Matthew 26:1-13

CRITICAL NOTES

Matthew 26:2. The feast of the Passover commemorated the deliverance of Israel from the Egyptian bondage. The ordinances of the first Passover are narrated Exodus 12:1, but some of those were modified in later times. The regular celebration of the Passover was part of the religious revival after the return from captivity (Carr).

Matthew 26:3. The chief priests, etc.—The meeting now assembled may have been either a formal session of the Sanhedrin or an informal conference of its chief members, prior to the regular meeting. The former seems, on the whole, the more probable (Plumptre). Scribes.—Wanting in the most important MSS. and omitted in the R.V. “It is certain, nevertheless, that the scribes would be present. See Mark 14:1; Luke 22:2” (Morison). Palace.—Court (R.V.). The word properly means the open court which constituted the centre of an Oriental house of repectable dimensions, and around which the respective apartments of the dwelling were built (ibid.). Caiaphas.—Joseph Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, was appointed high priest by the Procurator Valerius Gratus A.D. 26, and was deposed A.D. 38. The high priesthood had long ceased to be held for life and to descend from father to son; appointments were made at the caprice of the Roman government. Annas, Who had been high priest, was still regarded as such by popular opinion, which did not recognise his deposition. St. Luke says, “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests” (Matthew 3:2) (Carr).

Matthew 26:5. Not on the feast day.—Not daring the feast (R.V.). Including the seven days of unleavened bread. Neander, Ewald, Pressensé, and others, suppose that they resolved to arrest Him before the feast. But there is force in Dr. Morison’s objection to this: “The whole city and suburbs were already swarming with the multitudes who were anticipating the feast. Caravans were hourly arriving, increasing the throng. All was excitement. Great, too, was the interest attaching to the wonderful Nazarene.” Chrysostom, Calvin, Lange, Meyer, Wordsworth, and many besides assume that the Sanhedrin intended to crucify Him after the feast, when the crowds of strangers should have left. The unexpected treachery of Judas seems to have hastened the crisis. Lest there be an uproar.—As in connection with other Passovers (Josephus, Antiq., XVII. ix. 3; XX. Matthew 26:3. See also XVII. x. 2).

Matthew 26:6. When Jesus was in Bethany.—The narrative is given out of its proper order, on account of its connection (as indicated in St. John’s record) with the act of the traitor. St. John fixes it (Matthew 12:1) at six days before the Passover, i.e. on the evening that preceded the entry into Jerusalem (Plumptre). Simon the leper.—Probably not an actual leper, but one who had been so; perhaps one who had been healed by our Lord. From John 12:2 it has been conjectured that Simon was the husband of Martha, who appears to have acted as mistress of the house. Another conjecture is that Simon was the father of the family, who was now dead, though the house was still Called by his name (Mansel).

Matthew 26:7. Alabaster.—A beautiful calcareous spar, softer than marble, and therefore easily scooped or fashioned into ornamental boxes, bottles, vases, and jars (Morison). Box.—Cruse (R.V.) There is no word corresponding to “box” in the original. The expression is simply and unspecifically “an alabaster”; and the reference would be, not to an alabaster box or casket, such as the Roman ladies kept on their toilet-tables for holding their cosmetics, but to some kind of small and elegantly-shaped alabaster bottle or cruet (ibid.). Very precious ointment.—Spikenard (Mark 14:3). The ointment of nard was highly esteemed in antiquity as a precious aromatic and a costly luxury. It was brought chiefly from Asia Minor in alabaster flasks; and the best were to be had in Tarsus (Winer).

Matthew 26:10. A good work.—The word translated “good” has prominent in it the thought of beauty (Gibson).

Matthew 26:12. For My burial.—To prepare Me for burial (R.V.). See 2 Chronicles 16:14. Not that she consciously intended it as equivalent to an embalmment of the body. But Jesus interpreted her act according to His own anticipation of the solemn event that was at hand (Morison).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 26:1

The eve of betrayal.—From speaking of His own coming in glory and of things very far off, the Saviour proceeds to speak here of things very near: “Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified” (Matthew 26:2). We are come, in fact, to the very eve of the Passion of Christ. And what we read of here is of the doings of unbelief, on the one hand, and of the doings of faith, on the other, during that eve.

I. The doings of unbelief.—In what condition do we find the chief representatives of unbelief in Christ at this time? We find them, first, assembled in force. All classes of them, with their usual president over them, are met in his house (Matthew 26:3). Nothing is wanting to make plain how much they are stirred. It is plain, also, in the next place, that they are assembled in malice. They are not there to debate as to the object which they shall undertake to pursue. Neither are they there to resolve only on preventive measures; or on merely half-measures of hatred. On these points, and all like them, their minds are made up. They do not mean to stop a step short of putting Jesus to death (Matthew 26:4). In the third place, these unbelieving ones are also assembled in craft. They are fully aware of the difficulties which lie in their way; difficulties arising from the high esteem in which the Saviour is held, as also from the fact of such vast multitudes being then gathered at Jerusalem. But these considerations do not affect either their consciences or their wills. They only lead them to think how they can do safely what they are thinking of doing; how, in a word, they can take Christ’s life without risking their own (Matthew 26:4). If nothing, therefore, is more prudent, nothing is more unscrupulous than their conduct. The thing they are resolved on is to put Jesus to death. We may consider the holding of this “council,” therefore, His first actual contact with the shadow of death. Before, He has been in danger. Now, He is doomed.

II. The doings of faith.—For such we believe, with many authorities, that we see in the incident which comes next. We believe the “woman” spoken of here to have been Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus; and the action ascribed to her to be the same as that spoken of in John 12:1, in connection with the “supper” made for Jesus at the house of Lazarus, probably some days after His coming there, as described in the first verse of that chapter. And believing this, we think we see here, on the one hand, what she thought then of the Saviour Himself. The exceeding costliness of the gift given (Matthew 26:7) shows this to begin. Nothing, in her eyes, was too precious for Him. The indignation thus aroused, and the consequent computation of the numbers that might have been benefited by it if used in a different way, tell in much the same line. No others whatever—no number of others—were equal to Him in her eyes. So also does the extraordinary lavishment with which she expended her gift—breaking the box so as to keep back nothing of its precious contents, and pouring these over the whole person of the Saviour Himself (cf. Matthew 26:7 with John 12:3). Nor was less spoken, or spoken less openly, by the marked publicity of her gift, given to Jesus, as it was, as He “sat at meat” at such a special “supper,” and with His disciples around Him, and evidently “taken” (John 12:3) from elsewhere, and brought to (Matthew 26:7) Jesus with much deliberation of purpose and determination of manner. She wished all present to know by this “fragrance” what she thought of her Lord. As it were, she wished the “whole house” to be filled with her thoughts. Possibly—the idea is permissible when we note carefully the significant manner of her testimony—with her thoughts of Him as the CHRIST! Also, we think we see here, on the other hand, what this woman thought and knew of the approaching fate of the Saviour. Sitting constantly and almost irremovably at His feet to hear His word (Luke 10:39), we can well believe that she had taken in more of the true meaning of His language than His other disciples, and so had begun to realise that, as a matter of fact, He was a dying man at that time. Certainly the pathos of this knowledge would account exactly for the remarkable courage and determination of her conduct. “Now or never must this thing be done.” So she would be led by it to say in her heart. Certainly also the light of this knowledge would account exactly for the direction of her effort. What she would do by Jesus should be just that which others did by their dead. And this, indeed, was exactly the interpretation which the Saviour Himself put on her deed. He recognised and defended it as an exceptional thing, fitting, therefore, all the better that exceptional juncture and case (Matthew 26:10). He recognised it, also, as being done in connection with the close approach of His death (Matthew 26:12). And He described it, further, being thus done in faith, as a work that was “good” (Matthew 26:10); and even such as should in time be proclaimed everywhere, as an example to all (Matthew 26:13). An example of the “faith” which cometh by “hearing”! An example of the way in which one disciple, at least, knew what was then coming on Christ.

Note, therefore, in conclusion, how we see the Saviour Himself at this moment, when the lip of the cup to be drunk by Him, as it were, first touches His lips.

1. How full of consideration for others!—His leading enemies have now resolved on His death. The most enlightened and attached of His disciples has reminded Him, in the most vivid manner, both of its certainty and nearness; has treated it, in fact, as in one way begun. Even so He will not allow her to be unjustly reproached. Whatever is coming on Him, that shall not come upon her. Instead of that, He will cover her with honour and thanks. With honour then, and thereafter as well. With honour there, and everywhere else. See what it is to confess Him before others. It is to be confessed by Him before all. Confessed by Him even when entering into the shadow of death!

2. How full of confidence in His work.—The prediction of Matthew 26:13 was remarkable in itself. It was still more so in connection with the time at which it was uttered. Although Himself about to die, nothing of that kind was contemplated by Jesus in regard to His “gospel.” That, rather, was to become the more widely known and believed in and honoured by means of His death; so much so as thereby to bring special honour upon this anticipation of that death. This saying was almost more than the prediction of a prophet. It was the decree of a King! The decree of a King, also, who knew Himself at that moment to be under sentence of death!

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Matthew 26:3. A wicked council.—

I. A council without counsel, devoted to subtilty (Matthew 26:5).

II. A shameless council, devoted to lying and calumniation (Matthew 27:1).

III. A profligate council, devoted to hypocrisy (Matthew 27:7).

IV. A blind council, devoted to bribery (Matthew 28:12).—J. P. Lange, D.D.

Matthew 26:6. Jesus in the house of Simon the leper.—

1. In little Bethany, as well as in great Jerusalem, God hath His own.
2. The man who is sensible of his cleansing by Christ will love Him all his life long after. Simon the leper here receiveth and entertaineth Christ and His disciples.
3. When our by-past infirmities may glorify Christ, it is no shame to bear the memorials thereof. Here the Evangelist calleth Simon “the leper,” though now whole.
4. Love spares no cost; where love is hot, there nothing is dear.—David Dickson.

Matthew 26:8. The “wastefulness” of Christian love.—Consider the objection:—

I. In relation to economy.—Christ teaches us that—

1. Love transcends economy.—Thrift which forbids the demonstrations of love, which forbids the observance of holidays, birthdays, etc., which denies leisure either to love or to express it, is a bane, not a boon. Keep love alive at every cost, is Christ’s teaching.

2. Religion transcends economy.—Religion should be the last cause on which to practise economy, yet often the first.

II. In relation to the poor.—Some say, “We do not object to generosity, but deem it better shown to the poor than to the church, to Christ’s body, to religion.” So some disciples and others. Both plausible and popular. But mark:—

1. These are not the best friends to the poor.—See John 12:6. Judas the spokesman. He was not a friend to the poor. This objection made in their own interest, not that of the poor. He who begrudges to the church generally begrudges also to the poor. History proves that the best friends of the poor have ever been the religious. They still are. Non-religious philanthropy a small and feeble thing.

2. Religion transcends philanthropy.—Christ knows their hearts, but meets their objection. His boldness. “The poor with you always.”

(1) Not a condemnation of social Christianity. Some would make Christ’s saying equivalent to “poverty is permanent,” and would quote it against every effort to abolish poverty. Reference purely personal and local. “Poor with you when I am not.” This quite true. Not that we are to have always with us the hideous injustice of modern poverty! Words really teaching—
(2) That spiritual Christianity transcends social Christianity. Mary lives on a higher plane of being than Martha or the disciples. We must not permit social questions to secularise us, or drive God from our thoughts.

III. In relation to Christ.—

1. It is sanctioned by Christ’s express approval.

2. It is sanctioned by Christ’s great example.—Mary’s action really akin to Christ’s great “waste of love” about to be consummated on the cross. Application:

1. Let us lavish our love on Christ, in emotional and in concrete ways remembering His waste of love to us.
2. Let us lavish it upon others. Emulate Christ—“waste” your love on the unworthy and the unlovely.—S. E. Keeble.