John Calvin Commentary Matthew 26

Christ now confirms again what we have seen He had previously predicted to His disciples. But this last prediction clearly shows how willingly He offered Himself to die; and it was necessary that He should do so, because God could not be appeased except by a sacrifice of obedience. He intended, at the same time, to prevent the disciples from taking offense, so that they would not be completely discouraged by the thought that He was dragged to death by necessity.

Two purposes were therefore served by this statement: first, to testify that the Son of God willingly surrendered Himself to die in order to reconcile the world to the Father (for in no other way could the guilt of sins have been expiated, or righteousness obtained for us); and, secondly, that He did not die like one oppressed by violence He could not escape, but because He voluntarily offered Himself to die. He therefore declares that He comes to Jerusalem with the express intention of suffering death there. For while He was at liberty to withdraw and to dwell in a safe retreat until that time had come, He knowingly and willingly comes forward at the exact time.

And though it was of no advantage to the disciples to be informed, at that time, of the obedience He was rendering to the Father, yet afterwards this doctrine contributed in no small degree to the edification of their faith. Likewise, it is of singular usefulness to us today. For we behold, as in a bright mirror, the voluntary sacrifice by which all the transgressions of the world were blotted out; and as we contemplate the Son of God advancing with cheerfulness and courage to death, we already behold Him victorious over death.

Then were assembled the chief priests. Matthew does not mean that they assembled during the two days, but he introduces this narrative to show that Christ was not led by any opinion of man to fix the day of his death. For by what conjectures could he have been led to it, since his enemies themselves had resolved to delay for a time? The meaning therefore is that by the spirit of prophecy he spoke of his own death, which no one could have suspected to be so near at hand.

John explains the reason why the scribes and priests held this meeting: it was because, from day to day, the people flocked to Christ in greater multitudes (John 11:48). And at that time it was decided, at the instigation of Caiaphas, that he should be put to death, because they could not succeed against him in any other way.

But they said, Not during the festival. They did not think it a suitable time, until the festival was past and the crowd had dispersed.

From this, we infer that although those hungry dogs eagerly opened their mouths to devour Christ, or rather, rushed furiously upon him, God still withheld them by a secret restraint from doing anything by their own deliberation or at their pleasure. To the extent of their power, they seek to delay until another time; but, contrary to their desire, God hastens the hour.

And it is very important for us to maintain that Christ was not unexpectedly dragged to death by the violence of his enemies, but was led to it by the providence of God. For our confidence in the propitiation is founded on the conviction that He was offered to God as that sacrifice which God had appointed from the beginning.

Therefore, He determined that His Son should be sacrificed on the very day of the passover, so that the ancient figure might give way to the only sacrifice of eternal redemption. Those who had no other intention than to ruin Christ thought that another time would be more appropriate. But God, who had appointed Him to be a sacrifice for the expiation of sins, selected a suitable day for contrasting the substance with its shadow by placing them together. From this, we also obtain a brighter display of the fruit of Christ’s suffering.

And when Jesus was in Bethany. What the Evangelist now relates had happened a little before Christ came to Jerusalem, but is here introduced fittingly, to inform us what reason suddenly drove the priests to hurry. They did not venture to attack Christ by open violence, and to overcome him by stratagem was no easy matter. However, now that Judas suggests to them a plan they had not considered, the very ease of execution leads them to adopt a different opinion.

Regarding some slight diversity between John’s narrative and those of Matthew and Mark, it is easy to resolve the apparent inconsistency, which has led some commentators mistakenly to imagine that it is a different narrative. John 12:3 states the name of the woman who anointed Christ, which is omitted by the other two Evangelists. However, John does not mention the person who received Christ as a guest, while Matthew 26:6 and Mark 14:3 explicitly state that he was then at supper in the house of Simon the leper.

As for John saying that his feet were anointed, while the other two Evangelists say that she anointed his head, this involves no contradiction. Unquestionably, we know that anointments were not poured on the feet; but as it was then poured in greater abundance than usual, John, by way of amplification, informs us that Christ’s very feet were moistened with the oil.

Mark also relates that she broke the alabaster-box, and poured the whole of the ointment on his head; and it agrees very well with this to say that it flowed down to his feet. Therefore, let us hold it as a settled point that all three Evangelists relate the same narrative.

And when the disciples saw it. This is also not unusual for the Evangelists: when something has been done by one person, to attribute it to many if they give their consent. John says that the murmur proceeded from Judas, who betrayed Christ (John 12:4). Matthew and Mark include all the disciples with him. The reason is that none of the others would ever have dared to murmur if the wicked slander of Judas had not served as a torch to ignite them. But when he began, under a plausible pretext, to condemn the expense as superfluous, all of them easily caught the contagion.

This example shows what danger arises from malignant and venomous tongues. Even those who are naturally reasonable, candid, and modest, if they do not exercise prudence and caution, are easily deceived by unfavorable speeches and led to adopt false judgments. But if light and foolish credulity induced the disciples of Christ to take part with Judas, what will become of us if we are too quick to accept murmurers who are in the habit of wickedly criticizing the best actions?

We ought to draw another warning from this: not to pronounce rashly on a matter that is not sufficiently known. The disciples seized on what Judas said, and, as it had some show of plausibility, they were too harsh in forming a judgment. On the contrary, they ought to have inquired more fully if the action deserved reproof, especially when their Master was present, by whose decision it was their duty to abide. Therefore, let us understand that we act improperly when we form our opinion without paying regard to the word of God, for, as Paul informs us:

None of us liveth or dieth to himself, but all must stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, where we must give our account (Romans 14:7, 10; 2 Corinthians 5:10).

And though there was a wide difference between Judas and the others—because he wickedly held out a plausible cloak for his theft, while the rest were motivated by foolish simplicity—still we see how their imprudence withdrew them from Christ and made them the companions of Judas.