Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 26:1-16

"And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these words, he said unto his disciples, Ye know that after two days the passover cometh, and the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified. Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people, unto 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. But they said, Not during the feast, lest a tumult arise among people. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto him a woman having an alabaster cruse of exceeding precious ointment, and she poured it upon his head, as he sat at meat. But when the disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? For this [ointment] might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. But Jesus perceiving it said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, and said, What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought opportunity to deliver him [unto them.]" — Matthew 26:1-16 (ASV)

The Evangelist, having related the preparatory events for the Passion, here begins to discuss Christ’s Passion, which is divided into two parts. First, the Passion is recounted concerning what was done by the Jews; and second, it is recounted regarding what was done by the Gentiles: And when morning was come, etc. (Matthew 27:1). Concerning the first part, he addresses two things. First, the foretelling of the Lord’s Passion is related; and second, the Passion and the order of events are related, where it is said, Then went one of the twelve.

The Passion is foretold in three ways: by Christ’s words, by the plotting of His enemies, and third, by an action and homage. The second part is where it is said, Then were gathered together the chief priests and ancients of the people; and the third part is where it is said, And when Jesus was in Bethany.

Concerning the first point, he first relates the order of the foretelling, and then the foretelling itself. He relates the foretelling, where it is said: And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended all these words.

And the Evangelist speaks this way because Christ is the only one who can complete them. We ourselves can begin but not complete, as it is written: We say much, and yet want words . Likewise, he says, These words, namely, the words which Jesus had said from the beginning of His preaching, among which Jesus had said, Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 4:17). Or he is referring to the words which He had said concerning the foretelling of glory, because His Passion was an exaltation of glory: For which cause, God also hath exalted him and hath given him a name which is above all names, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:9–11). Similarly, he does not merely say that Christ completed ‘all His words,’ but instead, all these words, because He spoke everything that would be useful for believers and for the faith.

You know that after two days shall be the pasch. In this prediction, He does not merely predict the Pasch, but instead He says: After two days shall be the pasch. This was done to designate that Christ’s Passion is not just any suffering, but one signified by the Paschal sacrifice. And He says, After two days. By this, you should consider that these words were spoken on the thirteenth day of the lunar month, that is, on Tuesday, because on the fifteenth day the Pasch is celebrated. It is stated in John 12 that the Lord came to Bethany, and this was Saturday. The next day He came to Jerusalem, and He then cast out the buyers and the sellers. On the following day, He returned to Bethany, and then on that day He delivered these parables.

And on that day, when He had ended all these words, He said: You know that after two days shall be the pasch. This name Pascha, according to what Jerome says, is derived from the word for feeding, but more properly it is derived from the Phase [Pasach], which means Passover.

Now there is a fourfold Passover, in that the Pasch may be understood in four ways:

• Historically, the Pasch was celebrated when the destroyer slew the firstborn of Egypt; then the Lord commanded that they eat the Pasch (Exodus 12).
• Allegorically, it is understood as Christ’s passing away by death; concerning this it is written: Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father, etc. (John 13:1).
• Moreover, in the moral or typical sense, it is understood as one having passed from a worldly way of life to a spiritual way of life: Come over to me, all ye that desire me .
• Again, there is a general passage, in that it is said that heaven and earth shall pass away, etc.

Hence, it is said, after two days, namely, after the teaching of the Old Law and of the New Law. In Greek, the word Pasch is derived from the word pasqui, which means to be driven to pasture. Therefore, Christ, suitably knowing that He would pass from the world to His Father, said: And the Son of man shall be delivered up to be crucified.

He does not say by whom He shall be delivered up, because He was delivered up by His Father: He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all (Romans 8:32). Likewise, He was delivered up by Himself: He hath loved us and hath delivered himself for us, etc. (Ephesians 5:2). Similarly, He was delivered up by Judas: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? (Matthew 26:15). Moreover, He was delivered up by the Jews to Pilate: Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me (John 18:35). Again, He was delivered up by Pilate to the Gentiles; hence, it is said: He delivered him to them to be crucified (John 19:16).

Then were gathered together the chief priests, etc. In this part, the perverse plan of the Pharisees is related. First, their plan concerning Christ’s Passion is related; and second, their plan concerning a delay is related, where it is said, But they said: Not on the festival day.

Concerning the first point, we can observe that the Jews’ sin is aggravated by the time of their sin, because their sin was then, when the Paschal festival was at hand: If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy own will in my holy day (Isaiah 58:13). But, as I believe, the word then does not refer to that very day, but to about that time, because it is stated in John 11 that They gathered a council and from that day therefore they devised to put him to death (John 11:47, 53). And, thereafter, it is said that Jesus withdrew into a region near the desert. Hence, this was not done immediately.

Likewise, the Jews’ sin is aggravated by several factors:

• By their large number; hence, it is said: My soul hateth your solemnities: for your hands are full of blood (Isaiah 1:14–15).
• By the status of those sinning, for they were the chief men; hence, it is said, chief priests: I will go to the great men, and will speak to them; and afterwards it continues, These have altogether broken the yoke more, and have burst the bonds (Jeremiah 5:5). And: The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord, and against his Christ (Psalms 2:2).
• By the place where they sinned, because they met in the court of the high priest. Hence, these men should have restrained others from evil, but they themselves were doing it: Iniquity came out from the ancient judges (Daniel 13:5).

But were there many chief priests? For the Lord had commanded that there would be only one chief priest, but he was not enough for them. Hence, on account of greed, they divided the chief priesthood. Likewise, they had already lost the chief priesthood, because they were buying the chief priesthood from the Romans. Or they call priests those who previously had been the high priests, and high priest the one who had held the office that year.

Likewise, what they were planning is mentioned: That by subtilty they might apprehend Jesus. And this was foolish, that is, to believe that they could apprehend by subtilty Him who knew all things: Their tongue is a piercing arrow, it hath spoken deceit (Jeremiah 9:8).

But they said: Not on the festival day. Here the delay is discussed, and the plan and the reason for the plan are related. But they said: Not on the festival day. Someone could say that they said this out of devotion; for that reason, the Evangelist eliminates this interpretation, saying: lest perhaps there should be a tumult among the people. For they knew that many held Him to be a prophet, and some even held Him to be Christ; for that reason, there was a dissension among the people, as it is stated in John 7 and John 10. Therefore, they feared that the people might take Him from their hands.

These men were thinking this, but Christ thought something else. Therefore, they were thinking two things: first, that they wanted to kill Him, and second, that He not be crucified on the feast day, which would signify that this immolation was superseding the immolation of the Paschal lamb.

And when Jesus was in Bethany. Here the foretelling is related by a woman’s action. First, the action is related; second, the reproach is related; and third, the excusing of the action is related. The second part is where it is said, And the disciples seeing it had indignation; and the third part is where it is said, And Jesus knowing it.

Concerning the first part, the Evangelist does four things:

1. The place is described.
2. The person is described.
3. The opportunity is related.
4. The deed is related.

First, the place is related in two ways, namely, in general and in particular. The general area is related when he says: And when Jesus was in Bethany; the particular place is related when he says: in the house of Simon the leper.

Note that he was not then a leper, but had been cured by Christ; for if he were then a leper, Christ would not have stayed with him, since that was forbidden in the Law. Nevertheless, both the general and particular places pertain to a mystery. Bethany means ‘house of obedience’; thus, His obedience is signified by this: He became obedient unto death (Philippians 2:8). Thus, it is fitting for Him to be in the house of a leper: And we have thought him as it were a leper (Isaiah 53:4). And He came there especially on account of these passages.

Another reason can be a literal one: specifically, it was so that this woman would have the confidence to come to Christ, because this leper was known to Mary, and his physical leprosy was cured by Him, and she was coming to be cured of her spiritual leprosy. And it should be noted that no one else is said to have come to Christ for spiritual health except this woman; for that reason, she deserved praise.

There came to him a woman. Consider the person. Matthew and Mark say that this happened in the same place, but John and Luke say it was not the same place (Luke 7; John 12). Therefore, this is an opinion of some, such as Origen, that there were multiple women.

Let us speak concerning the opinions of the two most prominent of these men. Jerome expressly says that this woman, about whom Luke speaks, was not the sister of Lazarus, because it is said of another woman that she anointed His feet, and of this woman that she anointed His head and feet. Ambrose, commenting on Luke’s Gospel, says that both can be said: that is, that she is the same woman, or that there are different women. If we say that she is the same, then we can say: ‘Even if she is the same woman, nevertheless, they do not have the same merit; but a sinner should not dare to touch His head, but after gaining confidence she anointed His head.’

And Augustine proves that she is the same woman, because in John 11:1-5, before she came to do this, he says: Now there was Mary the sister of Lazarus, who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair. Thus it seems that the woman of whom Luke speaks is the same as she who is the sister of Lazarus.

Origen says that the women—the one of whom Luke speaks and another of whom John speaks—are not the same. This can be proved by reason of the time, because that deed is read to have occurred before He went to Jerusalem; this was done when He says: You know that after two days shall be the pasch.

Likewise, it can be proved from the place, because the former woman was in Martha’s house (about whom it is written in John), while the latter was in the house of Simon.

Likewise, it can be proved by the fact that there a woman anointed His feet, but here a woman anointed His head. The fourth proof is what Judas said: To what purpose is this waste? But elsewhere he said, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor? (John 12:5).

Augustine says that she is the same woman and he replies to Origen’s reasons. To the first argument, he says that Matthew does not keep chronological order but relates the event, because due to this incident, Judas took the occasion of sinning when he saw the ointment poured out. What Origen objects to concerning the place, Augustine does not resolve. It can, however, be solved as follows: that this man was a high official and had authority, and the house belonged to them both because she was his relative. Otherwise, how else is it true what is said, namely, that They made him a supper there… and Lazarus was one of them that were at table with him (John 12:2)?

There came to him a woman having an alabaster box of ointment. Alabaster is a type of marble that is translucent, and some windows are made of it. Certain boxes were made out of this rock, in which ointments were stored (just as now they are made out of ground clay) because the ointments were preserved by its coolness; hence, the word alabastrum means an alabaster box full of ointment. It is said here to be precious, but elsewhere is said to be pistic nard. The word pistic is derived from the Greek word for ‘faith,’ from which pistic means ‘faithful.’ Hence, the word pistic means genuine or unadulterated. Afterwards, her action is related: And she poured it on his head as he was at table.

But here there is a twofold question. Why did Christ allow this, since it seems extravagant? Augustine replies to this in his book, On Christian Doctrine. Christ can be considered in one way as an ordinary person, and in another way as a prophetic person. Now considered as an ordinary person, this was something done to Him, but as a prophetic person, this was something done to Him as having a meaning.

An allegorical exposition is that it signifies Christ’s burial, because in ancient times it was customary that bodies would be anointed. In Mark 14 it is stated that she came beforehand to anoint His body for the burial.

Likewise, the anointing mystically signifies any good deed. Now this deed can be done in two ways, since some deeds are not done for God’s sake but for the sake of natural justice, such as a good deed of a Gentile; this is an ointment, but it is not precious. If one does a good deed for God’s sake, it is precious ointment. Hence, one anoints His feet when one does a good deed for the sake of one’s neighbor; but when one does a good deed for the glory of God, then one anoints His head.

But why does John say that she anointed His feet, while Matthew says that she anointed His head? Augustine says that she anointed both.

And why does Mark say that she broke the alabaster box? Augustine says that just as it sometimes happens that someone pours out a container so that nothing remains, and afterwards breaks the container, so, since nothing remained, she also broke it afterwards. Thus she did these things: she both poured out the ointment and also broke the container. Or, if someone wishes to misrepresent her actions, it can be said that she first anointed His feet, and then His head.

Then the rebuke of the woman follows: And the disciples seeing it had indignation. But here there is a conflict, because in John 12 it is said that only Judas said this, but this Evangelist says that they all spoke. There is a twofold answer, according to Jerome: for what is said here, that is, that the disciples spoke, is said by way of a synecdoche. ‘The disciples’ means ‘a disciple,’ and this manner of speech is common in Scripture; it is said, They were cut asunder (Hebrews 11:37), because one was cut asunder, specifically, no one else but Isaiah.

Or it can be said that all spoke, because, according to what Augustine says, Judas instigated them all to speak. Likewise, it can be said that the others were motivated by the needs of the poor, but this man (Judas) was motivated by greed; hence, they say: To what purpose is this waste?

But why did they say this? It is because they had heard the Lord often recommend works of mercy: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor (Matthew 19:21).

And Jesus knowing it, said to them. Here the excusing of the woman is related, and He does two things. First, He excuses and commends her; and second, He mentions her reward.

Amen I say to you, etc. First, He excuses her; second, He answers the disciples’ objection; and third, He explains what He had said. He says, therefore: Why do you trouble this woman? The Lord is always the advocate of this woman. Because the Pharisee was accusing her of sin, he said: If he were a prophet, he would know surely who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him, that she is a sinner, etc. (Luke 7:39), and the Lord excused her on the basis of her love.

Likewise, in Luke 10, Martha also accused her of idleness, and the Lord again excused her on the basis of her contemplation. Here, the disciples were accusing her for pouring out the ointment, and the Lord excuses her on the grounds of her devotion, saying: Why do you trouble this woman? You rush in upon the fatherless, and you endeavor to overthrow your friend (Job 6:27). She hath wrought a good work upon me; Do not withhold him from doing good, who is able: if thou art able, do good thyself (Proverbs 3:27).

Chrysostom says: It sometimes happens that someone does a good deed, generally speaking, and perhaps he could have done better. Therefore, one should act differently before the good deed and after the deed was done. After it has been done, one should be commended for the deed; but if the person were to come before doing the deed, he should be advised to do what is better. Therefore, one should suppose that if she had asked for His advice beforehand, He would have told her that she should give the ointment to the poor.

For the poor you have always with you, etc. Here, His answer to their objection is related, because they were saying that she could have given it to the poor. But me you have not always. This is true in relation to His bodily presence, but it is not true in relation to His spiritual presence. Hence, He says below: Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world (Matthew 28:20). And why did she do this? For she in pouring this ointment on my body hath done it for my burial.

And what is this? Did she intend to bury Christ? No. But, as Augustine says, just as the Holy Ghost moves someone to speak, so other times He moves someone to act; hence, it is written: Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, are not under the law (Romans 8:14; Galatians 5:18). Hence, it happens that someone may be instructed by the Holy Ghost to act for some meaning which one does not intend. So this woman intended to do a good deed, but the Holy Ghost ordained it for His burial.

He says: She hath wrought a good work upon me. Someone could say that to give to one’s neighbor would be a good work. That is true, but it would not be so good that it would be preached throughout the whole world. Amen I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done shall be told for a memory of her, meaning in remembrance of her.

Jerome says that He, being about to be crucified, foretells the spread of the Gospel in the whole world; and yet, it was not yet published, since Matthew had not yet written it. Likewise, observe that many men wanted to make known their own birth throughout the whole world, and the remembrance of them has been obliterated; yet, the remembrance of this deed has not been obliterated: The memory of the just is with praises (Proverbs 10:7); The just shall be in everlasting remembrance (Psalms 111:7).

Then went one of the twelve. Above, the Evangelist related the triple prediction of the Lord’s Passion; here he intends to narrate the Passion itself. He does two things: first, he introduces some preparatory events; and second, he treats of the Passion itself, where it is said, As he yet spoke, etc.

Now there are three preparatory events:

1. An account of the betrayal is related.
2. The institution of the Lord’s Communion is related.
3. An account of Christ’s prayer is related.

The second part is where it is said, And on the first day of the Azymes; and the third part is where it is said, Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani.

Concerning the first part, he does three things:

1. The person of the betrayer is described.
2. An account of the betrayal is related.
3. The caution of the betrayer is related.

Concerning the first part, he does three things. First, the person of the betrayer is described; second, an account of the betrayal is related; and third, the caution of the betrayer is related. He says, therefore, Then. You understand that he is not referring to what immediately preceded, because the account of this woman is said by a transposition; but it refers to what was said, that the chief priests and ancients of the people were gathered together… by subtilty they might apprehend Jesus and put him to death.

Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot. And his person is described by three things. He is described by his position, because he was one of the twelve—not merely one of the disciples, but one of the twelve specially called men: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil? (John 6:71).

But why did He choose a man who would be wicked and a traitor? The first reason can be to signify that He condemns no one because of his predestination, nor does He save anyone because of his predestination, but rather He saves on account of present justice. Hence, if a man were to be condemned on account of his predestination, deeds would not be ascribed to anyone.

Likewise, He chose him for the consolation of men, for He knew it would happen that many would be deceived in their choices (for example, this happened to Philip, who chose Simon the Magician); therefore, the Lord permitted that there be a traitor among His disciples.

Another reason could be so that no one would be reproached if someone in their group were wicked, since even in the first College of the Apostles, there was a wicked man.

Similarly, the person of the traitor is described by his name: Who was called Judas. Among the disciples there were two men who were called by this name; yet, one was wicked, by which it is indicated that some who confess God are good while others are wicked. Concerning the good it is said: Judea was made his sanctuary (Psalms 113:2). Concerning the wicked it is said: They profess that they know God: but in their works they deny him (Titus 1:16).

Moreover, he is described by his homeland, Iscariot. It is a certain village, and it is interpreted to mean ‘memorial of death,’ because Judas’s sin is held in remembrance. This can refer to what is said: The sin of Juda is written with a pen of iron, with the point of a diamond (Jeremiah 17:1).

Went to the chief priests, who were intending to kill Christ, forgetting what was said: Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, etc. (Psalms 1:1). And Jacob says in Genesis 49:6: Let not my soul go into their counsel.

And said to them. Here the account of his betrayal is related. First, the account is related; and second, the perpetration of the betrayal is related. And first, his greed is considered; and second, his presumption is considered.

His greed is considered when he says: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? For the sake of money he despised all friendship: There is not a more wicked thing than to love money: for such a one setteth even his own soul to sale . This man, because he did not restrain his greed, fell into perdition. For because he saw that he was defrauded of the price of the ointment, he therefore wanted to recuperate it by betraying Christ.

Similarly, his presumption is mentioned when he says: I will deliver him unto you. It was great presumption to betray Him who knows all things. Likewise, he speaks as one who knows God very poorly, because when someone wishes to sell something which he loves, he gives a price to it; but when he has something of which he wants to unburden himself, he says, “Give me what seems right to you.” This man speaks in such a way: What will you give me? By this is meant, “Give me what you wish to give.” They set at naught the desirable land (Psalms 105:24).

But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver. Origen says that those who send away God for some temporal good act in a similar way. For He dwells in us by faith; and then we send Him away when we adhere too much to temporal things. Hence, he said: But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver.

But why does he express himself this way? It is because it was signified by what was written: And they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12). And it should not be said that Joseph was sold for thirty denarii, but Scripture maintains that he was sold for only twenty pieces of silver, meaning twenty denarii.

But what does it mean to say that there were thirty? It should be understood as follows: This number is composed of five and six, hence, five times six is thirty. By the number five, the five books of Moses are signified, or temporal things are signified, which are subject to the five senses; hence, it is signified that after the Law of Moses there will be salvation in the sixth age.

And from thenceforth he sought opportunity to betray him. Here his caution is related. And why was he doing this? It was so that he might more easily and secretly perpetrate his crime, just as it is true of sinners, because he that doth evil hateth the light (John 3:20); and: The eye of the adulterer observeth darkness (Job 24:15).