Christ, who had already repeatedly foretold his Passion, now also indicates to the apostles its time, namely when the highest council of the Jews decided that he should be seized by deceit and put to death after the feast. But Judas Iscariot, whose mind had long been estranged from Christ and who was also embittered because of the events that had taken place at the supper of Simon in Bethany, resolved, after receiving money, to hand Jesus over to the chief priests.
As the time was now approaching when Christ, according to the will of the Father, was to expiate by his death, as the true Lamb of God, the sins of the world, he warns the apostles that what he had often taught them was now at hand. For he wished, as Origen says, to prepare them beforehand, lest, before they heard what was to happen, they should suddenly, seeing their Master delivered to the cross, be struck with terror and amazement.
He also now designates the time—which he had not done before—lest he should seem to have been seized and to have suffered unexpectedly and unknowingly, as Dionysius says, but in order to teach that he freely undergoes death in the manner he had foreseen, preordained, and chosen.
“And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings,” namely those which he had spoken from the beginning of his preaching, so St. Thomas; similarly Bede, Maldonatus, and others. Others understand the sayings from the day of the solemn entry into the city (21:12, etc.); others from chapters 23–25; others the discourses on the destruction of the city and the last judgment. The evangelist has often used a similar expression (see 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1), where we find that after reporting a longer discourse of Christ he passes on to continue the narrative. Therefore here also it should not be thought that he refers to absolutely all of Christ’s discourses from the proclamation of repentance (4:17) onward, but only to those delivered in the last two days, namely Monday and this Tuesday, on which he also said to his disciples:
“You know that after two days the Passover will take place, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”
That this was said on Tuesday of the week is rightly held by Euthymius, Thomas, Jansenius, Maldonatus, Lapide, Arnoldi, Schegg, Schanz, and others; and it was said, as is clear, toward evening. After two days, on Thursday evening, Christ will celebrate the Paschal supper on the lawful day, and after it he will soon be delivered to be crucified.
פֶּסַח (pesach, “Passover”) properly signifies a passing over. The explanation of the word we read in Exodus 12:27: “It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s passing over, when he passed (פָּסַח, pasach, ‘passed over’) the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, striking the Egyptians and delivering our houses.” Hence “to immolate the Passover” is the same as to sacrifice the Paschal lamb (cf. Ex 12:3 ff.; 2 Chron 30:15–17; 35:1–6). “To eat the Passover,” that is, the Paschal lamb (2 Chron 30:18). “To keep the Passover,” that is, to prepare the Paschal lamb or celebrate the feast (Ex 12:48; Num 9:4; Deut 16:1; Josh 5:10; 2 Kings 23:21; etc.).
Therefore when Christ says “the Passover takes place” (γίνεται, ginetai, “comes to be”), he uses the same expression that is applied to the fourteenth day of the month Nisan. Hence also it follows, as already noted above, that the fourteenth day itself is called Passover (cf. Lev 23:5; Num 28:16; 33:3; Josh 5:10–11).
Thus by the force of the name and from the memory of that event in Egypt, the word Passover properly contains the notion of immunity and deliverance from calamity. Aquila rendered the word according to its etymology as ὑπέρβασις (“passing over”); similarly Josephus uses ὑπερβασία; Symmachus has ὑπερμάχησις (“defense, protection”); and Origen also, in Contra Celsum 8.22, uses διαβατήρια (“rites for a successful passage”). St. Jerome also rightly explains the term: Passover is named not from suffering, as many suppose (cf. πάσχειν, “to suffer”), but from passing over, because the destroyer, seeing the blood on the doors of the Israelites, passed over and did not strike them.
Not without reason Jansenius infers that Jesus mentioned the Passover both to signify that he himself is the true Paschal Lamb and to indicate that the day chosen for his Passion was the very day on which his killers did not wish to put him to death. Therefore he designates such a time for his Passion as his adversaries wished to avoid (cf. v. 5), thereby manifesting his foreknowledge and the divine plan.
His adversaries had often plotted his death (cf. 12:14; Mark 3:6). But after the raising of Lazarus the chief priests and Pharisees gathered a council—that is, they convened the Sanhedrin—to deliberate: “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs.” In that consultation Caiaphas declared: “It is expedient that one man die.” From that day they resolved to kill him (cf. John 11:47–53). Thus his death had already been decided by the highest authority.
At that time Christ withdrew from their plots, going into the region near the wilderness to a city called Ephraim (John 11:54). But the events of the last days—the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, the enthusiasm of the crowds, the praises and acclamations, and the rebukes spoken against the Pharisees and scribes—could not fail to increase the hatred of the leaders and stir them to act, lest they lose everything and be cast down from authority.
They had also repeatedly tried to catch him in his speech so that they might have grounds to accuse him before the crowds, but they had to withdraw in shame, utterly defeated. Therefore the Sanhedrin is again convened:
“Then were assembled the chief priests and the elders of the people,” and Mark and Luke add the scribes—that is, the experts in the law—so that all who constituted the Sanhedrin are indicated. They met in the court of the high priest, called Caiaphas. The word αὐλή (aulē) is taken by many in the sense of house or palace; others retain the more proper sense of courtyard—either interpretation matters little.
They did not meet in the usual place, for according to Josephus the council chamber was near the Xystus. According to the Talmudists, the Sanhedrin usually met in the chamber called Gazith. Whether this gathering in Caiaphas’s house was merely a private consultation some think; but since the three orders of the Sanhedrin are listed, it seems to have been a formal deliberation, as the gravity of the matter required.
Caiaphas, the high priest, presided, for the high priest commonly presided over the Sanhedrin, as appears in Josephus and the New Testament. Caiaphas was elevated to the high priesthood by Valerius Gratus and held it for seventeen years (A.D. 18–36) until he was replaced by Jonathan, son of Ananus. His proper name was Joseph (Ἰώσηπος), also called Caiaphas.
In this council two things were decided. First: “They took counsel to seize Jesus by deceit and kill him,” which had already been decreed earlier, but now they resolved to carry it out secretly (δόλῳ, “by craft”). Second: “Not during the feast, lest there be a disturbance among the people.” By “the feast” is meant the whole festive period of seven days of Unleavened Bread. They feared the crowds coming from all regions, especially from Galilee, who favored Jesus. Thus they did not fear God but the crowds, those most unjust judges.
It is commonly thought that this council was held on Wednesday. In ancient times the Church observed a fast on Wednesday in memory of the plot to kill the Lord and on Friday in memory of his death. St. Augustine writes that Wednesday is fasted because on that day the Jews are found to have taken counsel to kill the Lord. St. John Chrysostom also notes that when they found the traitor they changed their plan.
It is probable that when, unexpectedly, one of Christ’s own apostles offered to betray him, they concluded that many among the people were not so favorable to Jesus and that they needed only boldness to turn the crowds away and strengthen their authority. Events showed they were not mistaken, for on Friday they were able to lead Jesus through the streets loaded with insults and repeatedly persuade the people to demand his death with loud cries. “This is your hour and the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53). Thus Christ was sacrificed at the time when it would appear that he is our Passover.
There now follows in Matthew, and likewise in Mark, the account of the anointing at Bethany. That this anointing is the same as that reported by John (12:2 ff.) is acknowledged by most of the Fathers and almost all modern scholars. Most also hold that the time of the supper and anointing is determined by John, namely on the Sabbath before Passover. The Synoptics introduce the story without precise temporal connection (“when Jesus was in Bethany”), which explains why it is inserted here: first, to show again that Christ knowingly and willingly went to meet death; second, because from that event Judas took the occasion and incentive to betray him.
When John says, “Lazarus was one of those reclining,” it indicates that the supper was not held in Lazarus’s own house; otherwise he would not be described as merely one of the guests. Thus the Synoptic account agrees perfectly with John.
“When Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,” who retained this nickname after being healed by Christ (the name Simon being very common). “A woman came to him,” namely Mary, the sister of Lazarus (John 12:3), “having an alabaster jar of precious ointment,” that is, a small vessel made of alabaster stone. As Pliny says, perfumes are best preserved in alabaster.
She poured it on his head as he reclined, for guests were customarily honored by such anointing (cf. Luke 7:46). The use of perfumes was frequent, especially to express joy. She also anointed his feet and wiped them with her hair (John 12:3), thus showing extraordinary love and honor before the guests, for anointing the feet and wiping them with one’s hair were not ordinary signs of reverence.
Moreover, the ointment was abundant and very costly: a pound of pure nard, whose price Judas estimated at three hundred denarii—more than 230 francs.
That Judas took the matter badly is reported by St. John; we read that some were indignant (Mark 14:4), and Matthew says in a general way: “But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, ‘Why this waste? For this could have been sold for much and given to the poor.’”
Why Judas murmured is explained: not because care for the poor concerned him, but because he was a thief (John 12:6). But what about the other disciples? I know that some criticize this passage, asking why another evangelist says that Judas alone was displeased because he kept the money box and had been a thief from the beginning, while Matthew writes that all the apostles were indignant. But those who know the figure of speech called σύλληψις (syllēpsis, “comprehension”) or synecdoche—where all are named for one or one for many—will understand. St. Jerome and St. Augustine consider it clear that under the name of the disciples Judas himself is signified, just as we noted earlier regarding Philip in the episode of the five loaves, where the plural is used for the singular.
Yet both also propose another interpretation, more consonant with the words: that the other apostles were truly indignant, but for a different reason—Judas because he was a thief and sought gain, the others sincerely out of concern for the poor, Judas persuading them that excessive prodigality was being shown. Why it could have seemed so to them is sufficiently explained by St. John Chrysostom: they had heard the Master say, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice,” and had heard him rebuke the Jews because they neglected the weightier matters—judgment, mercy, and faith—and they had heard many teachings on almsgiving in the Sermon on the Mount. Moreover, they knew that the Lord did not delight in such luxuries but taught frugality everywhere by word and example and detested all excess. Therefore they judged the pouring out to be useless and foreign to Christ’s mind, since he had taught that care must be taken for the poor.
It also often happens that when one begins complaining, others too—though for different reasons—join in murmuring or criticizing a word or deed.
But Christ praises this expression of love and explains why he now permitted even this great expense. “But Jesus, knowing, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman?”—that is, why do you cause her distress by publicly reproving what she has done? “For she has done a good work toward me,” that is, she has rendered a pious service to me worthy of praise and commendation. She acted so as to profess before all that Christ is worthy of the highest honor.
And why he permitted this near the end of his life he explains: “For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.” There is no reason to be angry with her on account of the poor; there will never be lacking opportunity to benefit them, but to show kindness to me while I live this mortal life you will not be able to do for long.
And he explains why he accepted such honor: “For in pouring this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.” She prepared my body for the funeral, which was customarily done with spices and ointments; thus the funerals of the noble were honored (cf. 2 Chronicles 16:14). Of Christ it had been foretold that his tomb would be “with the rich” (Isaiah 53:9, Hebrew); from this it is also clear that immediately from Christ’s death his glory was to be manifested and recognized according to the divine plan. Since therefore his burial was to be noble and glorious, he accepted this magnificence with which a devout woman honored him out of love and reverence. Thus this was done by the pouring out of ointment, which after Christ’s death could no longer be offered because of the shortness of time—neither on Friday nor on Sunday morning when they wished, because he had already risen gloriously.
Some ask whether Christ’s words are to be understood to mean that Mary—who had often heard the Lord predict his death—anointed him with the intention of doing now what perhaps she could not do once he was dead. Some think she understood the anointing in the way Christ describes; others deny it. Yet it is more probable that Mary in this anointing thought nothing of the impending death or burial of the Lord, but simply, out of the greatness of her love, wished to anoint him with the best ointment according to the custom of the Jews, who were accustomed to anoint guests at more solemn banquets—not because Mary thought the Lord took delight in such pleasures, but because in the excess of love she indulged her devotion.
Since in the words “Why this waste?” there was an accusation and reproach against the woman—and implicitly against Christ—the Lord first calls the woman’s act good and worthy of praise, then explains why he accepted it. That the woman herself understood the higher symbolic meaning cannot be affirmed; but it is affirmed that according to the divine disposition that symbolic meaning inheres in the anointing.
Therefore he defends the woman against the murmuring of the disciples and, in commendation of so great a manifestation of love, announces that the memory of this deed will never be extinguished, but everywhere will be celebrated together with the preaching of the Gospel: “Amen I say to you, wherever this Gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.” Thus through the course of ages Mary’s action will be proclaimed not as waste but as virtue with immortal memory throughout the Christian world. For the slight confusion she may have experienced from the disciples’ reproach before a few guests, Christ most generously promises perpetual praise among all to whom the knowledge of him will come. What a reward! By an indissoluble bond the memory of this woman is joined with the name of the Savior.
And rightly St. John Chrysostom notes: behold, what he said has happened—wherever you go in the world you will hear this woman proclaimed, although she was not a distinguished person, nor were many witnesses present, nor was the deed done in a theater but in a house, and in the house of a leper. Who spread and proclaimed this? The power of the speaker. Many kings and generals whose monuments remain have their deeds forgotten; though they built cities, raised walls, conquered in wars, erected trophies, and subdued nations, they are unknown by name. But that a woman poured oil in a leper’s house is sung throughout the world, and after so long a time the memory does not fade: Persians, Indians, Scythians, Thracians, Sauromatians, Moors, and those who inhabit the British Isles proclaim what was done in Judea in a house, not publicly, by a sinful woman.
Then follows the account of Judas the traitor—not that he immediately after that supper went to Christ’s enemies (as some think), but that from that supper and rebuke he seized an occasion to satisfy his greed. “Then one of the twelve went”—either in a general sense, sometime after the supper in Bethany, or (as many think) referring back to the council, that he went on Wednesday. To show the enormity of the crime it is added: “one of the twelve,” as if to say, from the first rank of those whom he had chosen as the best.
“He went to the chief priests and said: What will you give me, and I will hand him over to you?” Unhappy Judas wished to compensate by the price of his Master the loss he thought he had suffered from the ointment, yet he does not even ask a definite sum but places himself at the buyers’ disposal like a slave.
“They weighed out to him thirty pieces of silver.” The verb ἔστησαν can mean “they agreed,” or “they weighed out,” since in ancient times silver was weighed before coined money was common. The evangelist clearly alludes to Zechariah 11:12: “καὶ ἔστησαν τὸν μισθόν μου τριάκοντα ἀργυροῦς” (“and they weighed my wages thirty silver pieces”), Hebrew יִשְׁקְלוּ (“they weighed”). These were understood to be Hebrew shekels, likely sacred shekels from the temple treasury.
Thus the price was about one hundred francs (estimates vary). Mark and Luke indicate that at first the money was only promised; Matthew summarizes.
Some have wrongly concluded that the price was invented by the evangelist to fit the prophecy; but the small amount does not prove this. According to Exodus 21:32, thirty shekels was the price paid for a slave killed by an ox. Thus Christ appears also in the form of a servant (cf. Philippians 2:7), as foretold by the prophet, whose labor was valued at a servant’s wage.
To judge Judas’s crime one must note how he states his intention: “What will you give me?” and also the testimony of St. John: “he was a thief.” Some modern writers have imagined that Judas did not betray Christ out of love of money but to force him to establish his kingdom—thinking Judas believed in a temporal kingdom and expected Jesus to triumph. They even portray him as a tragic hero acting out of misguided love. But these are gratuitous and impious inventions, contrary to the Gospels.
Already a year before, Christ had called him a devil (John 6:71). At that time he lost true faith. When Peter confessed, “You have the words of eternal life,” Christ said one of the twelve was a devil—namely Judas. Having lost faith, he was drawn only by temporal advantage, stealing from the common purse. As his evil desire grew, so did his distaste for Christ’s teaching, which offered no worldly gain but only lessons of humility and self-denial. He knew the rulers’ hatred and had heard Jesus speak of his death.
Blinded by greed and seeing no advantage in remaining, he sought to secure his life and curry favor with the leaders. Since he could not seize the three hundred denarii from the ointment, Satan entered into him (Luke 22:3), presenting an opportunity both to gain money and favor.
Thus, having lost faith, blinded by avarice, and stirred by the devil, he was led to this crime. As often happens, sinners before the act do not consider the consequences; afterward they are driven to despair. So Judas, after seeing what he had done, despaired and hanged himself.
From the Gospels it is clear he was led by unbelief and avarice, with satanic impulse. In him is fulfilled what the wise man said: “Nothing is more wicked than a lover of money” (Ecclesiasticus 10:9).
It is helpful to add something about a debated question: whether Mary the sister of Lazarus is the same as Mary Magdalene and the sinful woman of Luke 7. Much has been written. One opinion holds that they are the same person, grounded in ancient tradition and especially received in the Latin Church since the time of Gregory the Great. Would that it were clearly stated in the Gospels!
Yet St. John always calls Lazarus’s sister simply Mary, while elsewhere he speaks of Mary Magdalene without identifying her as the same. Likewise Luke distinguishes “Mary who is called Magdalene” from “the woman who was a sinner.” This consistent difference of naming is significant. Mary Magdalene is associated with Magdala near the Sea of Tiberias and is listed among the women accompanying Jesus in Galilee—something not easily said of Mary of Bethany near Jerusalem.
John is careful in naming persons (e.g., “Thomas who is called Didymus,” “Judas not Iscariot”), yet never writes “Mary the sister of Lazarus who is called Magdalene,” which would have been useful if they were the same.
Some argue from John 11:2 (“ἦν δὲ Μαριὰμ ἡ ἀλείψασα τὸν κύριον”—“Mary who anointed the Lord”) that he refers to the anointing of Luke 7, since his way of speaking distinguishes past from future events. Yet attempts to identify the anointings as one are unsuccessful, since Luke’s narrative differs in place, time, and circumstances—no mention of burial, murmuring, or universal proclamation, but instead the parable of the two debtors.
Thus we have some indication that Mary of Bethany may be the sinner of Luke 7, but it is difficult to conclude that Mary Magdalene is that sinner, especially since Luke immediately afterward lists Mary Magdalene among the women without identifying her as the same.
Whether this identification can be proved from other sources such as tradition or liturgy is beyond the scope here.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment