The Divine Lamp

See previous post on the Passion HERE.
The text of the RSV 26:6-13

Text of the ASV:

26:6-13 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman having an alabaster flask of exceedingly precious ointment, and she poured it upon his head, as he sat (at table). But when the disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, ‘why this waste?’ This ointment might have been sold for much, and (the money)given to the poor. But Jesus perceiving it said unto them, ‘why trouble you the woman? for she has wrought a good work upon me. For you have the poor always with you; but me you have not always. For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Verily (truly) I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that which this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
“Now” is an adversative conjunctive connecting the current events with those narrated in vss 1-5 yet at the same time alerting the reader to a contrast with it.

Bethany was located East of Jerusalem, just over the brow of the Mount of Olives. According to ancient sources there was a village in the area (not Bethany itself) which served as a leper community. Scholars speculate that Simon the leper is the man Jesus healed in 8:1-4, but this is sheer guess-work.

As Jesus is sitting (probably eating, though Matthew doesn’t say so) a woman enters the house with a stone (alabaster) jar containing ointment, probably perfumed (Mk 14:3) oil of some sort. It is described as costly, precious, or of great value, and in this event one cannot help but be reminded of the precious gifts of the Magi in the infancy narrative (2:11). On that occasion, one of the gifts offered was myrrh, an oil used for anointing (Ex 23:33).

The woman’s action causes indignation (Greek: aganakteo, literally “much grief) among the disciples. Here Matthew is more explicit than Mark who attributes the indignation to “some” who were there. After the third passion prediction (20:17-19), James and John crassly sought positions of greatness in the kingdom, a fact which caused much “indignation” among the rest of the apostles (20:20-24). Perhaps by mentioning the disciples as the objectors here Matthew wants to remind us of this previous failure of discipleship. Because the disciples will fail again in the Passion by abandoning Jesus, they will not be around to anoint his body. The woman, apparently astutely aware of what is about to befall our Lord, stands in marked contrast with the clueless disciples.

“Indignation” is also used in reference to the chief priests and scribes when Jesus was doing “wonderful deeds” in the temple and children were crying out concerning him (21:15).

As the Jewish leaders seek to put Jesus to death by stealth, this woman engages in an open display which Jesus interprets as a good work which prepares him for burial. The meaning of the event in relation to Jesus’ death is lost upon the disciples. This is the major purpose of the placing of the event here. It highlights the craftiness of the leaders, the denseness of the apostles, and prepares for the account of Judas’ betrayal.

The text of the RSV 26:14-16

The text of the ASV:
26:14-16 Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, and said ‘What are you willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you?’ And they weighed out to him thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought an opportunity to deliver him (unto them).

“Then” links this event up with the previous one (6-13), and also recalls the plot of the Jewish leaders in vss 1-5. Judas’ action stands in marked contrast to Jesus’ unconcern for money. In light of what our Lord said concerning the woman in verse 13,- that wherever the Gospel was preached her deed would be told in memory of her,-provides a sad, ironic contrast to Judas. He had been chosen to preach that Gospel without silver or gold (10:1-15), but now he will be remembered as the one who betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. Every time a messenger of the Gospel is “delivered up” it stands as an indictment of Judas (see the repeated use of “delivered up” in the missionary discourse in 10:16-24).

Note: Technically speaking, “The Passion Narrative” is a misleading description. For the account of the Passion does not stand in isolation to that of the Resurrection. Matthew 26-28 is one literary unit within the Gospel as a whole and should be treated as such. For reasons of convenience only, do I speak of “the Passion Narrative.” In my posts on the Passion I will be linking to the text of the RSV which, in accord with Canon Law can be used by Catholics for the purpose of Scripture study. Unfortunately, I’ve gotten some conflicting information regarding the laws governing the use (quoting) of the RSV; for this reason, in my notes I’ll be using the text of the ASV with some occasional modifications done by me. This version is not in copyright and it hews rather close to that of the RSV.

Like Mark, Matthew’s Passion narrative begins with the story of the opposition and machinations of the Jewish leaders against Jesus (1-5), to which Judas will join himself in verses 14-16. As in Mark 14:1-11 the account of the anointing at Bethany (6-13), which is an act of discipleship, is sandwiched between these accounts of the hostility of the Jewish leaders and the betrayal of Judas. The significance of this will be dealt with when we come to those verses. The overall section sets some of the major themes for the rest of the narrative while building upon things already predicted, as will be shown in the notes. It should also be noted that Matthew, in view of his own theological and pastoral tendencies, has expanded what we find in Mark; some of this will be brought out in the notes as well.

RSV Tranlation 26:1-16
26:1- And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these words, he said unto his disciples… “

As he had at the end of the first four Discourses found in the Gospel, Matthew ends this one with a statement that the teaching was over (see 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1). Here, however he adds the word “all” (these words). As Father Donald Senior notes in the Matthean edition of his commentary series on the Passion:

The end is near and Jesus has finished his great ministry of teaching the disciples, which Matthew has especially illustrated throughout the Gospel by means of Jesus’ major discourses. Now Jesus’ teaching draws to a close; there remains only one lesson, that of his obedient death.-The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (Wilmington:Michael Glazier, 1985), pg. 50.

John P. Meir is of the same opinion. The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Cornelius A Lapide, and many others see it as a link only to the last discourse. Perhaps Rabanus, who is quoted by Aquinas in the Cantena Aurea is correct; he places emphasis on the word “finished” (completed) and sees it as a reference to all that Jesus both did and taught. Inasmuch as Our Lord goes on to speak about his passion in verse 2, which he had predicted on three occasions outside of the great discourses, and since there are many allusions in the Passion Narrative to previous events in the Gospel, I tend to think Rabanus is correct.

It is interesting to note that Jesus’ last great discourse takes place on the Mount of Olives and is followed by a reference to his death. Some see this as an allusion to the last discourse of Moses which is ended with words similar to Mt 26:1: “And Moses made an end of speaking ALL THESE WORDS to all Israel (Deut 32:45). Moses then climbs Mount Nebo, views the promised land, and dies.

26:2 “You know that after two days the passover comes, and the Son of Man is to be delivered up to be crucified.““

The time reference of “after two days” places these words of Jesus and the machinations of the chief priests (vs 3-4) and elders on Wednesday of Holy Week, known in the Catholic liturgical tradition as Spy Wednesday because of St Mark’s account which tells us that the Jewish leaders “kept looking” for a way to kill him. Matthew will place the emphasis on their plotting to kill Jesus, rather than on their vigilance to see it done (see below).

St Matthew here draws a close connection between the death of Jesus and the Passover; but St John will bring out more fully the implications. I would like to note the irony of the statement. At a time when devout Jews would be preparing for one of the great worship feasts; a feast which celebrated their liberation from slavery and service to false gods and a transferal to new life in the Holy Land; the Jewish leaders are plotting the arrest Jesus and put him to death. The feast was supposed to be a remembrance of what God had done for them, but they take counsel concerning what to do with Jesus.
You know… They know because on three previous occasions Our Blessed Lord had predicted his passion (16:21; 17:22-23; 20:17-19). As in each of those instances (see their broader contexts), so too here, the apostles are shown not getting the full significance of what is being said (6-13). This passage is unique to Matthew’s Gospel.
The Son of Man is to be delivered up to be crucified. Jesus used the misunderstandings which occurred in the first three predictions to issue some teachings about discipleship; here no such thing takes place. The fact that there is absolutely no reaction whatsoever on the part of the disciples to this fourth announcement is striking, because Jesus is no longer speaking of an event in the future, as he had on the previous occasions (”shall be delivered up”); here he speaks in the present “is being delivered up” (Greek text). This emphasizes the nearness of the event and its inevitability. Some see the words as an announcement which puts the events into motion (see note on 26:3). The phrase, which is in reality a single word in Greek, is in the present tense with the passive voice. Scholars sometimes call this construction, when used in prophecy, “the divine passive,” for it highlights God as the agent of the event.

26:3-4 Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people, into the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas; and they took counsel together that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him.

Then… The word “then” which begins this verse is significant in light of what was said about the divine passive in the previous note. On previous occasions some leaders had attempted to arrest and kill Jesus but those plans came to nothing. Now, in verse 2, Jesus has set in motion the events about to unfold in accord with the Father’s will, and not in accord with the will of the leaders (their plan to arrest Jesus after the Passover [vs 5] will be thwarted). It is certainly no accident that the words of Jesus,- “The Son of Man is being delivered up”-come before the narration of the plot.

They gathered together… The “gathering” of the “chief priests and elders of the people to plot against Jesus calls to mind the first persecution of the Messiah. Recall that King Herod, upon hearing of the birth of the “King of the Jews” had “gathered together the chief priests and scribes of the people” (2:4). Already at the crib the cross was being foreshadowed.

And they took counsel together that they might take Jesus by subtlety and kill him. Calls to mind Psalm 2:1-2: “Why do the nations rage, and the peoples meditate a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and His anointed one.” Historically/literally the psalm is referring to a rebellion of Gentile peoples and rulers resulting from the ascension of a new Davidic king (the death of a monarch and the rise of his heir often motivated such rebellion on the part of subservient nations). Because the Jewish leaders have set themselves against God and his anointed (christened) one, they are no better than gentiles. In Acts 4, after having been told by the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of the Jews consisting of chief priest, scribes and elders, not to preach about Jesus, the apostles prayed this psalm (Acts 4:1-28). The connection with the psalm and the infancy narrative helps explain why Matthew emphasizes the plotting (taking counsel) of the leaders, as opposed to Mark’s emphasis on their incessant watching.
Take Jesus by subtlety and kill him. the word “subtlety” calls to mind the description of the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:1). The plot takes place in a “court” of the high priest (vs 3); can this be taken as a garden? Perhaps, with this reference to subtlety and to the gathering together of the leaders, we are to call to mind Our Lord’s previous description of the scribes and Pharisees as “serpents,” and “offspring of vipers” who, like their ancestors, were responsible for “shedding righteous blood” and thwarting Jesus’ plan to “gather together” his people (see 23:29-39).

26:5 But they said, “not during the feast, lest a tumult arise among the people.” The leader’s fear of the people has been mentioned previously (21:46). The desire not to arrest and execute Jesus during the Passover will be thwarted. Thus this stated desire of their stands in marked contrast to Jesus’ prediction in verse 2.