MATTHEW 26 COMMETARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE

The Plot Against Jesus

1 When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples,

CLARKE,"When Jesus had finished all these sayings - He began these sayings on Mount Olivet, Mat_24:1, and continued them till be entered into Bethany, whither he was going.

GILL, "And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings,.... Meaning either all that are recorded by this evangelist, all the sermons and discourses of Christ, delivered both to the people of the Jews, and to his disciples; his conversation with the former, and his divine instructions and prudent advice to the latter, together with all his excellent parables, which are largely related in this book; or else what is said in the two preceding chapters, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of the world, the state of the church, and conduct of his servants to the end of time, expressed in the parables of the virgins and talents, and concerning the last judgment and final state of all men:

he said unto his disciples; who now were alone with him: having finished his prophetic, and being about to enter on his priestly office, he gives his disciples some intimations of its near approach.

HERY 1-2, "Here is, 1. The notice Christ gave his disciples of the near approach of his sufferings, Mat_26:1, Mat_26:2. While his enemies were preparing trouble for him, he was preparing himself and his followers for it. He had often told them of his sufferings at a distance, now he speaks of them as at the door; after two days, Note, After many former notices of trouble we still have need of fresh ones. Observe,

(1.) The time when he gave this alarm; when he had finished all these sayings. [1.] Not till he had finished all he had to say. Note, Christ's witnesses die not till they have finished their testimony. When Christ had gone through his undertaking as a prophet, he entered upon the execution of his office as a priest. [2.] After he had finished these sayings, which go immediately before; he had bid his disciples to expect sad times, bonds and afflictions, and then tells them, The Son of man is betrayed; to intimate that they should fare no worse than he should, and that his sufferings should take the sting

out of theirs. Note, Thoughts of a suffering Christ are great supports to a suffering Christian, suffering with him and for him.

(2.) The thing itself he gave them notice of; The Son of man is betrayed. The thing was not only so sure, but so near, that it was as good as done. Note, It is good to make sufferings that are yet to come, as present to us. He is betrayed, for Judas was then contriving and designing to betray him.

JAMISO, "Mat_26:1-16. Christs final announcement of His death, as now within two days, and the simultaneous conspiracy of the Jewish authorities to compass it -The anointing at Bethany - Judas agrees with the chief priests to betray his Lord. ( = Mar_14:1-11; Luk_22:1-6; Joh_12:1-11).

For the exposition, see on Mar_14:1-11.

HAWKER, "Matthew 26:1-2

"And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples, (2) Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified."

I beg the Reader to attend very minutely, to the circumstances with which Matthew, the first Evangelist, in point of order, introduceth the subject of our Lords sufferings. He saith, When Jesus had finished all these sayings. Perhaps he alluded to the finishing of his office in teaching. For as Christ in his character of Mediator; had three offices, prophet, priest, and king, he was uniformly carrying on one or other of these all the way through, during the whole of his ministry. He had therefore finished his teachings, as the Prophet of his people; and now he is about to enter more fully on his Priestly office, where he would be both the altar, sacrifice, and sacrificer. And when this was also finished, he would in a more open manner, than he had hitherto done, display his Kingly power in his ascension to glory, where the exercise of his sovereignty was to be shewn forth in ruling his Church, until he had accomplished the destruction of his enemies, and brought home his redeemed to everlasting happiness.

As the interesting subject in the concluding scenes of our Lords life, form so momentous a part in Christs history, and as it is most essential to every child of God, to have the clearest apprehension of it, I hope I may be indulged in this "Poor Mans Commentary, " to dwell upon each particular, with that attention it deserves; looking up to God the Holy Ghost, to be the teacher both of Writer and Reader. And yet at the same time, that I may not swell the pages beyond their proper limits, I shall adopt a method, which I hope will answer this purpose very fully. I mean, that as the four Evangelists have recorded those solemn transactions, which took place, at the death of Christ, it wilt not be necessary to repeat my observations in the same way and manner upon every one; but connect the whole as one history; and so divide the subject, that what I omit in my comment on one part, may be introduced into the other. This will prevent tediousness to the Reader, and yet allow of enlargement upon the whole, so as under the Lords blessing, to make the subject complete.

I beg the Reader to observe, how Christ opens the subject himself, and immediately directs the minds of his disciples to it, in calling their attention to the Jewish Passover. This was the first public service in the appointment of the Lord, when the Church was first formed, in the memorable night of the people being delivered from Egyptian bondage. See Ex 12 throughout. Now as God the Holy Ghost himself; by his servant Paul,

explained this service in express terms of application to the Lord Jesus, when the Apostle said Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast. 1Co_5:7-8. We cannot hesitate a moment in concluding that the first institution of this service in the old Church, together with every sacrifice which followed under the law, had no other object in view than to hold forth Christ. To him, everyone of them pointed. In him, the whole was compleated. He, and he alone, became the sum and substance of all; and all, as the Holy Ghost, by the same Apostle elsewhere saith in his writings, were a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. Col_2:17; Heb_10:1.

When the Reader therefore hath diligently read over the interesting account given by all the Evangelists concerning the Passover, and compared it, with what is said concerning it at the first institution; I would beg his closest attention to the whole subject, in the great points of doctrine connected with it, and which will minister under the Lords teaching, to the proper apprehension of those grand features of character, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. See Mar_14:1; Luk_22:1, etc. Joh_13:1 compared with Ex 12 throughout.

And here the first and most prominent feature of character in the Lord Jesus as our Passover, must be to consider him as our great head, and representative of his Church and people. Christ, becoming our Passover, and dying for his redeemed in time, pre-supposes an engagement for this purpose in eternity. And hence we find, he is called the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev_8:8. And to this amount the scriptures speak, when continually and in every part, informing the Church of the everlasting covenant made between the persons of the Godhead, before all worlds. By virtue of which, Christ, at the call of God the Father, as covenanted for in the great purposes of redemption, stood up the glorious head, representative, and high-priest of his people; taking their names and their nature; undertaking for them to fulfill all righteousness, and offering his soul an offering for sin.

On the part of Jehovah, it was agreed, that the whole persons of the Godhead would carry Christ, in his human nature, through the wonderful undertaking; and when accomplished, the glorious deliverer should see his seed with all the blessed effects of his salvation, and have a Church to serve him, where his praise should be sung, and his name adored, as long as the sun and moon should endure, from one generation to another. And, finally, bring home his chosen, to everlasting glory; when sin, Satan, death, and hell, should be brought under his feet. I stay not to quote at large the whole body of scripture, which, with one full voice come forth to confirm the great truth. I rather refer the Reader to look over those portions in his Bible for himself, which I have here referred to, and when he hath done, I will request him to follow me through those interesting records of our Lords concluding scenes of his ministry and life, whose beauties will there from, I am persuaded, appear in their more plain and striking colors. Isa_42:1-8; Pro_8:22-31; Isa_49:1-9; Psa_40:1-7 compared with Heb_10:1-22; Joh_10:18. On the part of Jehovahs covenant, see Psa_89:2-4; Psa_89:19-37; Isa_11:1-9; Joh_3:34 to the end. Ps 110; Isa_53:10; Php_2:6-12; Heb_12:2, etc. Rev_7:9 to the end.

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "That they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill Him.

Craft and cruelty coupled in the Churchs adversaries

Neither of them wants their mate, as the Scripture says of those birds of prey and desolation (Isa_34:16). These priests and elders were so bitterly bent against Christ, that nothing would satisfy them but His blood. All plants and other creatures have their growth and increase to a period, and then their declination and decay, except only the

crocodile, who, grows bigger and bigger, even till death. So have all passions and perturbations in mans mind their intentions and remissions, except only malicious revenge. This dies not, many times, but with the man (if that), as nothing can quench the combustible slime in Samosaris, nor the burning flame of the hill Chimaera, but only earth. St. Peter tells us (1Pe_2:23), that our Saviour, being reviled, did not only commit His cause to God, but Himself to God: as expecting the increase of His enemies opposition till they had put Him to death. (John Trapp.)

CALVI, "Christ now confirms again what we have seen that he had sometimes predicted to his disciples; but this last prediction clearly shows how willingly he offered himself to die; and it was necessary that he should do so, because God could not be appeased but by a sacrifice of obedience. He intended, at the same time, to prevent the disciples from taking offense, lest they might be altogether discouraged by the thought that he was dragged to death by necessity. Two purposes were thus served by this statement: to testify, first, that the Son of God willingly surrendered himself to die, in order to reconcile the world to the Father, (for in no other way could the guilt of sins have been expiated, or righteousness obtained for us;) and, secondly, that he did not die like one oppressed by violence which he could not escape, but because he voluntarily offered himself to die. He therefore declares that he comes to Jerusalem with the express intention of suffering death there; for while he was at liberty to withdraw and to dwell in a safe retreat till that time was come, he knowingly and willfully comes forward at the exact time. And though it was of no advantage to the disciples to be informed, at that time, of the obedience which he was rendering to the Father, yet afterwards this doctrine tended in no small degree to the edification of their faith. In like manner, it is of singular utility to us at the present day, because we behold, as in a bright mirror, the voluntary sacrifice, by which all the transgressions of the world were blotted out, and, contemplating the Son of God advancing with cheerfulness and courage to death, we already behold him victorious over death.

BESO, ". When Jesus had finished all these sayings The sayings or discourses which he began to deliver on his leaving the temple, (Matthew 24:1,) and continued, till he had declared all that is contained in the two preceding chapters; He said unto his disciples, Ye know, &c. When he sat down on the mount of Olives, he was so far on his way to Bethany, and before he rose up to depart, he thought fit to add a word or two concerning his own death. For, as the greatest trial that his disciples were ever to meet with was now approaching, in their Masters humiliation and sufferings; therefore, to prepare them for this scene, he foretold those sufferings, together with the particular time and manner of them; and thus proved, that he perfectly knew whatever was to befall him, and that his sufferings were all voluntary and necessary. After two days is the passover The manner wherein this was celebrated gives much light to several circumstances that follow. The master of the family began the feast with a cup of wine, which, having solemnly blessed, he divided among the guests, (Luke 22:17.) Then the supper began with the unleavened bread and bitter herbs; which when they had all tasted, one of the young persons present, (according to Exodus 12:26,) asked the reason of the solemnity. This introduced the showing forth, or declaration of it: in allusion to which we read of

showing forth the Lords death, (1 Corinthians 11:26.) Then the master rose up and took another cup, before the lamb was tasted. After supper, he took a thin loaf or cake, which he broke and divided to all at the table, and likewise the cup, usually called the cup of thanksgiving, of which he drank first, and then all the guests. It was this bread and this cup, which our Lord consecrated to be a standing memorial of his death.

BARCLAY, "THE BEGIIG OF THE LAST ACT OF THE TRAGEDY (Matthew 26:1-5)26:1-5 When Jesus had completed all these sayings, he said to his disciples. "You know that in two days time it is the Passover Feast, and the Son of Man is going to be delivered to be crucified." At that time the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the courtyard of the High Priest, who was called Caiaphas, and took counsel together to seize Jesus by guile and to kill him. They said, "ot at the time of the Feast, lest a tumult arise among the people."

Here then is the definite beginning of the last act of the divine tragedy. Once again Jesus warned his disciples of what was to come. For the last few days he had been acting with such magnificent defiance that they might have thought he proposed to defy the Jewish authorities; but here once again he makes it clear that his aim is the Cross.

At the same time the Jewish authorities were laying their plots and stratagems. Joseph Caiaphas, to give him his full name, was High Priest. We know very little about him but we do know one most suggestive fact. In the old days the office of High Priest had been hereditary and had been for life; but when the Romans took over in Palestine, High Priests came and went in rapid series, for the Romans erected and deposed High Priests to suit their own purposes. Between 37 B.C. and A.D. 67, when the last was appointed before the destruction of the Temple, there were no fewer than twenty-eight High Priests. The suggestive thing is that Caiaphas was High Priest from A.D. 18 to A.D. 36. This was an extraordinarily long time for a High Priest to last, and Caiaphas must have brought the technique of co-operating with the Romans to a fine art. And therein precisely there lay his problem.

The one thing the Romans would not stand was civil disorder. Let there be any rioting and certainly Caiaphas would lose his position. At the Passover time the atmosphere in Jerusalem was always explosive. The city was packed tight with people. Josephus tells us of an occasion when an actual census of the people was taken (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6. 9. 3). It happened in this way.

The governor at the time was Cestius; Cestius felt that ero did not understand the number of the Jews and the problems which they posed to any governor. So he asked the High Priests to take a census of the lambs slain for sacrifice at a certain Passover time. Josephus goes on to say, "A company of not less than ten must belong to every sacrifice (for it is not lawful for them to feast singly by themselves), and many of us are twenty in a company." It was found that on this occasion the number of lambs slain was 256,500. It is Josephus' estimate that there were in the city for

that Passover some two and three-quarter million people.

It is little wonder that Caiaphas sought some stratagem to take Jesus secretly and quietly, for many of the pilgrims were Galilaeans and to them Jesus was a prophet. It was in fact his plan to leave the whole thing over until after the Passover Feast had ended, and the city was quieter; but Judas was to provide him with a solution to his problem.

BROADUS, "Our Lord's Death Approaching. The Supper At Bethany

Found also in Mark 14:1-11, Luke 22:1-6, John 12:2-8.

Here begins what is commonly called the history of our Lord's Passion. This is narrated by all four Evangelists, but the matter given in the Fourth Gospel is for the most part distinct from that given in the others. In Matthew 26:1-46 everything is preparation. Jesus prepares the disciples for the speedy coming of the long predicted end (Matthew 26:1 f.); the rulers lay their plans (Matthew 26:3 f.); the anointing prepares Jesus for burial (Matthew 26:6-13); Judas arranges to deliver him up Matthew 26:14-16; Jesus further prepares the disciples, warns the betrayer, and institutes a memorial of himself for the future (Matthew 26:17-30); he then warns them of the approaching trial to their own fidelity (Matthew 26:31-35); and finally he prepares himself by solitary prayer for all that awaits him. (Matthew 26:36-46.)

Our Lord has now ended his teaching in the temple, and his great eschatological discourse on the Mount of Olives, and goes on to Bethany (Matthew 26:6) to spend the night as usual. He reached there probably late on Tuesday afternoon, or if it was after sunset, then in the first hour of Wednesday. We have here his final announcement to the disciples of his approaching death, with some account of the plans of the Jewish rulers for killing him, Matthew 26:1-5; then an account of the supper at Bethany, Matthew 26:6-13; and finally of Judas' arrangement to deliver Jesus for money, Matthew 26:14-16.

I. Matthew 26:1-5. Our Lord's Death Approaching

Mark 14:1 f.; Luke 22:1 f. Had finished all these sayings, meaning the discourse of Matthew 24 and Matthew 25, and perhaps also including the previous teaching on that day, from Matthew 21:23 onward. He said unto his disciples, probably all the Twelve, compare on Matthew 24:3. The three preceding recorded predictions of his death are in Matthew 16:21; (compare Matthew 17:9) Matthew 17:22 f.; Matthew 20:18 f. The passover, see on "Matthew 26:19". Is, cometh, occurs, the word explained see on "Matthew 1:22", and very often used; the present tense signifies that the passover so occurs according to the custom and the law, as the disciples know. After two days (so Mark 14:1) must mean less than forty-eight hours, or it would have been called three days (compare on Matthew 27:63); the festival began on Thursday afternoon with the slaying of the lamb. The words may be naturally regarded as uttered after sunset on what we should call Tuesday, but according to

the Jewish reckoning, the beginning of Wednesday. (See above.) The Son of man, the Messiah, see on "Matthew 8:20". Is betrayed, strictly, delivered up (see on "Matthew 10:4"; see on "Matthew 17:22"), stated in the present tense because it is near and sure to occur. His enemies are planning it, and he is preparing for it. Accordingly, the Latin versions translate by the future, and so did all English versions before K. James. This would from the construction of the sentence be more naturally understood as a part of what the disciples 'know,' but may be simply appended to it. They knew that he was to be crucified, and at Jerusalem, (Matthew 20:18 f.) but we are not informed of their knowing that it would be at the Passover. To be crucified, see on "Matthew 27:35". He does not in this case add that he will be raised again, as he did in all the previous announcements of his death. Was it because his death would correspond to the paschal offering, (1 Corinthians 5:7) or because the shadow of the cross was now on him, and his thoughts went no further?

2 As you know, the Passover is two days awayand the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.

BARES,"After two days is - the feast of the Passover.See the notes at Mat_12:1-8. The festival of the Passover was designed to preserve

among the Jews the memory of their liberation from Egyptian servitude, and of the safety of their first-born in that night when the firstborn of the Egyptians perished, Exo. 12. The name Passover was given to the feast because the Lord passed over the houses of the Israelites without slaying their first-born, while the Egyptians were cut off, Exo_12:13. It was celebrated seven days, namely, from the 15th to the 21st of the month Abib or Nisan (April), Exo_12:15-20; Exo_23:15. During all this period the people ate unleavened bread, and hence the festival was sometimes called the feast of unleavened bread, Exo_12:18; Lev_23:6. On the evening of the fourteenth day, all the leaven or yeast in the family was removed with great care, as it is to the present time - a circumstance to which the apostle alludes in 1Co_5:7.

On the tenth day of the month the master of a family separated a lamb or a goat of a year old from the flock Exo_12:1-6, which he killed on the 14th day before the altar, Deu_16:2, Deu_16:5-6. The lamb was commonly slain at about 3 oclock p. m.. The blood of the paschal lamb was, in Egypt, sprinkled on the door-posts of the houses; afterward it was poured by the priests at the foot of the altar, Exo_12:7. The lamb thus slain was roasted whole, with two spits thrust through it - one lengthwise and one transversely - crossing each other near the forelegs, so that the animal was in a manner, crucified. Not a bone of it might be broken - a circumstance strongly representing the sufferings of our Lord Jesus, the Passover slain for us, Joh_19:36; 1Co_5:7. Thus roasted, the lamb was served up with wild and bitter herbs, Not fewer than ten, nor more

than twenty persons, were admitted to these sacred feasts. At first it was observed with their loins girt about, with sandals on their feet, and with all the preparations for an immediate journey. This, in Egypt, was significant of the haste with which they were about to depart from the land of bondage. The custom was afterward retained.

The order of the celebration of this feast was as follows: The ceremony commenced with drinking a cup of wine mingled with water, after having given thanks to God for it. This was the first cup. Then followed the washing of hands, with another short form of thanksgiving to God. The table was then supplied with the provisions, namely, the bitter salad, the unleavened bread, the lamb, and a thick sauce composed of dates, figs, raisins, vinegar, etc. They then took a small quantity of salad, with another thanksgiving, and ate it; after which, all the dishes were removed from the table, and a second cup of wine was set before each guest, as at first. The dishes were removed, it is said, to excite the curiosity of children, and to lead them to make inquiry into the cause of this observance. See Exo_12:26-27. The leading person at the feast then began and rehearsed the history of the servitude of the Jews in Egypt, the manner of their deliverance, and the reason of instituting the Passover. The dishes were then returned to the table, and he said, This is the Passover which we eat, because that the Lord passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt; and then, holding up the salad and the unleavened bread, he stated the design, namely, that the one represented the bitterness of the Egyptian bondage, and the other the suddenness of their deliverance.

This done, he repeated Psa_113:1-9; Psa_114:1-8, offered a short prayer, and all the company drank the wine that had been standing some time before them. This was the second cup. The hands were then again washed, and the meal then eaten with the usual forms and solemnities; after which they washed the hands again, and then drank another cup of wine, called the cup of blessing, because the leader was accustomed in a particular manner, over that cup, to offer thanks to God for his goodness. This is the cup which our Saviour is supposed to have taken when he instituted the Lords Supper, called by Paul the cup of blessing, 1Co_10:16. There was still another cup, which was drunk when they were about to separate, called the Hallel, because in connection with it they were accustomed to repeat the lesser Hallel, or Ps. 115; 116; Psa_117:1-2; 118. In accordance with this, our Saviour and his disciples sang a hymn as they were about to go to the Mount of Olives, Mat_26:30. It is probable that our Saviour complied with these rites according to the custom of the Jews. While doing it, he signified that the typical reference of the Passover was about to be accomplished, and he instituted in place of it the supper - the communion - and, of course, the obligation to keep the Passover then ceased.

The Son of man is betrayed - Will be betrayed. He did not mean to say that they then knew that he would be betrayed, for it does not appear that they had been informed of the precise time; but they knew that the Passover was at hand, and he then informed them that he would be betrayed.

To be crucified - To be put to death on the cross. See the notes at Mat_27:35.

CLARKE,"The passover - A feast instituted in Egypt, to commemorate the destroying angels passing over the houses of the Israelites, when he slew the firstborn of the Egyptians. See the whole of this business largely explained in the Notes on Exodus 12:1-27 (note). This feast began on the fourteenth day of the first moon, in the first month, Nisan, and it lasted only one day; but it was immediately followed by the days of unleavened bread, which were seven, so that the whole lasted eight days, and all the eight days are sometimes called the feast of the passover, and sometimes the feast or days of unleavened bread. See Luk_22:1-7. The three most signal benefits vouchsafed to

the Israelites were,

1. The deliverance from the slavery of Egypt; to commemorate which they kept the feast of unleavened bread, and the passover.

2. The giving of the law; to commemorate which, they kept the feast of weeks.

3. Their sojourning in the wilderness, and entrance into the promised land; to commemorate which, they kept the feast of tabernacles.

See these largely explained, Exo_23:14 (note); Leviticus 23:2-40 (note).

The Son of man is betrayed, (rather delivered up), to be crucified - With what amazing calmness and precision does our blessed Lord speak of this awful event! What a proof does he here give of his prescience in so correctly predicting it; and of his love in so cheerfully undergoing it! Having instructed his disciples and the Jews by his discourses, edified them by his example, convinced them by his miracles, he now prepares to redeem them by his blood! These two verses have no proper connection with this chapter, and should be joined to the preceding.

GILL, "Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover,.... Which was kept in commemoration of the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt; and was typical of Christ the passover, who was now to be sacrificed for his people. This was said on Tuesday, and on the Thursday following, the passover began. Christ speaks of this as a thing well known to the disciples, as it must be, since it always began on a certain day, the fourteenth of the month Nisan; which month answered to part of our March, and part of our April; and though there was very frequently an intercalation of a whole month in a year, made by the sanhedrim, to keep their festivals regularly in the proper season of the year; yet previous public notice was always given of this, either by fixing a paper upon the door of the sanhedrim (r), signifying such an intercalation made, which served for the inhabitants of Jerusalem; or by sending messengers with letters into all distant places (s), acquainting them with it. So that the times of these festivals were always well known; even to the common people:

and the son of man is betrayed to be crucified; it must not be thought that this was equally known by the disciples, as the former; for though they might know, or at least remember, that Christ had told them that he should suffer many things of the priests, Scribes, and elders, who would deliver him to the Gentiles, to be crucified; yet might not understand that this passover was to be the time, when this should be done: by "the son of man", Christ means himself, who was truly and really man, the seed of the woman, the son of Abraham and of David; a character by which the Messiah is described in the Old Testament, Psa_80:17 Dan_7:13, and hence frequently used by Christ of himself; which, as it expresses the truth of his human nature, so the weaknesses and infirmities he bore in it; and is very properly used here, when he is speaking of his being to be betrayed and crucified. What he says of himself is, that he is "betrayed"; that is, is to be betrayed, or will be betrayed, meaning at the passover, which was to be in two days time. Christ speaks of his being betrayed, as if it was already done; not only because it was so near being done, there being but two days before it would be done; but because it was a sure and certain thing, being determined in the purpose of God, and foretold in prophecy that it should be; and besides, Judas had now resolved upon it within himself, and was forming a scheme how to bring it about. And this respects not only the act of Judas in betraying him into the hands of the chief priests, but also the delivery, as the

word here used signifies, of him by them, to the Roman governors; for they, as Stephen says, were also his betrayers and murderers; yea, it may include the delivery of him by Pilate, to the Jews and Roman soldiers; and the rather, because it follows, "to be crucified"; which was a Roman, and not a Jewish punishment. This was typified by the lifting up the brazen serpent on a pole, and foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament, Psa_22:16, and predicted by Christ himself, sometimes more covertly, Joh_12:32, and sometimes in express words, Mat_20:19, and was a very painful and shameful death, and which showed him to be made a curse for his people. It appears from hence; that the crucifixion and death of Christ, were not casual and contingent events, but were determined by the counsel of God, with all circumstances attending: the betraying and delivery of him were by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God; and not only his death, but the manner of it by crucifixion, was pointed out in prophecy, and was a certain thing; and the very time of his death was fixed; which shows the early concern of God for the salvation of his people, and his wonderful grace and mercy to them: and it is clear from hence, that Christ had perfect knowledge of all this: he knew not only that he should be betrayed, but he knew from the beginning who would betray him; he not only knew that he should die, but he knew what kind of death he should die, even the death of the cross; and he knew the exact time when he should die, that it would be at the following passover, which was just at hand; and he had suggested this to his disciples, and therefore he speaks of it as a thing known unto them; at least what they might have known, and concluded from what he had said to them, Mat_20:18, and the whole is a considerable proof of his being God omniscient. And he thought fit to put his disciples in mind of it, because the time drew nigh; that their memories being refreshed with it, they might be prepared for it, and not be surprised, shocked, and offended at it, when it came to pass; which shows the tender concern our Lord had for them.

COFFMA, "Christ related the crucifixion to the passover, rather than to the ordinary sabbath (see notes on Matthew 10:40). The passover always came at sundown on the 14th day of isan, which means that it came on a different day of the week each year. In this place Christ named the kind of execution he would receive: crucifixion. His use of the prophetic tense, "is delivered up," makes the present stand for the future tense, as in all the prophets; and in this case, Christ is truly that prophet.

Of great significance is the sharp divergence between Christ's word and that of the chief priests and elders. Christ here placed his crucifixion as an event that would occur "after two days," and that it would take place during the passover festivities. Yet at the very time Christ revealed this to the disciples, the chief priests decided otherwise. They decided that he should die by subtlety (that is, secretly, by assassination or murder), and that it should not be done during the feast (Matthew 26:5), thus clearly postponing his death for at least a week. However, THEY were not the architects of our Lord's death. As the Master said, he would lay down his life of his own accord; and Christ, not the priests, would choose the hour and the manner of his doing so.

3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas,

CLARKE,"Then assembled together the chief priests - That is, during the two days that preceded the passover.

The high priest, who was called Caiaphas - Caiaphas succeeded Simon, son of Camith, about a.d. 16, or, as Calmet thinks, 25. He married the daughter of Annas, who was joined with him in the priesthood. About two years after our Lords crucifixion, Caiaphas and Pilate were both deposed by Vitellius, then governor of Syria, and afterwards emperor. Caiaphas, unable to bear this disgrace, and the stings of his conscience for the murder of Christ, killed himself about a.d. 35. See Joseph. Ant. b. xviii. c. 2-4.

GILL, "Then assembled together the chief priests,.... About the same time, two days before the passover, that Jesus said these things to his disciples, as is plain from Mar_14:1. By "the chief priests" are meant, either such who had been high priests, or such as were the heads of the twenty four courses of the priests; or rather, the principal men of the priesthood, who were chosen out of the rest, to be members of the great sanhedrim:

and the Scribes; the doctors, of the law, who wrote out copies of the law for the people, and interpreted it to them in a literal way: this clause is left out in the Vulgate Latin, and in Munster's Hebrew Gospel, and in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions, and in the Alexandrian copy, and some others, but is retained in, the Syriac version; and no doubt, but these men had a place in this grand council:

and the elders of the people; these were the civil magistrates; so that this assembly consisted both of ecclesiastics and laymen, as the sanhedrim did, of priests, Levites, and Israelites (t): these came

unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas; his name was Joseph, but his surname Caiaphas; a word not of the same original with Cephas, as Camero thought; for these two words begin with different letters, nor are the rest the same. Now, though a king of Israel might not sit in the sanhedrim, yet an high priest might, provided he was sufficiently qualified with wisdom (u). The president of this grand council at this time, should be Rabban Gamaliel, Paul's master; unless it was Caiaphas, at whose house they were: how they came to meet at the high priest's palace, deserves inquiry; since their proper and usual place of meeting, was a chamber in the

temple, called Gazith (w), or the paved chamber: now let it be observed, that according to the accounts the Jews themselves give, the sanhedrim removed from this chamber, forty years before the destruction of the temple (x); and which, as Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, was about a year and a half before the death of Christ; and as others say (y), four years; at least three years and a half before that time: but then, though the sanhedrim removed from the paved chamber, they met at Chanoth, "the sheds", which was a place within the bounds of the temple, in the mountain of the house; and the question still returns, how came it to pass they did not meet there? To me the reason seems to be, that they chose not to meet there, but at the high priest's palace, because of privacy, that it might not be known they were together, and about any affair of moment; and particularly this: the high priest's house was always in Jerusalem, and he never removed from thence; nor did he go from the temple thither only in the night, or an hour or two in the day; for he had an apartment in the temple, which was called the chamber of the high priest, where he was the whole day (z).

HERY, "2. The plot of the chief priests, and scribes, and elders of the people, against the life of our Lord Jesus, Mat_26:3-5. Many consultations had been held against the life of Christ but this plot was laid deeper than any yet, for the grandees were all engaged in it. The chief priests, who presided in ecclesiastical affairs; the elders, who were judges in civil matters, and the scribes, who, as doctors of the law, were directors to both - these composed the sanhedrim, or great council that governed the nation, and these were confederate against Christ. Observe (1.) The place where they met; in the palace of the high priest, who was the centre of their unity in this wicked project. (2.) The plot itself; to take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him; nothing less than his blood, his life-blood, would serve their turn. So cruel and bloody have been the designs of Christ's and his church's enemies. (3.) The policy of the plotters; Not on the feast-day. Why not? Was it in regard to the holiness of the time, or because they would not be disturbed in the religious services of the day? No, but lest there should be an uproar among the people. They knew Christ had a great interest in the common people, of whom there was a great concourse on the feast-day, and they would be in danger of taking up arms against their rulers, if they should offer to lay violent hands on Christ, whom all held for a prophet. They were awed, not by the fear of God, but by the fear of the people; all their concern was for their own safety, not God's honour. They would have it done at the feast; for it was a tradition of the Jews, that malefactors should be put to death at one of the three feasts, especially rebels and impostors, that all Israel might see and fear; but not on the feast-day.

HAWKER 3-5, ""Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, (4) And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him. (5) But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people."

From what hath been observed before, in the introduction of this subject, in holding forth Christ, as the representative of his Church and people, we shall now enter upon it with a clearer apprehension, in beholding the chief priests here forming their council for killing Jesus. And although they had no consciousness, what instruments they were in the Lords hand, for the accomplishing the sacred purposes of his will; yet they were. (as Peter told some of them, after his soul was enlightened by the, coming of the Holy Ghost, on the day of Pentecost,) by wicked hands, doing all that they did, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Act_2:23. See also to this purport, Act_4:27-28;

Act_13:27-28.

Reader! it is very blessed to behold Christ thus representing: his redeemed as their head and husband; and the Chief Priests and Scribes, thus becoming Gods instruments, for the purpose of bringing Christ into the very situation, where our sins must have brought us, but for his interposition. His being made both. sin and a curse for us, became the only possible means, whereby we might be redeemed from both forever. We shall have the clearest views of these grand points, as we prosecute the subject, if so be, the Lord the Holy Ghost be our teacher! Matchless instructor! vouchsafe this blessing!

CALVI, "Matthew 26:3.Then were assembled the chief priests. Matthew does not mean that they assembled during the two days, but introduces this narrative to show, that Christ was not led by any opinion of man to fix the day of his death; for by what conjectures could he have been led to it, since his enemies themselves had resolved to delay for a time? The meaning therefore is, that by the spirit of prophecy he spoke of his own death, which no man could have suspected to be so near at hand. John explains the reason why the scribes and priests held this meeting: it was because, from day to day, the people flocked to Christ in greater multitudes, (John 11:48.) And at that time it was decided, at the instigation of Caiaphas, that he should be put to death, because they could not succeed against him in any other way.

COFFMA, "The court of the high priest was his palace; and the high priest mentioned here, Caiaphas, or Joseph Caiaphas, a son-in-law of Annas, had been named to that position by Valerius Gratus prior to 26 A.D., and was deposed by Vitellius in 37 A.D. The synoptics omit the first trial before Annas. The ew Testament references to two high priests at the same time should not be confusing. Annas was appointed high priest in 7 A.D. by Quirinius, governor of Syria.[1] He was a fierce, passionate zealot; and, after putting a man to death in 14 A.D., he was deposed and replaced by his son Eleazar (Ishmael), and the power to exact the death penalty was henceforth denied to the Jews except with the consent of the governor. Five of Annas' sons held the office of high priest in succession: Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and Ananus (Annas). Also, Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, held the same office. However, Annas lived to a great age and was honored throughout his long life as the rightful high priest.[2]

[1] H. R. Reynolds, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 17, John II, p. 384.

[2] H. C. Hervey in ibid., Vol. 18, Acts I, p. 123.

BESO, "Matthew 26:3-5. The chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders They together constituted the sanhedrim, or great council, which had the supreme authority both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs. Assembled together unto the palace of the high-priest amely, to deliberate how they might take Jesus, and put him to death; and consulted how they might take him by subtlety Privately, by some artifice, without giving an alarm to his friends. But they said, ot on the feast-day This was the result of human wisdom. But when Judas came, they changed their

purpose. So the counsel of God took place, and the true paschal Lamb was offered up on the great day of the paschal solemnity.

BROADUS, "Matthew 26:3-5. Then naturally, though not necessarily (see on "Matthew 3:13"), means at the precise time of what precedes. The night following his great series of discourses in the temple (Matthew 21:23 to Matthew 23:30), which so defeated and silenced the Jewish teachers, would have been the natural time for this plotting; see Matthew 21:45 f The chief priests and the elders were two of the classes(1) constituting the Sanhedrin, see on "Matthew 26:57"; also as to the high priest who was called Caiaphas. There is doubt whether we should translate the palace, or the court, i. e., the inner court of the high priest's official residence, as in Matthew 26:69, Rev. Ver., or whether it means in general the residence, palace, as rendered in this place by Grimm, Keim, Weiss, and so in Matthew 26:58, and as often used in later Greek. It is perhaps better, with Rev. Ver., to use 'court' in all three passages, there being no substantial difference. And consulted, took counsel together, (compare Psalms 2:2, Acts 4:24 ff.) apparently not in an official meeting, but only an informal consultation. They had wished to apprehend him that morning in the temple court, but "feared the multitudes"; (Matthew 21:46, Rev. Ver.) they had sent officers to seize him at the feast of Tabernacles, six months before, but the officers were awed by his teaching. (John 7:32, John 7:45 ff.) ow they propose to take Jesus by subtilty. Com. Ver. renders the Greek word by "guile" in John 1:47, and by a still different word "craft" in the parallel passage of Mark 14:1. Weiss: "Thus the rulers were obliged to resort to secrecy. It is not likely that they ever thought of assassination, for Jesus was so constantly surrounded by his disciples that such a deed must have been discovered, and the odium of it would have clung to the supreme Council. The respect entertained for him by his followers could only receive a fatal blow by a public and shameful execution carried through with all the forms of justice; and if he were once safely in confinement, ways and means for the execution would soon be found." ot during the feast, which lasted seven days. The rendering of Com. Ver., on the feast-day, is a mistake. The rulers say nothing as to the sacredness of the occasion, butare only concerned lest there be an uproar among the people. Of this there was always special danger when vast crowds were assembled for a great festival; (compare Mark 12:12) and Pilate had taught them that a popular tumult could become with him the occasion of savage cruelties. The subsequent proposition of Judas (Matthew 26:15) led them to change their plan, and take the risk; and so the Saviour's death came at least a week earlier than they had calculated, and at the time he predicted. (Matthew 26:2.)

4 and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him.

CLARKE,"And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty - The providence of God frustrated their artful machinations; and that event which they wished to conduct with the greatest privacy and silence was transacted with all possible celebrity, amidst the thousands who resorted to Jerusalem, at this season, for the keeping of the passover. It was, doubtless, of the very first importance that the crucifixion of Christ, which was preparatory to the most essential achievement of Christianity, viz. his resurrection from the grave, should be exhibited before many witnesses, and in the most open manner, that infidelity might not attempt, in future, to invalidate the evidences of the Christian religion, by alleging that these things were done in a corner. See Wakefield in loco.

GILL, "And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety,.... The Jews had often attempted his life, but he escaped out of their hands; they had sent officers to apprehend him, but to no purpose; they therefore meet and consult together, to form some scheme, and make use of some stratagem, that they might lay hold on him, and keep him; they were for doing this in the most private manner they could:

and kill him; not with their own hands, nor privately; but their scheme was to apprehend him privately, by some secret artifice, and then deliver him to the Roman governor; to put him to death according to law, publicly, for crimes they had to charge him with; hereby Psa_2:2, had its accomplishment, at least in part.

COFFMA, "The plan proposed by the priests in this verse was simply that of murder. They intended to capture Christ and quietly destroy him. They could not have succeeded in this, because Christ said, "o one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself" (John 10:18). ot having the right to invoke the death penalty without the assent of the governor, they decided to murder Jesus. It would have been good for their reputations if that could have been accomplished. In such an event, Christ would merely have disappeared; and, all innocence and charm, they would have disclaimed any knowledge of it; but Christ simply would not allow them to get away with such a deed. His case, at the instigation of his will, would have a hearing, in fact, six hearings, before both Jews and Gentiles; and he would compel them to go on record, and the record would last for all ages to come. Moreover, the true reason for their hatred would be duly set forth in the imperishable record for the information of thousands of generations of men. The truly providential manner in which the murderous plan of the priests was thwarted and the whole case aired in the highest tribunals of the land is clearly discernible in the amazing events that began rapidly to unfold.

5 But not during the festival, they said, or there may be a riot among the people.

CLARKE,"Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar - It was usual for the Jews to punish criminals at the public festivals; but in this case they were afraid of an insurrection, as our Lord had become very popular. The providence of God directed it thus, for the reason given in the preceding note.

He who observes a festival on motives purely human violates it in his heart, and is a hypocrite before God. It is likely they feared the Galileans, as being the countrymen of our Lord, more than they feared the people of Jerusalem.

GILL, "And they said, not on the feast day,.... Upon mature deliberation, it was an agreed point with them, at least it was carried by a majority, that nothing of this kind should be attempted to be done on the feast day, on any of the days of the feast of passover, which was now at hand; though this was contrary to their common rules and usages: for, a person that sinned presumptuously, and such an one they accounted Jesus to be, they say (a),

"they do not put him to death by the order of the sanhedrim of his own city, nor by the sanhedrim of Jabneh; but they bring him up to the great sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and

keep him "until the feast", and put him to death, , "on a feast day"; as it is said, Deu_17:13, "and all the people shall hear and fear", &c.''

But what influenced them at this time to take another course, is the reason following;

lest there be an uproar among the people: they had no fear of God before their eyes, or in their hearts, only the fear of the people; many of whom believed in Christ, and others that did not, yet had a great veneration for him, having seen his miracles, and received favours from him; themselves, or their friends and relations, being cured by him of various diseases: besides, at the feast, people from all parts came up to Jerusalem; and they knew that large numbers from Galilee, where he had the greatest interest, would be present; and they feared, should they attempt anything of this nature at this time, the people would rise, and rescue him out of their hands. But God had determined otherwise, and his counsel shall stand; it was his pleasure, that he should be put to death at this feast, that the truth might answer the type of the passover lamb; and that all Israel, whose males now met together, might be witnesses of it: and so it was, that though these men had concluded otherwise in their council; yet an opportunity offering by Judas, to get him into their hands, they embrace it; and risk the danger of the people's uprising, who they found compliant enough to their wishes.

CALVI, "5.But they said, ot during the festival. They did not think it a fit season, till the festival was past, and the crowd was dispersed. Hence we infer that, although those hungry dogs eagerly opened their mouths to devour Christ, or rather, rushed furiously upon him, still God withheld them, by a secret restraint, from doing any thing by their deliberation or at their pleasure. So far as lies in their power, they delay till another time; but, contrary to their wish, God hastens the

hour. And it is of great importance for us to hold, that Christ was not unexpectedly dragged to death by the violence of his enemies, but was led to it by the providence of God; for our confidence in the propitiation is founded on the conviction that he was offered to God as that sacrifice which God had appointed from the beginning. And therefore he determined that; his Son should be sacrificed on the very day of the passover, that the ancient figure might give place to the only sacrifice of eternal redemption. Those who had no other design in view than to ruin Christ thought that another time would be more appropriate; but God, who had appointed him to be a sacrifice for the expiation of sins, selected a suitable day for contrasting the body with its shadow, by placing them together. Hence also we obtain a brighter display of the fruit of Christs suffering.

COFFMA, "But they said ... How futile was what THEY said. The true order of the deeds to be done was already determined, and there was nothing they could have done to the contrary. See notes under Matthew 26:2. aturally, with people present for the passover from all over the ancient empire, they shrank from murdering a popular and noble person like Jesus was known to be, lest their deed should lose some of the popular support which they enjoyed from the multitudes. Thus, caution dictated that they wait until the feast was over. That, however, was not to be. According to ancient prophecy, one of the Messiah's intimates would betray him, and that unhappy event appeared precisely on schedule. The incident that precipitated Judas' shameful deed took place that very evening at a feast in the house of Simon the leper.

Jesus Anointed at Bethany

6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper,

CLARKE,"In Bethany - For a solution of the difficulties in this verse, about the time of the anointing, see the observations at the end of this chapter.

Simon the Leper - This was probably no more than a surname, as Simon the Canaanite, Mat_10:4, and Barsabas Justus, Act_1:23, and several others. Yet it might have been some person that Christ had healed of this disease. See Mat_11:5.

GILL, "Now when Jesus was in Bethany,.... Which was about fifteen furlongs from

Jerusalem, Joh_11:18, or about two miles from it. The time of Christ's death being at hand, he keeps nigh to Jerusalem, where he was to suffer and die, in the room and stead of sinners:

in the house of Simon the leper; so called, to distinguish him from others of the name. This epithet was either a family one, some person of note in it having been a leper; or else he is so named, because he himself had been one, but was now cured; though the reason interpreters give for this, that otherwise he would not have been suffered to live in a town, is not a good one; for lepers, according to the Jewish (b) canons, were only forbid Jerusalem, and towns and cities that were walled round, and not others, such as the village of Bethany. There were many lepers healed by Christ, which, among other things, was an evidence of his being the Messiah, and a proof of his deity, and this Simon was one of them; whether the same mention is made of in Mat_8:1, is not certain, nor very probable; since that man lived in Galilee, at, or near Capernaum; this at Bethany, near Jerusalem: however, he was one of those lepers that had a sense of his mercy, and was grateful for it, as appears by his entertaining Christ at his house; and may teach us thankfulness to Christ, who has healed all our diseases; and particularly, the spreading leprosy of sin, with which all the powers and faculties of our souls were infected; and which was not in our own power, or any creature's, to cure, but his blood cleanses from it: and it may be observed, that Christ goes in and dwells with such whom he heals, and with such he is always welcome.

HERY, "In this passage of story, we have,I. The singular kindness of a good woman to our Lord Jesus in anointing his head,

Mat_26:6, Mat_26:7. It was in Bethany, a village hard by Jerusalem, and in the house of Simon the leper. Probably, he was one who had been miraculously cleansed from his leprosy by our Lord Jesus, and he would express his gratitude to Christ by entertaining him; nor did Christ disdain to converse with him, to come in to him, and sup with him. Though he was cleansed, yet he was called Simon the leper. Those who are guilty of scandalous sins, will find that, though the sin be pardoned, the reproach will cleave to them, and will hardly be wiped away. The woman that did this, is supposed to have been Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. And Dr. Lightfoot thinks it was the same that was called Mary Magdalene. She had a box of ointment very precious, which she poured upon the head of Christ as he sat at meat. This, among us, would be a strange sort of compliment. But it was then accounted the highest piece of respect; for the smell was very grateful, and the ointment itself refreshing to the head. David had his head anointed, Psa_23:5; Luk_7:46. Now this may be looked upon,

1. As an act of faith in our Lord Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, the anointed. To signify that she believed in him as God's anointed, whom he had set king, she anointed him, and made him her king. They shall appoint themselves one head,Hos_1:11. This is kissing the Son.

2. As an act of love and respect to him. Some think that this was he who loved much at first, and washed Christ's feet with her tears (Luk_7:38, Luk_7:47); and that she had not left her first love, but was now as affectionate in the devotions of a grown Christian as she was in those of a young beginner. Note, Where there is true love in the heart to Jesus Christ, nothing will be thought too good, no, nor good enough, to bestow upon him.

HAWKER 6-13, ""Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, (7) There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment,

and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. (8) But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? (9) For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. (10) When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. (11) For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. (12) For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. (13) Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her."

Some have thought, that this woman, is the same that is spoken of in Luk_7:37. And others have thought, that it was Mary, the sister of Lazarus. Joh_12:3. But I am too intent, at present, to make any enquiry here, Who it was it is the person of Jesus, who alone demands our attention, while following him in those solemn moments. Reader! mark what your Redeemer saith; the pouring this ointment on his body, was in token of his burial. Yes! it was to this death of Jesus, everything referred. The moment the Son of God became incarnate, and openly came forward as the Head and Surety of his Church, the curse pronounced fall, seized on mans seized on him as the Sponsor.

Reader! I hope you have not forgotten the awful contents of it. The ground was first cursed for mans sake. The nature of man was doomed to sorrow and labor, in consequence thereof. In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. And death, was to close the scene. Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Gen_3:17-19. Hence therefore, the whole of this awful sentence attached itself to Christ, when he freely offered himself the redeemer of his Church and people. And what I beg the Reader particularly to notice, and indeed, to us so highly concerned in the blessedness of redemption by Christ, becomes more important than any other view of the subject, is, that the curse in all its aggravated circumstances lighting upon Christ, was wholly, in that he stood forth at the call of his Father, as our surety. The Son of God taking our nature, would not have subjected him to this curse, had he not volunteered to be our surety. Great indeed was the grace, in the Son of God to become man. But this might have been done, and the same infinitely glorious person he would have been, as he now is, had he never undertaken our redemption. But when he stood up at the call of God our surety, he became responsible, while we who were the principals in the debt were made free; Christ our surety took the whole upon himself, and the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa_53:6.

SBC 6-13, "The Alabaster Box.

Here is a womanprobably a poor womandoing an action which excites the indignation of the whole Church. Not a voice is heard in her favour exceptsublime exception!the voice of Jesus. In such circumstances there must be something worth looking at. A minority which God approves must not be overlooked with heedlessness and contempt. The wisdom in this case is with the few, and the folly with the many; the wisdom is with love, not policy, with gratitude, not calculation.

The points of special interest are these:

I. The all-surrendering generosity of love. The woman had ah alabaster box of very precious ointmentonly one boxand that solitary box she broke, and poured its pure nard on the only human head that had not lost its crown. Love never puts its own name upon anything. Love has some object, must have some object, on whose shrine it lays its every possession. Love, warm, intelligent, growing love, keeps back nothing from God.

II. The moral blindness of a prudential policy in the service of Christ. There are men who can never take other than an arithmetical view of things. They are the keen economists of the Church; they get near enough to Christ to ascertain the texture of His garments, and to calculate the value of His seamless vesture. There is a point of criticism here most singularly suggestive. The same word in the original is used to signify both waste and perdition; and if we connect this idea with another, we shall apprehend the idea I wish to present. "Those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition;" and this very son of perdition was the man who, on another occasion, and probably on this, called a sacrifice "waste," and vehemently maintained the claims of the poor. There, then, is the startling fact before us, that the men who denominate other peoples service "waste" are themselves the most likely to be cast away as the refuse of the universe.

III. The all-comprehending wisdom of the Saviours judgment. (1) He shows His anxiety for the peace of all who attempt to. serve Him. (2) He shows His sympathy with the poor. (3) He shows that every age brings its own opportunities for doing good.

IV. The assured immortality of goodness.

Parker, Hidden Springs, p. 276; see also Inner Life of Christ, vol. iii., p. 194.

CALVI, "6.And when Jesus was in Bethany. What the Evangelist now relates had happened a little before Christ came to Jerusalem, but is here introduced seasonably, in order to inform us what was the occasion that suddenly drove the priests to make haste. They did not venture to attack Christ by open violence, and to oppress him by stratagem was no easy matter; but now that Judas suggests to them a plan of which they had not thought, the very facility of execution leads them to adopt a different opinion. As to some slight diversity between Johns narrative and that of Matthew and Mark, it is easy to remove the apparent inconsistency, which has led some commentators erroneously to imagine that it is a different narrative. John 12:3 expresses the name of the woman who anointed Christ, which is omitted by the other two Evangelists; but he does not mention the person who received Christ as a guest, while Matthew 26:6 and Mark 14:3 expressly state that he was then at supper in the house of Simon the leper. As to its being said by John that his feet were anointed, while the other two Evangelists say that she anointed his head, this involves no contradiction. Unquestionably we know that anointments were not poured on the feet; but as it was then poured in greater abundance than usual, John, by way of amplification, informs us that Christs very feet were moistened with the oil. Mark too relates, that she broke the alabaster-box, and poured the whole of the ointment on his head; and it agrees very well with this to say that it flowed down to his feet. Let us therefore hold it to be a settled point, that all the three Evangelists relate the same narrative.

COFFMA, "Simon the leper refers to a Simon who had been cured of leprosy, not to one who was at that time stricken with that disease. Since Christ alone was able to cure that malady, this means that Christ had healed Simon, and probably out of gratitude, Simon held this dinner in his home for Jesus. The woman mentioned was Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha who were also present at that dinner. Lazarus was a guest, Martha as usual was helping with the serving, and Mary, also

as usual, was blessed with a deeper insight into the spiritual realities of the occasion.

A. T. Robertson's clear word on this incident removes any chance of confusing it with a similar event recorded in Luke 7:36ff which occurred in the home of Simon the Pharisee. Robertson wrote:

This anointing has nothing in common with that given by Luke, except the fact of a woman anointing the Saviour's feet, and the name Simon, which was common. The former was in Galilee; this is at Bethany near Jerusalem. There the host despised the woman who anointed; here, her brother is one of the guests, and her sister an active attendant. There the woman was a sinner, a notoriously bad woman; here it is the devout Mary who "sat at the Lord's feet and heard his words," months before. There the host thought it strange that Jesus allowed her to touch him; here the disciples complained of the waste. There the Saviour gave assurance of forgiveness, here of perpetual and world-wide honor. Especially notice that here the woman who anoints is anticipating his speedy death and burial, of which at the former time he had never distinctly spoken. In view of all these differences, it is absurd to represent the two anointings as the same, and outrageous on such slender grounds to cast reproach on Mary of Bethany.[3]John adds the information that Jesus' feet were also anointed, gives the monetary value of the ointment as 300 pence, and names the precious ointment as nard or spikenard. John also gave the name of the principal objector among the disciples as Judas, and mentions Mary's wiping his feet with her hair. His mention of the odor that filled the house (along with other special details) indicates that John also was among those present.

EDOTE:

[3] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (ew York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 187, footnote..

BESO, "Matthew 26:6-13. When Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper That is, who had been a leper, but, as seems highly probable, had been healed by Jesus. At least, it is not to be thought that he was now a leper, for in that case he would not have been suffered to live in a town, nor would any Jew have come to an entertainment in his house. There came a woman Probably Mary, the sister of Lazarus, for it is highly probable, as Dr. Doddridge has shown, that the anointing of Jesus here mentioned, is the same with that recorded John 12:1. Having an alabaster box, &c. Being deeply affected with the many instances that Christ had given her and her sister Martha of his love, and especially by his late mercy in recovering her dear brother Lazarus from the grave, she was therefore solicitous to give some uncommon token of her gratitude to so excellent a person. She brake the box, says Mark, and poured the precious ointment, or rich balsam, on his head. See note on John 12:3. When the disciples saw it, they had indignation Several of them were angry, though none so much so as Judas, saying, To what purpose is this waste? Such a quantity of this rich balsam poured out to so little purpose. For this ointment might have been sold for much The disciples being sensible that

their Master was not delighted with luxuries of any kind, were grieved, and murmured against the woman, says Mark, for throwing away so much money idly, as they imagined. But they expressed themselves so as to cast a tacit reflection on Jesus himself. Jesus said, Why trouble ye the woman? Why do ye grieve and distress the good woman, of whose piety and friendship we have had so long an experience? For she hath wrought a good work upon me Hath given a great proof of her faith, gratitude, and love; and therefore deserves to be commended rather than to be blamed. For with respect to what has been now suggested, in favour of the poor, ye have them always with you By the wise and gracious providence of God, it does, and always will happen, that objects needing your compassion and charity shall always be with you, that you may always have opportunities of relieving their wants, and so of laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven. But me ye have not always I am soon to leave you, and to be placed beyond the reach of your kindness. In that she hath poured this ointment on my body On my feet as well as my head; see John 12:4. She did it for my burial As it were, for the embalming of my body. Indeed this was not her design; but our Lord puts this construction upon it, to confirm thereby what he had before said to his disciples concerning his approaching death. Verily, wheresoever this gospel That is, this part of the gospel history; shall be preached, this that this woman hath done shall be told, &c. To make them further sensible of their folly in blaming her for this expression of her love to him, he assured them that however much she might be condemned by them, she should be highly celebrated for this action through the world, and live in the memory of all ages.

BARCLAY, "LOVE'S EXTRAVAGACE (Matthew 26:6-13)26:6-13 When Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster phial of very costly perfume, and poured it over his head as he reclined at table. When the disciples saw it, they were vexed. "What is the good of this waste?" they said. "For this could have been sold for much money, and the proceeds given to the poor." When Jesus knew what they were saying, he said to them, "Why do you distress the woman? It is a lovely thing that she has done to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you have not me always. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me beforehand for burial. This is the truth I tell you--wherever the gospel is preached throughout the whole world, this too that she has done shall be spoken of so that all will remember her."

This story of the anointing at Bethany is told also by Mark and by John. Mark's story is almost exactly the same; but John adds the information that the woman who anointed Jesus was none other than Mary, the sister of Martha and of Lazarus. Luke does not tell this story; he does tell the story of an anointing in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50), but in Luke's story the woman who anointed Jesus' feet and wiped them with the hair of her head was a notorious sinner.

It must always remain a most interesting question whether the story Luke tells is, in fact, the same story as is told by Matthew and Mark and John. In both cases the name of the host is Simon, although in Luke he is Simon the Pharisee, and in Matthew and Mark he is Simon the leper; in John the host is not named at all,

although the narrative reads as if it took place in the house of Martha and Mary and Lazarus. Simon was a very common name; there are at least ten Simons in the ew Testament, and more than twenty in, the history of Josephus. The greatest difficulty in identifying the stories of Luke and of the other three gospel writers is that in Luke's story the woman was a notorious sinner; and there is no indication that that was true of Mary of Bethany. And yet the very intensity with which Mary loved Jesus may well have been the result of the depths from which he had rescued her.

Whatever the answer to the question of identification, the story is indeed what Jesus called it--the story of a lovely thing; and in it are enshrined certain very precious truths.

(i) It shows us love's extravagance. The woman took the most precious thing she had and poured it out on Jesus. Jewish women were very fond of perfume; and often they carried a little alabaster phial of it round their necks. Such perfume was very valuable. Both Mark and John make the disciples say that this perfume could have been sold for three hundred denarii (Greek #1220) (Mark 14:5; John 12:5); which means that this phial of perfume represented very nearly a whole year's wages for a working man. Or we may think of it this way. When Jesus and his disciples were discussing how the multitude were to be fed, Philip's answer was that two hundred denarii (Greek #1220) would scarcely be enough to feed them. This phial of perfume, therefore, cost as much as it would take to feed a crowd of five thousand people.

It was something as precious as that which this woman gave to Jesus, and she gave it because it was the most precious thing she had. Love never calculates; love never thinks how little it can decently give; love's one desire is to give to the uttermost limits; and, when it has given all it has to give, it still thinks the gift too little. We have not even begun to be Christian if we think of giving to Christ and to his Church in terms of as little as we respectably can.

(ii) It shows us that there are times when the commonsense view of things fails. On this occasion the voice of common sense said, "What waste!" and no doubt it was right. But there is a world of difference between the economics of common sense and the economics of love. Common sense obeys the dictates of prudence; but love obeys the dictates of the heart. There is in life a large place for common sense; but there are times when only love's extravagance can meet love's demands. A gift is never really a gift when we can easily afford it; a gift truly becomes a gift only when there is sacrifice behind it, and when we give far more than we can afford.

(iii) It shows us that certain things must be done when the opportunity arises, or they can never be done at all. The disciples were anxious to help the poor; but the Rabbis themselves said, "God allows the poor to be with us always, that the opportunities for doing good may never fail." There are some things which we can do at any time; there are some things which can be done only once; and to miss the opportunity to do them then is to miss the opportunity for ever. Often we are moved

by some generous impulse, and do not act upon it; and all the chances are that the circumstances, the person, the time, and the impulse, will never return. For so many of us the tragedy is that life is the history of the lost opportunities to do the lovely thing.

(iv) It tells us that the fragrance of a lovely deed lasts for ever. There are so few lovely things that one shines like a light in a dark world. At the end of Jesus' life there was so much bitterness, so much treachery, so much intrigue, so much tragedy that this story shines like an oasis of light in a darkening world. In this world there are few greater things that a man may do than leave the memory of a lovely deed.

THE LAST HOURS I THE LIFE OF THE TRAITOR (Matthew 26:14-16; Matthew 26:20-25; Matthew 26:47-50; Matthew 27:3-10)Instead of taking the story of Judas piece-meal as it occurs in the gospel record, we shall take it as a whole, reading one after another the last incidents and the final suicide of the traitor.

BROADUS, "II. Matthew 26:6-13. The Supper At Bethany

Mark 14:3-9, John 12:2-8. Bethany, see on "Matthew 21:17". As to the time, no one of the three accounts gives any decisive statement. Mark agrees with Matt. in mentioning the supper immediately after the consultation of the authorities as to seizing Jesus; and Mark's narrative runs on without any break, so that it would be very difficult to remove his paragraph about the supper to an earlier chronological position. Luke does not speak of the supper, perhaps because he had described a somewhat similar anointing in Galilee, (Luke 7:36-50) but he gives immediately after the consultation the proposition made to the authorities by Judas, which in Matt. and Mark follows in the same order, with the supper between. On the other hand, John mentions the supper just after telling of our Lord's arrival at Bethany before the triumphal entry, which would place it three or four days earlier. Either John, or Matt. and Mark, must be supposed to have given the event out of its chronological position. Several considerations support the opinion that it occurred where Matt. and Mark mention it. (a) The rebuke of Jesus to a suggestion about the poor which really came from Judas (John 12:4) would be the natural occasion of his deciding to carry out the design which may have been previously meditated, viz., to deliver the Master to the authorities; and this agrees with the order of Matt., Mark, and Luke. (b) The outspoken indication that our Lord's death is at hand (Matthew 26:12), agrees greatly better with a time following his intimations in Matthew 21:38 f. and Matthew 23:39, his eschatological discourse in Matthew 24 and Matthew 25, and his definite prediction here in Matthew 26:2, than with a time preceding the triumphal entry. (c) This also better accounts for the idea that the devout woman was preparing him beforehand for burial. (d) We can see a reason for John's mentioning the supper by anticipation, viz., because he has just spoken of Bethany, and he will speak of it no more. On the other hand, Mark at least has mentioned Bethany before the triumphal entry, (Mark 11:1) and we see no reason why he should have dislocated the supper. John is in general more chronological than Matt., as some have here urged, but not more so than Mark; here Matt. and Mark exactly

agree, and to a certain extent Luke also. John's expressions, John 12:2, John 12:12, would naturally suggest that the supper occurred at the point of time at which he speaks of it, but they do not at all require that view. The great majority of recent writers follow John's order, usually without giving reasons. On the other side are Robinson, (but Riddle otherwise), Hackett, G. W. Clark, McClellan, Geikie, and others. It is impossible to settle the question, but the event seems to fit much better into the situation presented by Matt. and Mark. The notion of Origen and Chrys. that there were two different feasts of Bethany, with a similar anointing and conversation, only three or four days apart, is out of the question. The assumption of many that the anointing in Galilee described by Luke 7:36-50 was the same as this, will not bear investigation. The only points of resemblance are (a) anointing by a woman, (b) at a feast, (c) in the house of Simon. But Luke is closely chronological in ch. 5 to 9, if not throughout, and he places his anointing at a much earlier time, and not at Jerusalem, but in Galilee. There the woman was "a sinner," here there is no such intimation, and in John's account it is the beloved Mary of Bethany. There the host scorned the woman, here (John) her brother is one of the guests, and her sister assisting the family. There we find nothing whatever answering to the complaint of the disciples and the Saviour's rebuke, justification, and wonderful promise; and on the other hand we find there the parable of the two debtors, and a very different assurance to the woman. The distinct allusion to his death is possible only here, and there is nothing to account for Luke's removing the story so far away in time and place. An anointing might certainly take place more than once, being a very natural way, according to their customs, of exhibiting reverential affection. (Luke 7:46) The Talmud of Bab. reports it (Wn.) as a custom in Babylon at a wedding for women to pour fragrant oil upon the heads of the rabbis present. A feast where the guests reclined on couches, was a very natural occasion for anointing the feet. The name Simon was very common. Thus the differences between the two cases are many and serious, while the few points of resemblance are easily accounted for. This question is important; for to suppose that Luke had transported this story to Galilee, and so long before, would cut us off from all reliance upon his chronological order, and to suppose that the other Gospels have transformed the event in Galilee into the so different occurrence they here describe, would make the whole history unreliable. As to the occurrence of similar events in various cases, compare above on Matthew 13:54, Matthew 15:38, Matthew 21:12.

In the house of Simon the leper, (so also Mark), who is not otherwise known. Doubtless his leprosy had been healed (compare on Matthew 8:2), either by natural causes or by the Saviour's supernatural work, and he merely retained a distinctive name he had long borne; compare Matthew the publican, Simon the zealot. It would have been a violation of the law of Moses for Jesus and his disciples to recline at table with an unhealed leper. A woman. Matt. and Mark give no name. John states that the woman who anointed was Mary, that Lazarus was one of the guests, and Martha "served,"i. e., took part with the women of the household in preparing and presenting the food. It seems clearly not true, as even Meyer holds, that John represents the supper as given by the well-known family; for in that case the expressions used in regard to Lazarus and Martha would be quite unsuitable. The notion that Simon was the deceased father of this family is idle. The sisters here

present the same difference of character as when Luke first mentions them, (Luke 10:38-42) and at the raising of Lazarus (John 11), the one showing love by bustling activity, the other delighting in unpractical and delicate manifestations of affection. True Christian piety does not alter one's fundamental type of character, but brings out its distinctive excellencies. It has been conjectured that the silence of Luke about Lazarus, and of Matt. and Mark about the whole family, was caused by the jealous hatred of the Jewish rulers, who might have revived their desire to put Lazarus to death, (John 12:10) if the family had been brought to their notice in the oral and written accounts given by the apostles; but when the family had all passed away, and the Jewish State had been destroyed, John could speak of them without reserve. Compare on Matthew 26:51. An alabaster box or cruse. Some kinds of alabaster are of delicate and richly varied hues, and are extremely beautiful and costly.(1) The Jews, like all the other civilized ancient peoples, made much use of fragrant ointment, often rare and of great price; and the flasks which contained it were of great variety as to material and shape. John says this flask contained 'a pound,' viz., of twelve ounces. It was, with its contents, a tasteful and costly object, such as a woman would delight in possessing. Very precious ointment. Mark and John tell the kind of ointment, using the same terms. But one of the terms is of uncertain meaning, as stated in margin Rev. Ver. of Mark 14:3, "Gr. pistic nard," pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take it to mean genuine; others, liquid. Yet this uncertainty does not affect the substantial meaning; it was ointment of extraordinary value. Pliny ("at. Hist." XII. 26) tells of many kinds of precious nard. And poured it on his head. Mark says, (Rev. Ver.) 'she brake the cruse and poured it.' The flask, or cruse, probably had a long neck and a small mouth, to prevent evaporation, and the precious ointment was ordinarily extracted in small quantities. Being a thick, viscid mass, it could not be made to flow freely through the opening, and so in her eagerness she 'thoroughly crushed' the cruse, and poured its contents lavishly upon one so honoured and loved. A thin flask of delicate alabaster could be crushed by the pressure of the hands. As he sat at meat, lit. as he reclined, see on "Matthew 8:11". John (John 12:2) describes it as a special entertainment in the Saviour's honour: "So they made him a supper there." John makes the apparently conflicting statement that she "anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped off his feet with her hair." To anoint the head (Matt. and Mark) was the more common service of friendship or honour, but Mary went further and anointed even his feet. It is plain from the Saviour's expressions about the similar anointing in Galilee, (Luke 7:44-46) that to anoint the feet was an act of greater humility and profound respect. Observe (Morison) that Matt. and Mark simply say 'poured upon his head,' without inserting 'it'; so there is no difficulty in supposing that she used a part of the contents otherwise, and even that much still remained in the crushed flask (see below on Matthew 26:10). John adds "and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment."Upon this scene, see Tennyson, "In Memoriam," xxxi., xxxii.

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 6-13, "Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper.

Christ anointed for His burial

Let us endeavour to find out what was the latent virtue in the apparently simple act

which won so noble a reward.

I. There can be no doubt that the majority of Christians would express surprise at the high honour promised to Mary for so slight a service, She did not resign wealth. What she did was of no utility. In these days and in this land we have a narrow and prejudiced way of judging of the character and actions of men. There is a national character, our likes and dislikes; we are disposed to try everything by this standard. Our national qualities are industry, prudence, regularity. There is another class of national qualities also-warm affections, enthusiasm, high unearthly devotion-these are contrary to our mental constitution. You find them in excess in warmer climates. Both of these characteristics have their faults and excellences. What is our ideal of a religious character? That a man should be upright, sober; hence our religious temper is not enthusiastic, The conduct of the woman was the result of overpowering love. May not this narrative teach us that God above all things values love to Himself, that one outgoing of the soul to Himself is worth hundreds of acts of duty apathetically rendered.

II. So also did she offer as Illustrious example of implicit faith. She had in view His burial, and did it to that end. A marvellous effort of faith. The apostles were not equal to it, though Christ had told them of His death and resurrection. (R. Woodford, M. A.)

True principles of Christian economy

I. Let us seek to, challenge and correct the worlds charge of waste brought against this and all similar acts of homage to Christ. Waste is useless and prodigal expenditure. Sin is the parent of extravagance. There are notions in the world on the subject of giving to God which we can correct:-

1. Let us mark, in opposition to selfish policy, that as hoarding is not always saving, so neither is expenditure always waste. So the Divine method. The sunshine streams clown from heaven with no stint, yet without waste; because all this vast outcome of goodness returns in richest blessing to its Parent Benefactor. The same principle of generous expenditure forms the life and success of commerce. A man of sordid habits toils with old worn-out machinery, because he dreads expense of repairs, only to find that his inferior goods have fallen out of demand. Again, does the selfish man congratulate himself, when he has refused some urgent opportunity of doing good, that, whatever conscience or the world may say of him, he has at least saved his money? He is mistaken. There is no safe keeping of that which vexes and displeases God. But there is another fallacy of the ungenerous and selfish, suggested by the text, viz., that everything is wasted that is given to Christ. Finally, it is the fallacy of the selfish that, while they will not make sacrifices for Christ, they think they have a right to prevent others; but this will not exempt us from doing our own duty.

II. What the world calls waste, as done to Christ and His cause, the Saviour Himself commends as duty, which secures our t