Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 26

St. Hilary of Poitiers: After the discourse in which the Lord had declared that He would return in splendor, He announced His approaching Passion to them, so that they might learn the close connection between the sacrament of the Cross and the glory of eternity.

Rabanus Maurus: "All these sayings" refers to His teachings about the consummation of the world and the day of judgment. Or, He had "finished" because He had fulfilled in action and preaching all things from the beginning of the Gospel to His Passion.

Origen of Alexandria: Yet it is not simply "all," but "all these," for there were other sayings He had to speak before He would be delivered up.

St. Augustine of Hippo: We gather from John's account that six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, and from there entered Jerusalem sitting on a donkey. After this, the events that are related to have happened in Jerusalem took place. We understand, therefore, that four days elapsed from His coming to Bethany, making this two days before the Passover. The difference between the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread is this: the name Passover is given to the one day on which the lamb was slain in the evening, that is, the fourteenth day of the first month. On the fifteenth day, when the people came out of Egypt, the festival of unleavened bread followed. The Evangelists, however, seem to use the terms interchangeably.^{i 1}

St. Jerome: The Passover, called in Hebrew Phase, does not come, as most think, from the Greek πασχειν ("to suffer"), but from the Hebrew word meaning "to pass over." This is because the destroyer passed over when he saw the blood on the doors of the Israelites and did not strike them, or because the Lord Himself walked on high, helping His people.

Remigius of Auxerre: Or, it is because, by the Lord's help, the Israelite people, freed from Egyptian bondage, passed forth into liberty.

Origen of Alexandria: He did not say, "After two days the feast of the Passover will be," or "will come," but rather, "the Passover will be offered."ⁱ He said this not to mean the ordinary annual Passover, but a Passover such as had never been before.

Remigius of Auxerre: Mystically, it is called the Passover because on that day Christ passed from this world to His Father—from death to life, from corruption to incorruption—and because He redeemed the world by causing it to pass in salvation from the slavery of the Devil.

St. Jerome: After the two days of the shining light of the Old and New Testaments, the true Passover is slain for the world. Likewise, our Passover is celebrated when we leave the things of earth and hasten to the things of heaven.

Origen of Alexandria: He foretells His crucifixion to His disciples, adding, And the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified. This fortified them against the shock of surprise that the sight of their Master being led to crucifixion would have otherwise caused.

He expresses it impersonally—"will be delivered"—because multiple agents were at work: God delivered Him up in mercy for the human race; Judas delivered Him from greed; the priests from envy; and the Devil from fear that His teaching would pluck the human race from his hand. The Devil, however, was little aware of how much more would be accomplished by His death than by either His teaching or His miracles.

Glossa Ordinaria: Then the Evangelist presents to us the hidden springs and machinery by which the Lord's Passion was brought about. ¹

Remigius of Auxerre: This "then" refers to the preceding words and means before the Feast of the Passover.

Origen of Alexandria: They were not true priests and elders, but priests and elders of what seemed to be the people of God but was, in fact, the people of Gomorrah. Not knowing God's High Priest, they plotted against Him. Indeed, they took counsel even against Him who was older than them all, not recognizing the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15).

St. John Chrysostom: With such evil intentions, they came to the chief priest, seeking approval from the very source from which a prohibition should have come. There were several chief priests at that time, while the Law allowed only one, from which it was clear that the dissolution of the Jewish state was beginning. For Moses had commanded that there should be one chief priest, whose office would be filled upon his death, but over time it became an annual position. Therefore, all those who had previously been chief priestsⁱ are here called "chief priests."

Remigius of Auxerre: They are condemned both because they were gathered together and because they were the chief priests. For the greater the number and the higher the rank of those who band together for any evil deed, the greater the enormity of their actions and the heavier the punishment stored up for them.

To show the Lord's innocence and openness, the Evangelist adds, that they might take Jesus by stealth, and kill him.

St. John Chrysostom: For what, then, did they conspire—to seize Him secretly, or to put Him to death? For both. But they feared the people and therefore waited until the feast was over, for they said, not on the feast day. The Devil did not want Christ to suffer at the Passover, so that His Passion would not be widely known. The chief priests had no fear with respect to God—namely, that their guilt would be aggravated by the season—but only took human factors into account: Lest there be an uproar among the people.

Origen of Alexandria: This was because of the factions among the people: those who favored and those who hated Christ, those who believed and those who did not.

St. Leo the Great: This precaution of the chief priests did not arise from reverence for the festival but from concern for the success of their plot. They feared an uprising at that time, not because of the guilt the people might thereby incur, but because they might rescue Christ. ²

St. John Chrysostom: But their fury overrode their caution, and finding a betrayer, they put Christ to death in the middle of the feast.

St. Leo the Great: We recognize here a providential arrangement by which the chief men of the Jews, who had often sought opportunities to carry out their cruel purposes against Christ, could not succeed until the days of the Passover celebration. For it was fitting that the things which had long been promised in symbol and mystery should be accomplished in plain reality; that the symbolic lamb should be replaced by the true one, and one sacrifice encompass the whole array of previous sacrifices. Shadows had to give way to substance, and copies to the presence of the original. Victim is exchanged for victim, blood is abolished by blood, and the festival of the Law is at once fulfilled and transformed. ³

Glossa Ordinaria: Having presented the counsels of the Jewish leaders concerning the death of Christ, the Evangelist proceeds to describe their execution. He recounts the bargain Judas made with the Jews to hand Him over, but first shows the cause of this betrayal. Judas was grieved that the ointment the woman poured on Christ's head had not been sold so that he might have taken some of the money for himself. To make up for this loss, he was willing to betray his Master.¹

Therefore, he continues, "Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper."

St. Jerome: This does not mean he was still a leper, but having been one and then healed by the Savior, he retained the name to show forth the power of the One who healed him.

Rabanus Maurus: "Alabaster" is a kind of marble, white but marked with veins of different colors, which was used for vessels to hold ointment because it was said to preserve it from corruption.

St. Jerome: Another Evangelist, instead of "alabastrum," has "nardum pisticam," that is, genuine and unadulterated.ⁱ

Rabanus Maurus: From the Greek πιστις (pistis), meaning faith, comes "pisticus," meaning faithful. For this ointment was pure and unadulterated.

Origen of Alexandria: Someone might perhaps think that the Evangelists wrote about four different women, but I agree with those who think there are only three: one described by Matthew and Mark, one by Luke, and another by John.

St. Jerome: Let no one think that the woman who anointed His head and the one who anointed His feet were the same person. The latter washed His feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair, and is plainly said to have been a prostitute. But of this woman, nothing of the sort is recorded; indeed, a prostitute could not have at once been made worthy of anointing the Lord's head.

St. Ambrose of Milan: It is possible, therefore, that they were different women, and so all appearance of contradiction between the Evangelists is removed. Or, it is possible that it was the same woman at two different times and in two different stages of merit: first, while still a sinner, and afterwards, more advanced.²

St. John Chrysostom: In this way, it may be the same woman in the three Evangelists: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And not without good reason does the Evangelist mention Simon's leprosy, for it shows what gave this woman the confidence to come to Christ.

Leprosy was an unclean disease. When she saw that Jesus had healed the man with whom He was now lodging, she trusted that He could also cleanse the uncleanness of her soul. Whereas other women came to Christ to be healed in their bodies, she came only for the honor and healing of her soul, having no disease in her body. For this, she is worthy of our highest admiration. But the woman in John's Gospel is different—the wonderful sister of Lazarus.³

Origen of Alexandria: 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. Furthermore, according to John, Jesus came to Bethany six days before the Passover, where Mary and Martha made Him a supper. But here, the event takes place in the house of Simon the leper, two days before the Passover.

And in Matthew and Mark, it is the disciples who are indignant, with good intent; in John, it is Judas alone, with the intent to steal; in Luke, no one finds fault.

St. Gregory the Great: Or, we may think that this is the same woman whom Luke calls a "sinner" and John names Mary.⁴

St. Augustine of Hippo: Although the action described in Luke is the same as the one described here, and the name of the man with whom the Lord dined is the same (for Luke also names Simon), it is more probable that this was another Simon, not the leper, in whose house in Bethany these things were done. This is because it is not contrary to nature or custom for two men to have the same name.⁵

I would suppose that the woman who on that occasion came near to Jesus' feet and this woman were not two different people, but that the same Mary did this twice. The first time is the one narrated by Luke. John even mentions it in praise of Mary before Christ's coming to Bethany: It was that Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick (John 11:2). Mary, therefore, had done this before.

The anointing she did later in Bethany is distinct from Luke's account but is the same event recorded by John, Matthew, and Mark. The fact that Matthew and Mark say she anointed the Lord's head, while John says His feet, can be reconciled by supposing that she anointed both.

Against this, one might raise an objection from what Mark says: that she anointed His head by breaking the box over it, so that none of the ointment could have been left to anoint His feet as well. Let such a critic understand that His feet were anointed first, before the box was broken. While it was still whole, enough ointment remained in it to anoint His head by breaking the box and pouring out its contents.

But let no one suppose that the Lord's feet were bathed in ointment by this woman in the manner of the luxurious and debauched. In all things of this nature, it is not the action itself but the mind of the one performing it that is at fault. Whoever uses things in a way that goes beyond the bounds observed by the good people with whom he lives either has a special meaningⁱ in what he does or is corrupt. Therefore, what is a vice in others becomes a sign of something great when done by a divine or prophetic person.⁶

The good fragrance is the good reputation one gains through the works of a good life; in following Christ's footsteps, one sheds a most precious fragrance on His feet.

Still, there may seem to be a discrepancy between the narratives of Matthew and Mark, who say, "after two days is the feast of the Passover," and then bring Jesus to Bethany, and that of John, who, in relating this history of the ointment, says, "Six days before the Passover."⁷

Those who argue this do not understand that in Matthew and Mark, the events in Bethany are inserted out of their chronological place, a little later than when they occurred. It should be observed that neither of them introduces their account with the word "afterwards."

St. John Chrysostom: The disciples had heard their Master say, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice (Matthew 9:13). Therefore, they thought among themselves, "If He does not accept burnt offerings, much less will He accept the use of such an ointment as this."

St. Jerome: I know that some raise an objection here, because John says that Judas alone was grieved (since he held the money bag and was a thief from the beginning), while Matthew says that all the disciples were sorrowful. These critics do not know the rhetorical figure of syllepsis, by which one name is used for many, and many for one. For example, Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews, They were sawn asunder (Hebrews 11:37), when it is thought that only one person, namely Isaiah, was.

St. Augustine of Hippo: We may, however, understand that the other disciples thought or said the same thing, or that they agreed with what Judas said, and thus Matthew and Mark described their common consent. But Judas said it because he was a thief, while the others said it out of their care for the poor. John wished to mention it only in the case of Judas, whose thievish propensity he thought ought to be recorded.⁸

St. John Chrysostom: The disciples, then, thought this, but Jesus, who saw the woman's thoughts, allowed it. For her piety was great and her ardor was unspeakable, which is why He condescended to allow her to pour the ointment on His head. Just as the Father accepted the smoke and odor of the slain victim, so also Christ accepted this votive anointing of His head, even though the disciples, who could not see her heart, murmured.

Remigius of Auxerre: He clearly shows that the Apostles had said something harsh against her when He says, Why do you trouble the woman? And He beautifully adds, She has done a good work for me. This is as much as to say, "It is not a waste of ointment, as you claim, but a good work—that is, a service of piety and devotion."

St. John Chrysostom: And He does not merely say, She has done a good work, but first says, Why do you trouble the woman? This teaches us that we ought to receive, cherish, and cultivate every good act done by anyone, even if it lacks something of exact propriety, and not demand strict correctness from a beginner. If He had been asked before the woman did this, He would not have directed her to do it. But since it was already done, the disciples' rebuke was out of place, and He Himself spoke these things for her comfort, to guard her from their persistent attacks.

Remigius of Auxerre: For you always have the poor with you. In these words, the Lord shows with clear purpose that those who ministered to Him from their substance while He lived in a mortal body were not to be blamed. This is because the poor would always be in the Church, and believers could do good to them whenever they wished, but He would remain with them in the body for only a very short time.

From this it follows, But me you will not always have.

St. Jerome: Here a question arises: how could the Lord have said elsewhere to His disciples, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world (Matthew 28:20), but here say, Me you will not always have?

I suppose that in this passage He is speaking of His bodily presence, which would not be with them after the resurrection for daily interaction and friendship, as it was then.

Remigius of Auxerre: Or, this can be explained by supposing it was spoken to Judas only. He did not say, "You do not have," but You will not have, because this was spoken in the person of Judas to all his followers. And He says, not always, even though they never truly have Him, because the wicked seem to have Christ in this present world while they mix with His members and approach His table. But they will not have Him in this way forever, for He will one day say to His elect, Come, you blessed of my Father (Matthew 25:34).

It was the custom among this people to embalm the bodies of the dead with various spices so that they might be preserved from decay for as long as possible. Since this woman was eager to embalm the Lord's dead body but would be unable to (because she would be preempted by His resurrection), it was arranged by Divine Providence that she should anoint the Lord's living body instead. This, then, is what He means: in pouring this ointment, she is signifying My death and burial by anointing My living body.

St. John Chrysostom: That this mention of His death and burial might not cause her to despair, He comforts her with what follows: Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.

Rabanus Maurus: That is, to whatever place throughout the whole world the Church spreads, what she has done will also be told. What is added also signifies that just as Judas, by his rebuke of her, earned an evil reputation for treachery, so she has earned the glory of pious devotion.

St. Jerome: Note His knowledge of the future: though He was about to suffer death within two days, He knew that His Gospel would be preached throughout the whole world.

St. John Chrysostom: Behold the fulfillment of this saying! To whatever part of the world you go, you will find this woman famous, and this has been accomplished by the power of Him who spoke this word. How many victories of kings and captains have been forgotten! How many who built cities and enslaved nations are now known neither by report nor by name!

But the deed of this woman—pouring ointment in a leper's house in the presence of twelve men—resounds throughout the world. And though so much time has passed, the memory of what was done has not been erased.

But why did He promise this woman no spiritual gift, but only everlasting remembrance? Because the promise He did make gave her confidence that she would receive the other as well. Since she performed a good work, it is clear that she will receive an adequate reward.

St. Jerome: Mystically, the Lord, about to suffer for the whole world, stays in Bethany, the "house of obedience," which was once the house of Simon the leper. The name Simon is also interpreted as "obedient," or, according to another interpretation, "the world," in whose house the Church is healed.

Origen of Alexandria: Throughout Scripture, oil represents the work of mercy, with which the lamp of the word is fed. It can also represent doctrine, the hearing of which sustains the word of faith once it is kindled. All substances with which people anoint are comprehensively called "oil," and one kind of oil is ointment, and one kind of ointment is precious.

Similarly, all righteous acts are called good works. Of these good works, there is one kind that we do for or to people, and another that we do for or to God. Likewise, what we do for God in part advances the good of people, and in part, the glory of God.

For example, one might do a kindness to a person out of feelings of natural righteousness, not for God's sake, as the Gentiles sometimes did. Such a work is like common oil with no fine fragrance, yet it is acceptable to God. For, as Peter says in Clement, the good works that unbelievers do profit them in this world but do not help them gain eternal life in the next. Those who do the same for God's sake, however, profit not only in this world but also in the next, and what they do is an ointment of good fragrance.

Another kind of work is that done for the good of people, such as giving alms and the like. He who does this for Christians anoints the Lord's feet, for they are the Lord's feet; this is what penitents are most often found doing for the remission of their sins. But he who devotes himself to chastity, and continues in fasting, prayer, and other things that contribute only to God's glory—this is the ointment that anoints the Lord's head, and its fragrance fills the whole Church. This is the work suitable not for penitents, but for the perfect.

This anointing of the head is also the doctrine that is necessary for humanity. 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 (Romans 6:4).

St. Hilary of Poitiers: This woman prefigures the Gentile people, who gave glory to God in Christ's passion. For she anointed His head—and the head of Christ is God—and the ointment is the fruit of good works. The disciples, however, anxious for the salvation of Israel, say that the ointment ought to have been sold for the poor, prophetically designating the faithless Jews by the name "poor."

The Lord answers that there is abundant time for them to show their care for the poor, but that salvation can be extended to the Gentiles only through obedience to His command. That is, they must be buried together with Him through the pouring out of this woman's ointment, because regeneration can only be given to those who are dead in the profession of baptism.

And this work of hers will be told wherever the Gospel is preached, because when Israel draws back, the glory of the Gospel is proclaimed through the faith of the Gentiles.

Glossa Ordinaria: Having described the occasion of his treachery, the Evangelist proceeds to recount the manner of it.¹

St. John Chrysostom: "Then"—that is, when he heard that this Gospel would be preached everywhere. This made him afraid, as it was indeed a mark of unspeakable power.

St. Augustine of Hippo: The order of the narrative is this: The Lord says, "You know that after two days the Passover is coming..."; then the Chief Priests and Scribes assembled; and then one of the twelve went.²

Thus, the narrative of what took place at Bethany is inserted as a digression, describing an earlier event that occurred between the council's decision, "Lest there be an uproar," and the statement, "Then one of the twelve went."

Origen of Alexandria: "He went"—against the one high priest who was made a Priest forever—to many high priests, to sell for a price the one who sought to redeem the whole world.

Rabanus Maurus: He says Judas "went" because he was neither compelled nor invited, but formed this wicked design of his own free will.

St. John Chrysostom: "One of the twelve"—which is to say, from that first band of disciples who were chosen for their preeminent merit.ⁱ

Glossa Ordinaria: The evangelist adds his distinctive name, "Iscariot," because there was another Judas.³

Remigius of Auxerre: He was so-called from the village of Scariotha, from where he came.

St. Leo the Great: He did not forsake Christ out of fear, but cast Him off through a lust for money. For compared to the love of money, all our other affections are weak. The soul thirsty for gain does not fear to die for something very small; there is no trace of righteousness in a heart where covetousness has taken up its home.

The traitor Judas, intoxicated with this poison and thirsty for profit, was so foolishly hardened that he sold his Lord and Master.⁴

St. Jerome: The wretched Judas eagerly sought to replace the loss he believed he had incurred from the ointment by selling his Master. He did not demand a fixed sum, lest his treachery seem like a profitable venture. Instead, as if handing over a worthless slave, he left it to the buyers to determine how much they would give.

Origen of Alexandria: All who accept material or worldly things to cast the Savior and the word of truth out of their thoughts do the same thing. "And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver," as many pieces as the years the Savior had lived in the world.ⁱ

St. Jerome: Joseph was not sold for twenty pieces of gold, as many who follow the Septuagint think, but for twenty pieces of silver, as the Hebrew text has it (Genesis 37:28). For it could not be that the servant should be more valuable than his Master.ⁱ

St. Augustine of Hippo: The fact that the Lord was sold by Judas for thirty pieces of silver signifies the unrighteous Jews. Pursuing carnal and temporal things, which relate to the five bodily senses, they refuse to have Christ. Since they did this in the sixth age of the world, their receiving five times six as the price of the Lord is thus signified. Furthermore, because the Lord's words are silver, but they understood even the Law in a carnal way, it is as if they had stamped on silver the image of the worldly dominion they clung to when they renounced the Lord.⁵

Origen of Alexandria: The "opportunity" Judas sought is further explained by Luke: "how he might betray him in the absence of the multitude" (Luke 22:6), when the populace was not with Jesus, but He had withdrawn with His disciples. This is what Judas did, delivering Him up after supper when He had withdrawn to the Garden of Gethsemane.

From that time forward, this has been the kind of opportunity sought by those who would betray the word of God in times of persecution—a time when the multitude of believers is not gathered around the word of truth.

Glossa Ordinaria: After covering the events leading up to the Passion—namely, the announcement of the Chief Priests' counsel and the agreement for His betrayal—the Evangelist continues the account in the order of events, saying, "On the first day of unleavened bread." ¹

St. Jerome: The first day of unleavened bread is the fourteenth day of the first month, when the lamb is killed, the moon is full, and leaven is removed.

Remigius of Auxerre: Note that among the Jews, the Passover is celebrated on the first day, and the following seven are called the days of unleavened bread. Here, however, "the first day of unleavened bread" means the day of the Passover itself.

St. John Chrysostom: Or, by "the first day," he means the day before the festival of unleavened bread began. For the Jews always counted their day from the evening, and the day he refers to was the one on which the Passover was to be killed in the evening—namely, Thursday.^{i 2}

Remigius of Auxerre: But someone might ask: If that symbolic lamb prefigured the true Lamb, why did Christ not suffer on the same night the lamb was always killed? It should be noted that on this night, He entrusted to His disciples the mysteries of His flesh and blood to be celebrated. Then, when He was seized and bound by the Jews, He consecrated the beginning of His sacrifice, that is, His Passion. The disciples came to Him, and the traitor Judas was no doubt among them.

St. John Chrysostom: From this it is clear that He had neither a house nor a place to stay. Nor, I conclude, did the disciples have one, for they surely would have invited Him there.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Regarding the words, "Go into the city to such a man," this refers to the one whom Mark and Luke call "the good-man of the house" or "the master of the house." When Matthew says, "to such a man," he should be understood as using his own words for the sake of brevity, since everyone knows that no one actually speaks that way. Matthew adds this phrase not because the Lord used those exact words, but to show us that the disciples were not sent to just anyone in the city, but to a specific person. ³

St. John Chrysostom: Or, we could say that the phrase "to such a man" shows that He sent them to someone they did not know, thereby teaching them that He was able to avoid His Passion. For if He could persuade this man to host Him, how could He not have prevailed over those who crucified Him, if He had chosen not to suffer? Indeed, I am amazed not only that the man hosted Him, though He was a stranger, but that he did so in defiance of the hatred of the crowd.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Alternatively, Matthew does not name the man in whose house Christ would celebrate the Passover because the name "Christian" was not yet held in honor among the believers.

Rabanus Maurus: Or, he omits the name so that all who wish to celebrate the true Passover and receive Christ into the dwelling place of their own minds might understand that the opportunity is offered to them.

St. Jerome: In this, the New Testament also follows the practice of the Old, in which we often read phrases like, "He said to him," and "In this or that place," without naming the person or place.

St. John Chrysostom: He said, "My time is at hand," both to strengthen His disciples for the event through His many announcements of the Passion, and at the same time to show that He undertook it voluntarily.

In the words, "I will keep the Passover at your house," we see that to the very last day He was not disobedient to the Law. He adds, "with my disciples," so that sufficient preparation could be made and so that the one to whom He sent them would not think He wished to be hidden.

Origen of Alexandria: Someone may argueⁱ that because Jesus kept the Passover with Jewish observances, we as followers of Christ should do the same. They forget that Jesus was "made under the Law" (Galatians 4:4), not so that He would leave those under the Law to remain there, but so that He might lead them out of it. How much less fitting is it, then, for those who were previously without the Law to enter into it now?

We celebrate spiritually the things that were celebrated physically under the Law, keeping the Passover "in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Corinthians 5:8). We do this according to the will of the Lamb, who said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life in you" (John 6:53).