Matteo 26:8 Commento

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.

But when his disciples saw it,.... What the woman did, what a costly box of ointment it was, and with what profusion she used it, they had indignation: Mark says, "within themselves", Mar 14:4; either among themselves, or their indignation was secret in their breasts; their resentment was private, though it might be betrayed by their looks, and afterwards showed itself in words. This indignation was either at the woman, for the Evangelist Mark observes, that "they murmured against her", Mar 14:5, that she should act such an imprudent part, and be guilty of such extravagance; or at Christ himself, for suffering such an action to be done unto him; for so the Syriac version reads the above clause in Mark, and "they murmured against him"; so De Dieu observes it should be rendered; though Tremellius, Boderianus, and others, translate it, "against her": or else their indignation was neither at Christ, whom they dearly loved; nor at the woman, they being taught to love their enemies, and much more the friends of Christ; but at the action, which they looked upon as an ill judged thing, that sprung from misguided zeal, and which they thought could never be acceptable to their master, who was not used to encourage such profuseness and extravagance. Saying, to what purpose is this waste, or "loss?" They call that waste, or loss, which was spent on Christ himself; whereas, whatever is laid out for the honour of Christ, or the good of his interest, ought not to be reckoned loss, for it will be returned with great increase and advantage; but they could not see what end was to be answered by this expense. It is easy to observe the variableness and inconstancy of the disciples: one time, because the inhabitants of a certain village did not receive Christ, they were for calling for fire from heaven to destroy them; and here is a poor woman that exceeds, as they thought, in her respects to him, and they are filled with indignation.

Some one may perhaps think that there are four different women of whom the Evangelists have written, but I rather agree with those who think that they are only three; one of whom Matthew and Mark wrote, one of whom Luke, another of whom John. Matthew and Mark relate that this was done in the house of Simon the leper; but John says that Jesus came to a house where Lazarus was; and that not Simon, but Mary and Martha served. Further, according to John, six days before the Passover, He came to Bethany where Mary and Martha made Him a supper. But here it is in the house of Simon the leper, and two days before the Passover. And in Matthew and Mark, it is the disciples that have indignation with a good intent; in John, Judas alone with intent to steal; in Luke, no one finds fault. Oil is throughout Scripture put for the work of mercy, with which the lamp of the word is fed; or for doctrine, the hearing of which sustains the word of faith when once kindled. All with which men anoint is comprehensively called oil; and one kind of oil is unguent, and one kind of unguent is precious. So all righteous acts are called good works; and of good works there is one kind which we do for, or to, men; another which we do for, or to, God. And this likewise that we do for God, in part only advances the good of men, in part, the glory of God. For example, one does a kindness to a man out of feelings of natural righteousness, not for God's sake, as the Gentiles sometime did; such a work is common oil of no fine savour, yet is it acceptable to God, forasmuch, as Peter says in Clement, the good works that the unbelievers do, profit them in this world, but avail not to gain them eternal life in another. They who do the same for God's sake, profit thereby not in this world only but in the next also, and that they do is ointment of good savour. Another sort is that done for the good of men, as alms, and the like. He who does this to Christians, anoints the Lord's feet, for they are the Lord's feet; and this penitents are most found to do for remission of their sins. He who devotes himself to chastity, and continues in fastings and prayers, and other things which conduce to God's glory only, this is the ointment which anoints the Lord's head, and with whose odour the whole Church is filled; this is the work meet not for penitents, but for the perfect, or the doctrine which is necessary for men; but the acknowledgment of the faith which belongs to God alone, is the ointment with which the head of Christ is anointed, with which we are buried together with Christ by baptism into death. (Rom. 6:4.)

In this woman is prefigured the people of the Gentiles, who gave glory to God in Christ's passion; for she anointed His head, but the head of Christ is God, and ointment is the fruit of good works. But the disciples, anxious for the salvation of Israel, say that this ought to have been sold for the use of the poor; designating by a prophetic instinct the Jews, who lacked faith, by the name of the poor.

And whence had they this thought? They used to hear their Master saying, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice," and blaming the Jews, because they omitted the weightier matters, judgment, and mercy, and faith, and discoursing much on the mount concerning almsgiving, and from these things they inferred with themselves, and reasoned, that if He accepts not whole burnt offerings, neither the ancient worship, much more will He not accept the anointing of oil.

(Ver. 8, 9.) But when the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, “Why this waste? This could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.” I know that some criticize this passage, questioning why only one evangelist, Judas, is mentioned as being upset, when it is said that all the apostles were indignant. They do not understand the figure of speech known as synecdoche, by which one person can be used to represent all, or one can be used to represent many. For even Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews (although many Latin writers doubt it), when he described the sufferings and merits of the saints, introduced the following: They were stoned, they were tested, they were sawn in two, they were killed by the sword (Heb. 11:37), since the Jews only admit that Isaiah the Prophet was sawn. We can also say that the apostles were truly indignant because of the poor: but Judas because of his gains. And his muttering is also attributed to the crime that he did not have care for the poor, but wanted to provide for his own theft.

I know that some raise a cavil here, because John says that Judas alone was grieved because he had the bag, and was a thief from the beginning; but Matthew, that all the disciples were sorrowful. These know not the figure syllepsis, by which one name is put for many, and many for one; as Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews says, They were sawn asunder, when it is thought that one only, Esaias namely, was so. (Heb. 11:37.)

I know that some people criticize this passage because one Evangelist said only Judas became indignant since he kept the money purse and was a thief from the beginning, whereas Matthew wrote that all the apostles were indignant. Some may be unaware of the figure of speech called syllepsis, customarily termed “all for one and one for all.” The case is somewhat similar with Paul the apostle, who wrote in his epistle to the Hebrews (though many Latins have doubts about this), describing the sufferings and merits of the heroes of faith, inferring: “They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword.” [Hebrews 11:36-37] The Jews assert that only one person, Isaiah the prophet, was tortured. We may also point out that the apostles were indignant for the sake of the poor but Judas for the sake of his own gain. Hence his grumbling was also mixed with his misdeeds, because he had no concern for the poor but only wanted to be able to steal.

(de Cons. Ev. ii. 79.) We may however understand that the other disciples thought or said the same, or that they assented to what Judas said, and thus Matthew and Mark have described their common consent. But Judas said it because he was a thief, the others out of their care for the poor; and John desired to mention it only in the case of him whose thievish propensity he thought ought to be recorded.

Since the disciples had heard much about almsgiving and had given it much consideration, they found fault with the woman, thinking that God desired mercy towards others more than honor for Himself.

Then follows the reproach of the woman: and the disciples seeing it, had indignation. But here there is an objection, because John 12 says that Judas alone said it, while this text says all of them. There is a twofold response according to Jerome: because what is said here, that the disciples said it, is said by synecdoche: the disciples, i.e., a disciple, and this manner of speaking is customary in Scripture; Hebrews 11:37: they were cut asunder, because one was cut asunder, namely, only Isaiah. Or it can be said that it was all of them, because, according to what Augustine says, Judas stirred up all of them. Likewise, the others were moved on account of the need of the poor, but he was moved by avarice.

GLORIOUS ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCE TO THE WOMEN--THE GUARDS BRIBED TO GIVE A FALSE ACCOUNT OF THE RESURRECTION. ( = Mar 16:1-8; Luk 24:1-8; Joh 20:1). (Mat 28:1-15) In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn--after the Sabbath, as it grew toward daylight. toward the first day of the week--Luke (Luk 24:1) has it, "very early in the morning"--properly, "at the first appearance of daybreak"; and corresponding with this, John (Joh 20:1) says, "when it was yet dark." See on Mar 16:2. Not an hour, it would seem, was lost by those dear lovers of the Lord Jesus. came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary--"the mother of James and Joses" (see on Mat 27:56; Mat 27:61). to see the sepulchre--with a view to the anointing of the body, for which they had made all their preparations. (See on Mar 16:1-2). And, behold, there was--that is, there had been, before the arrival of the women. a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, &c.--And this was the state of things when the women drew near. Some judicious critics think all this was transacted while the women were approaching; but the view we have given, which is the prevalent one, seems the more natural. All this august preparation--recorded by Matthew alone--bespoke the grandeur of the exit which was to follow. The angel sat upon the huge stone, to overawe, with the lightning--luster that darted from him, the Roman guard, and do honor to his rising Lord.