then? [ουκουν βασιλευς ει συ]
Compound of ουκ — ouk and ουν — oun and is clearly ironical expecting an affirmative answer, only here in the N.T., and in lxx only in A text in 2Kings 5:23. Thou sayest that In Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3, συ λεγεις — su legeis clearly means “yes,” as συ ειπας — su eipas (thou saidst) does in Matthew 26:64 (= “I am,” εγω ειμι — egō eimi in Mark 14:62). Hence here οτι — hoti had best be taken to mean “because”: “Yes, because I am a king.” Have I been born Perfect passive indicative of γενναω — gennaō The Incarnation was for this purpose. Note repetition of εις τουτο — eis touto (for this purpose), explained by ινα μαρτυρησω τηι αλητειαι — hina marturēsō tēi alētheiāi (that I may bear witness to the truth), ινα — hina with first aorist active subjunctive of μαρτυρεω — martureō Paul (1 Timothy 6:13) alludes to this good confession when Christ bore witness (μαρτυρησαντος — marturēsantos) before Pilate. Jesus bore such witness always (John 3:11, John 3:32; John 7:7; John 8:14; Revelation 1:5). [source]
John 19:1 Took and scourged [ελαβεν και εμαστιγωσεν]
First aorist active indicative of λαμβανω — lambanō and μαστιγοω — mastigoō (from μαστιχ — mastix whip). For this redundant use of λαμβανω — lambanō see also John 19:6. It is the causative use of μαστιγοω — mastigoō for Pilate did not actually scourge Jesus. He simply ordered it done, perhaps to see if the mob would be satisfied with this penalty on the alleged pretender to royalty (Luke 23:22) whom Pilate had pronounced innocent (John 18:38), an illegal act therefore. It was a preliminary to crucifixion, but Jesus was not yet condemned. The Sanhedrin had previously mocked Jesus (Mark 14:65; Matthew 26:67.; Luke 22:63.) as the soldiers will do later (Mark 15:16-19; Matthew 27:27-30). This later mock coronation (Mark and Matthew) was after the condemnation. Plaited a crown of thorns Old verb πλεκω — plekō to weave, in the N.T. only here, Mark 15:17; Matthew 27:19. Not impossible for the mock coronation to be repeated. Arrayed him “Placed around him” (second aorist active indicative of περιβαλλω — periballō). In a purple garment Old adjective πορπυρεος — porphureos from πορπυρα — porphura purple cloth (Mark 15:17, Mark 15:20), dyed in purple, in the N.T. only here and Revelation 18:16. Jesus had been stripped of his outer garment ιματιον — himation (Matthew 27:28) and the scarlet cloak of one of the soldiers may have been put on him (Matthew 27:28). [source]
John 2:22 When therefore he was raised from the dead [οτε ουν ηγερτη εκ νεκρων]
First aorist passive indicative of εγειρω — egeirō to raise up. And not at first then, but only slowly after the disciples themselves were convinced. Then “they believed the Scripture” They “believed” again. Dative case γραπηι — graphēi Probably Psalm 16:10 is meant (Acts 2:31; Acts 13:35). And the word which Jesus had said Dative case λογωι — logōi also, but ον — hon (relative) is not attracted to the dative. Clearly then John interprets Jesus to have a parabolic reference to his death and resurrection by his language in John 2:19. There are those who bluntly say that John was mistaken. I prefer to say that these scholars are mistaken. Even Bernard considers it “hardly possible” that John interprets Jesus rightly in John 1:21. “Had he meant that, He would have spoken with less ambiguity.” But how do we know that Jesus wished to be understood clearly at this time? Certainly no one understood Christ when he spoke the words. The language of Jesus is recalled and perverted at his trial as “I will destroy” (Mark 14:58), “I can destroy” (Matthew 26:61), neither of which he said. [source]
Acts 19:13 Exorcists [ἐξορκιστῶν]
Only here in New Testament. The kindred verb, adjure, occurs Matthew 26:63, and means, originally, to administer an oath. These Jewish exorcists pretended to the power of casting out evil spirits by magical arts derived from Solomon. [source]
Acts 13:28 Though they found no cause of death [μηδεμιαν αιτιαν τανατου ευροντες]
Second aorist active with usual negative of the participle. As a matter of fact the Sanhedrin did charge Jesus with blasphemy, but could not prove it (Matthew 26:65; Matthew 27:24; Luke 23:22). At this time no Gospel had probably been written, but Paul knew that Jesus was innocent. He uses this same idiom about his own innocence (Acts 28:18). [source]
Acts 14:14 Having heard [ακουσαντες]
Such elaborate preparation “with the multitudes” First aorist active participle from διαρρηγνυμι — diarrēgnumi old verb to rend in two. Like the high priest in Matthew 26:65 as if an act of sacrilege was about to be committed. It was strange conduct for the supposed gods! [source]
Acts 7:55 And Jesus standing [και Ιησουν εστωτα]
Full of the Holy Spirit, gazing steadfastly into heaven, he saw God‘s glory and Jesus “standing” as if he had risen to cheer the brave Stephen. Elsewhere (save Acts 7:56 also) he is pictured as sitting at the right hand of God (the Session of Christ) as in Matthew 26:64; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3. [source]
Acts 7:56 The son of man [τον υιον του αντρωπου]
Elsewhere in the N.T. in Christ‘s own words. Here Stephen may refer to the words of Jesus as preserved in Matthew 26:64. [source]
Acts 7:57 Stopped their ears [συνεσχον τα ωτα αυτων]
Second aorist active of συνεχω — sunechō to hold together. They held their ears together with their hands and affected to believe Stephen guilty of blasphemy (cf. Matthew 26:65). [source]
1 Corinthians 10:30 Am I evil-spoken of [βλασφημοῦμαι]
In the gospels this word, of which blaspheme is a transcript, has, as in the Septuagint, the special sense of treating the name of God with scorn. So Matthew 9:3; Matthew 26:65; John 10:36. In the epistles frequently as here, with the classical meaning of slandering or defaming. [source]
1 Corinthians 4:11 We hunger [πεινωμεν]
(πεινωμεν — peinōmen), we thirst (διπσωμεν — dipsōmen), are naked (γυμνιτευομεν — gumniteuomen), late verb for scant clothing from γυμνητης — gumnētēs are buffeted (κολαπιζομετα — kolaphizometha), to strike a blow with the fist from κολαπος — kolaphos and one of the few N.T. and ecclesiastical words and see Matthew 26:67, have no certain dwelling place (αστατουμεν — astatoumen) from αστατος — astatos strolling about and only here save Anthol. Pal. and Aquila in Isaiah 58:7. Field in Notes, p. 170 renders 1 Corinthians 4:11 “and are vagabonds” or spiritual hobos. [source]
1 Corinthians 4:11 we thirst [διπσωμεν]
(διπσωμεν — dipsōmen), are naked (γυμνιτευομεν — gumniteuomen), late verb for scant clothing from γυμνητης — gumnētēs are buffeted (κολαπιζομετα — kolaphizometha), to strike a blow with the fist from κολαπος — kolaphos and one of the few N.T. and ecclesiastical words and see Matthew 26:67, have no certain dwelling place (αστατουμεν — astatoumen) from αστατος — astatos strolling about and only here save Anthol. Pal. and Aquila in Isaiah 58:7. Field in Notes, p. 170 renders 1 Corinthians 4:11 “and are vagabonds” or spiritual hobos. [source]
1 Corinthians 4:11 are naked [γυμνιτευομεν]
(γυμνιτευομεν — gumniteuomen), late verb for scant clothing from γυμνητης — gumnētēs are buffeted (κολαπιζομετα — kolaphizometha), to strike a blow with the fist from κολαπος — kolaphos and one of the few N.T. and ecclesiastical words and see Matthew 26:67, have no certain dwelling place (αστατουμεν — astatoumen) from αστατος — astatos strolling about and only here save Anthol. Pal. and Aquila in Isaiah 58:7. Field in Notes, p. 170 renders 1 Corinthians 4:11 “and are vagabonds” or spiritual hobos. [source]
1 Corinthians 4:11 are buffeted [κολαπιζομετα]
(κολαπιζομετα — kolaphizometha), to strike a blow with the fist from κολαπος — kolaphos and one of the few N.T. and ecclesiastical words and see Matthew 26:67, have no certain dwelling place (αστατουμεν — astatoumen) from αστατος — astatos strolling about and only here save Anthol. Pal. and Aquila in Isaiah 58:7. Field in Notes, p. 170 renders 1 Corinthians 4:11 “and are vagabonds” or spiritual hobos. [source]
2 Corinthians 12:7 Buffet [κολαφίζῃ]
Connect with messenger, which better suits depart; not with thorn, which would be a confusion of metaphor, a stake buffeting. For the verb, meaning to strike with the fist, see Matthew 26:67; Mark 14:65; 1 Peter 2:20. Compare Job 2:5, Job 2:7, where the Septuagint has ἅψαι touchand ἔπαισε smotei0. [source]
2 Corinthians 12:7 That I should not be exalted overmuch [ινα μη υπεραιρωμαι]
Present passive subjunctive in final clause of υπεραιρω — huperairō old verb to lift up beyond, only here in N.T. This clause is repeated at the end of the sentence. A thorn in the flesh (σκολοπς τηι σαρκι — skolops tēi sarki). This old word is used for splinter, stake, thorn. In the papyri and inscriptions examples occur both for splinter and thorn as the meaning. In the lxx it is usually thorn. The case of τηι σαρκι — tēi sarki can be either locative (in) or dative (for). What was it? Certainly it was some physical malady that persisted. All sorts of theories are held (malaria, eye-trouble, epilepsy, insomnia, migraine or sick-headache, etc.). It is a blessing to the rest of us that we do not know the particular affliction that so beset Paul. Each of us has some such splinter or thorn in the flesh, perhaps several at once. Messenger of Satan Angel of Satan, the affliction personified. Buffet (κολαπιζηι — kolaphizēi). See Matthew 26:67; 1 Corinthians 4:11 for this late and rare word from κολαπος — kolaphos fist. The messenger of Satan kept slapping Paul in the face and Paul now sees that it was God‘s will for it to be so. [source]
2 Corinthians 12:7 Messenger of Satan [αγγελος Σατανα]
Angel of Satan, the affliction personified. Buffet (κολαπιζηι — kolaphizēi). See Matthew 26:67; 1 Corinthians 4:11 for this late and rare word from κολαπος — kolaphos fist. The messenger of Satan kept slapping Paul in the face and Paul now sees that it was God‘s will for it to be so. [source]
2 Corinthians 12:7 Buffet [κολαπιζηι]
See Matthew 26:67; 1 Corinthians 4:11 for this late and rare word from κολαπος — kolaphos fist. The messenger of Satan kept slapping Paul in the face and Paul now sees that it was God‘s will for it to be so. [source]
James 2:10 He is guilty [γέγονεν ἔνοχος]
Lit., he is become guilty. Ἔνοχος , guilty, is, strictly, holden; within the condemning power of. Compare Matthew 26:66; Mark 3:29; 1 Corinthians 11:27. Huther cites a Talmudic parallel: “But if he perform all, but omit one, he is guilty of every single one.” [source]
James 4:13 Go to now [αγε νυν]
Interjectional use of αγε — age (from αγω — agō) as in James 5:1 (only N.T. instances) with a plural verb (οι λεγοντες — hoi legontes present active articular participle, ye that say) as is common in ancient Greek like ιδε νυν ηκουσατε — ide nun ēkousate (Matthew 26:65). [source]
1 Peter 2:20 Buffeted [κολαφιζόμενοι]
See Matthew 26:67: struck with the fist. This whole passage, 1 Peter 2:19-24, bears the mark of Peter's memories of the scene of Christ's last sufferings (see Introduction) - the blows of the servants, the scorn of the high-priest, the silent submission of Jesus, the cross, the stripes. [source]
1 Peter 2:22 Found [εὑρέθη]
Stronger than the simple was, and indicating a guilelessness which had stood the test of scrutiny. Compare Matthew 26:60; John 18:38; John 19:4, John 19:6. Christ's sinlessness had also stood the test of Peter's intimacy. [source]
1 Peter 5:1 Witness [μάρτυς]
The word is used in the New Testament to denote (a) a spectator or eye-witness (Acts 10:39; Acts 6:13). (b) One who testifies to what he has seen (Acts 1:8; Acts 5:32). (c) In the forensic sense, a witness in court (Matthew 26:65; Mark 14:63). (d) One who vindicates his testimony by suffering: a martyr (Acts 22:20; Hebrews 12:1; Revelation 2:13; Revelation 17:6). The first three meanings run into each other. The eye-witness, as a spectator, is always such with a view to giving testimony. Hence this expression of Peter cannot be limited to the mere fact of his having seen what he preached; especially since, when he wishes to emphasize this fact, he employs another word, ἐπόπτης (2 Peter 1:16). Therefore he speaks of himself as a witness, especially in the sense of being called to testify of what he has seen. [source]
1 Peter 2:20 If ye shall take it patiently [ει υπομενειτε]
First-class condition with ει — ei and future active indicative of υπομενω — hupomenō for which see James 1:12. Same condition also in next sentence Present active participle of αμαρτανω — hamartanō (continued repetition).And are buffeted for it Present passive participle of κολαπιζω — kolaphizō late word (from κολαπος — kolaphos fist), only in N.T. (cf. Matthew 26:67) and ecclesiastical writers. Repeated action again. No posing as a martyr allowed here. Christians do sometimes deserve persecution, as Jesus implied (Matthew 5:10-12).When ye do well (αγατοποιουντες — agathopoiountes). Present active participle of αγατοποιεω — agathopoieō as in 1 Peter 2:15.And suffer for it Present active participle of πασχω — paschō (1 Peter 2:19). No “for it” in the Greek here or in the previous sentence.This is acceptable with God (τουτο χαρις παρα τεωι — touto charis para theōi). “This thing (neuter) is thanks (1 Peter 2:19) by the side of (παρα — para) God (as God looks at it).” [source]
1 Peter 2:20 And are buffeted for it [και κολαπιζομενοι]
Present passive participle of κολαπιζω — kolaphizō late word (from κολαπος — kolaphos fist), only in N.T. (cf. Matthew 26:67) and ecclesiastical writers. Repeated action again. No posing as a martyr allowed here. Christians do sometimes deserve persecution, as Jesus implied (Matthew 5:10-12).When ye do well (αγατοποιουντες — agathopoiountes). Present active participle of αγατοποιεω — agathopoieō as in 1 Peter 2:15.And suffer for it Present active participle of πασχω — paschō (1 Peter 2:19). No “for it” in the Greek here or in the previous sentence.This is acceptable with God (τουτο χαρις παρα τεωι — touto charis para theōi). “This thing (neuter) is thanks (1 Peter 2:19) by the side of (παρα — para) God (as God looks at it).” [source]
1 Peter 2:22 Was found [ευρετη]
First aorist passive indicative of ευρισκω — heuriskō Christ‘s guilelessness stood the test of scrutiny (Vincent), as Peter knew (Matthew 26:60; John 18:38; John 19:4, John 19:6). [source]
Revelation 1:7 He cometh with clouds [ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν]
The clouds are frequently used in the descriptions of the Lord's second coming. See Daniel 7:13; Matthew 24:30; Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62. Compare the manifestation of God in the clouds at Sinai, in the cloudy pillar, the Shekinah, at the transfiguration, and see Psalm 97:2; Psalm 18:11; Nahum 1:3; Isaiah 19:1. [source]
Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with the clouds [ιδου ερχεται μετα των νεπελων]
Futuristic present middle indicative of ερχομαι — erchomai a reminiscence of Daniel 7:13 (Theodotion). “It becomes a common eschatological refrain” (Beckwith) as in Mark 13:26; Mark 14:62; Matthew 24:30; Matthew 26:64; Luke 21:27. Compare the manifestation of God in the clouds at Sinai, in the cloudy pillar, the Shekinah, at the transfiguration” (Vincent). [source]
Revelation 14:14 A white cloud [νεπελη λευκη]
Like the “bright cloud” of Matthew 17:5 (Transfiguration), a familiar object in the Mediterranean lands. See Daniel 7:13; Matthew 24:30; Matthew 26:64; Acts 1:9, Acts 1:11 for the picture of Christ‘s return. [source]
Revelation 2:18 The Son of God [ο υιος του τεου]
Here Jesus is represented as calling himself by this title as in John 11:4 and as he affirms on oath in Matthew 26:63. “The Word of God” occurs in Revelation 19:13.His eyes like a flame of fire (τους οπταλμους αυτου ως πλογα πυρος — tous ophthalmous autou hōs phloga puros). As in Revelation 1:14.His feet like burnished brass As in Revelation 1:15. [source]
Revelation 1:7 Shall see [οπσεται]
Future middle of οραω — horaō a reminiscence of Zechariah 12:10 according to the text of Theodotion (Aquila and Symmachus) rather than the lxx and like that of Matthew 24:30 (similar combination of Daniel and Zechariah) and Matthew 26:64. This picture of the victorious Christ in his return occurs also in Revelation 14:14, Revelation 14:18-20; Revelation 19:11-21; Revelation 20:7-10.And they which (και οιτινες — kai hoitines). “And the very ones who,” Romans and Jews, all who shared in this act.Pierced First aorist active indicative of εκκεντεω — ekkenteō late compound (Aristotle, Polybius, lxx), from εκ — ek and κεντεω — kenteō (to stab, to pierce), in N.T., only here and John 19:37, in both cases from Zechariah 12:10, but not the lxx text (apparently proof that John used the original Hebrew or the translation of Theodotion and Aquila).Shall mourn (κοπσονται — kopsontai). Future middle (direct) of κοπτω — koptō old verb, to cut, “they shall cut themselves,” as was common for mourners (Matthew 11:17; Luke 8:52; Luke 23:27). From Zechariah 12:12. See also Revelation 18:9.Tribes Not just the Jewish tribes, but the spiritual Israel of Jews and Gentiles as in Revelation 7:4-8. No nation had then accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour, nor has any yet done so. [source]

What do the individual words in Matthew 26:6 mean?

- And of Jesus having been in Bethany in [the] house of Simon the leper
Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γενομένου ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐν οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ

Τοῦ  - 
Parse: Article, Genitive Masculine Singular
Root:  
Sense: this, that, these, etc.
Ἰησοῦ  of  Jesus 
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Singular
Root: Ἰησοῦς  
Sense: Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses’ successor.
γενομένου  having  been 
Parse: Verb, Aorist Participle Middle, Genitive Masculine Singular
Root: γίνομαι  
Sense: to become, i.
Βηθανίᾳ  Bethany 
Parse: Noun, Dative Feminine Singular
Root: Βηθανία  
Sense: a village at the Mount of Olives, about two miles (3 km) from Jerusalem, on or near the normal road to Jericho.
ἐν  in  [the] 
Parse: Preposition
Root: ἐν 
Sense: in, by, with etc.
οἰκίᾳ  house 
Parse: Noun, Dative Feminine Singular
Root: οἰκία  
Sense: a house.
Σίμωνος  of  Simon 
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Singular
Root: Σίμων  
Sense: Peter was one of the apostles.
λεπροῦ  leper 
Parse: Adjective, Genitive Masculine Singular
Root: λεπρός  
Sense: scaly, rough.