UPDV Bible Header

UPDV Updated Bible Version

Matthew Chapter 25 — The Last Night Begins

Overview

UPDV chapter 25 opens the passion narrative. It covers the conspiracy to arrest Jesus (25:1-4), the anointing at Bethany (25:5-12), Judas's betrayal (25:13-15), the preparation for Passover (25:16-18), the identification of the betrayer (25:19-23), the institution of the Last Supper (25:24-27), the dispute about greatness (25:28-38), and the prediction of Peter's denial (25:39-42). This material comes from Matt 26:3-24, 26-29, 31, 33-35, Mark 14:1, 14:24, 10:35, Matt 20:21-24, and Luke 22:5, 25-30.

The entire canonical Matthew chapter 25 — the Ten Virgins, the Talents, and the Sheep and Goats — has been removed. The Ten Virgins and the Sheep and Goats are M material with no Synoptic parallel. The Talents parable has been placed at UPDV 21:21-36 in its Lukan position as the Minas parable (Luke 19:11-27). With this material removed, the UPDV moves directly from the Olivet Discourse (ch. 24) to the passion.

The chapter's most consequential editorial decisions are three. First, the cup word at the Last Supper uses Mark 14:24 instead of Matt 26:28, dropping the compiler's addition "for the forgiveness of sins." Second, Judas's betrayal uses Luke 22:5 instead of Matt 26:15, dropping the compiler's thirty pieces of silver and its Zechariah typology. Third, the dispute about greatness (Matt 20:20-28 / Mark 10:35-45) is relocated from the road to the Last Supper, following Luke 22:24-30's independent placement of this tradition at the final meal.

The Plot Against Jesus (25:1-4)

"Now after two days will be the Passover, and the chief priests, and the elders of the people were gathered together, to the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas." The passion narrative opens with Mark 14:1's temporal marker — "after two days" — rather than the compiler's Matt 26:1-2.

The compiler's opening is a two-verse editorial construction. Matt 26:1 — "And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these words" — is the fifth and final occurrence of the transitional formula that divides the Gospel into five discourse blocks (cf. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1). D&A identify it as the compiler's signature structural device, noting the word "all" (πάντας, pantas) appears only in this final instance: "Jesus' teaching ministry is nearly over: the word looks back over not just chapters 24-5 or 23-5 but the entire Gospel." Matt 26:2 then has Jesus predict his own crucifixion — a passion prediction placed before the conspirators act, so that, as D&A note, "his prophecy precedes the account of his opponents' plot (vv. 3-5)" and "underlines his foreknowledge." Both verses are the compiler's editorial framework: the formula marks the end of the teaching, and the prediction ensures Jesus appears in control. The UPDV strips this scaffolding and begins where Mark begins — with the chief priests' conspiracy.

The Anointing at Bethany (25:5-12)

"Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman having an alabaster cruse of exceedingly precious ointment, and she poured it on his head, as he sat to eat." The anointing at Bethany (25:5-12) follows Matt 26:6-13 with no changes. The compiler's version closely reproduces Mark 14:3-9.

Mark intercalates the anointing between the conspiracy (14:1-2) and Judas's betrayal (14:10-11), creating a dramatic frame: the unnamed woman prepares Jesus for burial while the authorities plot his death and his own disciple arranges to hand him over. France reads the intercalation as "setting the selfless devotion of the woman against both the murderous scheming of the Sanhedrin and the treachery of Judas." Lane identifies the anointing as a proleptic burial act: "Since there would be no opportunity to anoint Jesus' body after his death, the woman's prophetic act at the dinner fulfilled the function of anointing the body in preparation for burial." The UPDV preserves this Markan arrangement.

Judas's Betrayal (25:13-15)

"Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests, that he might deliver him to them. And they, when they heard it, were glad, and promised to give him money." The betrayal account (25:13-15) draws from Matt 26:14, Luke 22:5, and Matt 26:16.

At 25:13, the UPDV follows Matt 26:14 but adds from Mark 14:10 the purpose clause "that he might deliver him to them" — Mark's spare statement of intent. At 25:14, the UPDV switches to Luke 22:5: "And they, when they heard it, were glad, and promised to give him money." This replaces the compiler's Matt 26:15, where Judas takes the initiative ("What are you willing to give me?") and the priests weigh out thirty pieces of silver. The compiler's version layers Zechariah 11:12-13 onto the narrative — the thirty silver pieces are the price of the rejected shepherd, an allusion the compiler will complete at Matt 27:3-10 when Judas returns the money and the priests buy the potter's field. D&A confirm the Zechariah typology: the compiler shaped Judas's story to fulfill the prophetic pattern. Mark and Luke know nothing of this sum. Mark 14:11 says simply that they "promised to give him money" (ἐπηγγείλαντο αὐτῷ ἀργύριον δοῦναι, epēngeilanto autō argyrion dounai). The UPDV follows the pre-Matthean tradition.

The Passover Preparation and the Betrayer (25:16-23)

"Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?" The preparation (25:16-18) follows Matt 26:17-19 with no changes, closely tracking Mark 14:12-16 though in abbreviated form.

The betrayer's identification (25:19-23) follows Matt 26:20-24 but drops Matt 26:25 — Judas's question "Is it I, Rabbi?" and Jesus' reply "You have said." D&A explicitly identify this verse as an "editorial addition" with language "drawn from elsewhere" (cf. vv. 22, 49, 64). The compiler created a deliberate contrast: the disciples call Jesus "Lord" (κύριε, kyrie) at v. 22, but Judas calls him "Rabbi" (ῥαββί, rhabbi) at v. 25 — what D&A call "an inadequate appellation." The verse makes the identification "unambiguous (as also in Jn 13:26)," but neither Mark nor Luke has this exchange. The UPDV lets the identification remain at the level Mark gives it — the dipped hand, the woe oracle — without the compiler's dramatized face-to-face confrontation.

The Last Supper (25:24-27)

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." The institution of the Last Supper (25:24-27) follows Matt 26:26 for the bread and Mark 14:24 for the cup word.

The cup word is the chapter's most significant textual decision. The compiler's Matt 26:28 reads: "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, eis aphesin hamartiōn). D&A confirm that the clause "for the forgiveness of sins" has "no parallel in the other last supper accounts" — not in Mark, not in Luke, not in Paul. They identify it as a deliberate Matthean relocation: "The same words are omitted from 3:2 diff. Mk 1:4" — that is, the compiler removed the forgiveness language from John the Baptist's preaching (where Mark had it) and saved it for association with the covenant made through Jesus' sacrificial death. The move is theologically purposeful: the compiler wanted forgiveness to be connected to the cross, not to baptism.

Mark 14:24 has the more primitive form: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." The "poured out for many" already echoes Isaiah 53:12, and Lane notes that the soteriological meaning is implicit in the covenant language and the Isaiah allusion. The compiler made explicit what Mark left implicit. D&A summarize: "Matthew's account is a secondary development of Mark."

The UPDV also drops the compiler's imperative "Drink of it, all of you" (Matt 26:27b). D&A note that the compiler turned Mark 14:23's narrative statement ("and they all drank of it") into a command of Jesus, "enhancing the parallelism" between the bread and cup words. The UPDV follows the simpler Markan flow.

The Dispute About Greatness (25:28-38)

"Then came to him the sons of Zebedee, asking a certain thing of him. And he said to them, What do you want? They say to him, Say that we may sit, one at your right hand, and one at your left hand, in your kingdom." The dispute about greatness (25:28-38) is the chapter's most structurally ambitious editorial decision. The UPDV relocates the sons of Zebedee's request (Mark 10:35 / Matt 20:20-28) from the road to Jerusalem to the Last Supper, then continues with Luke 22:25-30's version of the servant-leadership teaching and the thrones promise.

The relocation follows Luke's independent testimony. Luke 22:24-30 places a dispute about greatness at the Last Supper — "And there arose also a contention among them, which of them is accounted to be greatest" — followed by the servant teaching and the thrones promise. Luke does not include the sons of Zebedee episode in his Gospel at all (he omits Mark 10:35-45 entirely). D&A note that the verb διακονέω (diakoneō, "to serve"), which appears in both Mark 10:45 and Luke 22:27, "often denotes table service" and "may be a sign that our saying was passed on in a meal context." The Last Supper setting for this tradition was proposed as early as 1896 by J. F. Blair.

The UPDV builds the scene in two stages. First, the sons of Zebedee request and the other disciples' indignation (25:28-32), drawn from Mark 10:35 and Matt 20:21-24. The compiler's version at Matt 20:20 has the mother of the sons of Zebedee making the request — a softening of Mark's version, where James and John ask directly. The UPDV follows Mark's form: the sons themselves ask. Second, Jesus' response (25:33-38) switches to Luke 22:25-30: "The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them... But you will not be so... I am among you as he who serves." This continues into the thrones promise: "I appoint to you, even as my Father appointed to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

This composite construction should be acknowledged for what it is: the UPDV has fused specific actors from Mark's tradition (James and John) with specific dialogue and setting from Luke's independent tradition (the Last Supper teaching). No single ancient source contains this exact scene. The reconstruction argues that both traditions preserve the same underlying event — a dispute about rank among the disciples — but the composite text is an editorial synthesis, not a documentary transcription. This is the most interventionist editorial decision in the UPDV's Matthew.

Luke's version of the teaching differs from Mark's in a revealing way. Mark 10:45 culminates in the ransom saying: "the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." Luke 22:27 has instead: "I am among you as he who serves." D&A deem Mark 10:45's form more original than Luke 22:27, which they suggest "may be an independent saying or a redactional adaptation of Mk 10:45." The UPDV uses Luke's version because it follows Luke's placement of this scene at the Supper, and Luke's teaching naturally follows from Luke's setting. The methodological tension is real: the UPDV's normal practice privileges the more primitive form (here, Mark's ransom saying), but the Lukan placement carries with it the Lukan dialogue. Using Mark's form of the teaching at Luke's setting would create yet another hybrid layer.

Peter's Denial Prediction (25:39-42)

"Then Jesus says to them, All you will be offended in me this night: for it is written, I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered abroad." Peter's denial prediction (25:39-42) follows Matt 26:31, 33-35, dropping two verses.

Matt 26:30 — "And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives" — is omitted. This verse comes from Mark 14:26 and is Markan backbone material, not compiler redaction. The UPDV omits it because the insertion of the dispute about greatness between the Supper and the denial prediction displaces the transitional verse — the scene cannot move to the Mount of Olives with an extended table conversation still underway. This is a case where the UPDV's editorial insertion requires the deletion of Markan narrative structure, a tension the project should acknowledge.

Matt 26:32 — "But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee" — is omitted. This verse is also Markan (Mark 14:28), though its status is debated. France reads it as the evangelist's own forward reference, preparing for the resurrection narrative. Its omission in the UPDV leaves the denial prediction starker: the shepherd will be struck, the sheep scattered, and no reassurance follows.

The Zechariah 13:7 quotation ("I will strike the shepherd") uses the first-person πατάξω (pataxō) — the same form in both Mark 14:27 and Matt 26:31 — rather than the Hebrew imperative ("Strike the shepherd"). Both evangelists independently adapted the quotation to make God the direct agent of the shepherd's striking. Evans notes a Qumran parallel: CD 19:7-13 applies Zechariah 13:7 to the Teacher of Righteousness and the community as "the poor of the flock," showing that Jesus' self-application of the text has a pre-existing Jewish interpretive trajectory.

What the UPDV Removes from This Section

Canonical Matthew 25 (Entirely Removed)

  • Matt 25:1-13 (Ten Virgins): Omitted. M material — pre-Matthean oral tradition according to D&A, but with no Synoptic parallel and heavy Matthean redaction (the judgment scene in vv. 10c-12 is influenced by Q material at Luke 13:25-27).
  • Matt 25:14-30 (Talents): Placed at UPDV 21:21-36 in its Lukan position as the Minas parable (Luke 19:11-27). D&A note that Matthew "inflated the currency" — "a little" is appropriate for a few pounds (Luke) but not for talents (6,000 denarii each). The two versions go back to the same original but through separate transmission streams; D&A "tentatively assign the two passages to M and Q or L."
  • Matt 25:31-46 (Sheep and Goats): Omitted. M material with no Synoptic parallel. D&A note the passage "contains many features characteristic of Matthew" and may be a Matthean composition, though "it is no less likely that Jesus himself composed at least the twin dialogues concerning deeds of mercy."

Passion Narrative Edits (Matt 26:1-35)

  • Matt 26:1 ("And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these words"): Omitted. The compiler's fifth and final discourse-ending formula — editorial scaffolding.
  • Matt 26:2 ("You know that after two days the Passover comes, and the Son of Man is delivered up to be crucified"): Replaced by Mark 14:1's narrative opening. The compiler's passion prediction ensures Jesus appears in control before the conspirators act; the UPDV lets the narrative unfold without editorial framing.
  • Matt 26:15 (thirty pieces of silver): Replaced by Luke 22:5 ("they were glad, and promised to give him money"). The thirty pieces are the compiler's Zechariah 11:12-13 typology, absent from Mark and Luke.
  • Matt 26:25 (Judas: "Is it I, Rabbi?"): Omitted. D&A: "This editorial addition" with language "drawn from elsewhere." Creates the Lord/Rabbi contrast absent from Mark and Luke.
  • Matt 26:27b ("Drink of it, all of you"): Dropped. The compiler turned Mark 14:23's narrative ("they all drank of it") into an imperative of Jesus to enhance bread/cup parallelism.
  • Matt 26:28 — revised: "for the forgiveness of sins" dropped. D&A: "no parallel in the other last supper accounts." The compiler relocated this language from John the Baptist's preaching (Mark 1:4) to the Last Supper.
  • Matt 26:30 ("And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives"): Omitted. Markan backbone (Mark 14:26) displaced by the insertion of the dispute about greatness — a case where the UPDV's editorial insertion requires deleting Markan narrative structure.
  • Matt 26:32 ("But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee"): Omitted. Forward reference to the resurrection narrative.
  • Matt 20:20-28 / Mark 10:35-45 — relocated: the sons of Zebedee's request and the dispute about greatness moved from the road to the Last Supper, following Luke 22:24-30's independent placement. Luke 22:25-30 used for the teaching response (servant among you, thrones promise) instead of Mark 10:42-45 (greatest = servant, ransom for many).

References

  • Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997.
  • Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
  • Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
  • France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
  • Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
  • Brooks, James A. Mark. New American Commentary 23. Nashville: Broadman, 1991.
  • Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
  • Bovon, François. Luke. 3 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002–2012.
  • Nolland, John. Luke. 3 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 35. Dallas: Word, 1989–1993.