He went out] He left the place where he had sinned, and the company which had been the occasion of his transgression.

And wept bitterly.] Felt bitter anguish of soul, which evidenced itself by the tears of contrition which flowed plentifully from his eyes. Let him that standeth take heed lest he fall! Where the mighty have been slain, what shall support the feeble? Only the grace of the ALMIGHTY God.

This transaction is recorded by the inspired penmen, 1st. That all may watch unto prayer, and shun the occasions of sin. 2dly. That if a man be unhappily overtaken in a fault, he may not despair, but cast himself immediately with a contrite heart on the infinite tenderness and compassion of God. See the notes on John xviii. 27.

I have touched on the subject of our Lord's anointing but slightly in the preceding notes, because the controversy upon this point is not yet settled; and, except to harmonists, it is a matter of comparatively little importance. Bishop Newcome has written largely on this fact, and I insert an extract from his notes.

BISHOP NEWCOME'S ACCOUNT OF THE ANOINTING OF OUR LORD "The histories of Jesus' unction, in Matthew, Mark, and John, are accounts of the same fact. Hoc fixum maneat, eandem ab omnibus historiam referri. Calv. Harm. p. 375.

"The following objections to this position occur in Lightfoot, Whiston, Whitby, and Macknight.

1st. "The unction recorded by St. John happens six days before the passover; but the other unction is fixed to the second day before that feast.

"Ans. The day of the entertainment related John xii. 2, is not restrained to the sixth day before the passover. Quo die factum illi fuerit convivium, in quo a Maria unctus est, Johannes non exprimit. Calv. Harm. Johann. p. 144. John xii. 12, 13, much people are said to meet Jesus on the day after his arrival at Bethany, not on the day after his unction. See John xii. 9. St. John has recorded events on the sixth and on the fifth day before the passover; and then, John xiii. 1, he proceeds to the evening on which the passover was eaten. On this account he anticipates the history of Jesus's unction; and he naturally anticipates it on mentioning the place where it happened.

2dly. "The scene in St. John is the house of Martha, or of Lazarus; in the other evangelists, that of Simon the leper.

"Ans. St. John lays the scene in general at Bethany. "It seems probable that Lazarus would not have been called eiv twn anakeimenwn, if he had been the host.

"Martha, the sister of Lazarus, might show Jesus honour by ministering to him in any house as well as her own. 'She was Simon's neighbour, and perhaps his relation,' Dr. Priestley, Harm. p. 102. Our Lord's affection for Lazarus and his sister, and the recent miracle wrought on Lazarus, were very sufficient reasons for Simon's invitation of such neighbouring guests.

3dly. "St. John mentions the feet of Jesus as anointed by Mary, and wiped with her hair; the other evangelists say that the ointment was poured on Jesus's head.

"Ans. It is no where asserted that the unction was of Jesus's head only, or of his feet only: both actions are consistent; and St. John, in his supplemental history, may very well have added the respectful conduct of Mary, that, after having anointed Jesus's head, she proceeded to anoint his feet, and even to wipe them with her hair.

4thly. "In St. John, Judas alone murmurs: in St. Matthew, the disciples have indignation; or, as St. Mark expresses it, some have indignation among themselves.

"Ans. Dr. Lardner says, Serm. vol. ii. p. 316: 'It is well known to be very common with all writers to use the plural number when one person only is intended; nor is it impossible that others might have some uneasiness about it, though they were far from being so disgusted at it as Judas was.

And their concern for the poor was sincere: his was self- interested and mere pretense.' Grotius's words are: Reprehensa est hoc nomine mulier ab uno discipulorum; nam ita pluralis accipi solet.

5thly. "The vindications of the woman by our Lord differ so much as to show that the occasions were different.

"Ans. St, John's words are indeed thus misinterpreted by Baronius: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial, alluding to, Mark xvi. 1. See Lightfoot, Harm. p. 27. See also Lightfoot, ib. l. 251. 'She hath kept it yet, and not spent all; that she may bestow it on a charitable use, the anointing of my body to its burial.' "Whiston also, Harm. 129, gives a wrong sense to the words. She hath spent but little of it now: she hath reserved the main part of it for a fitter time, the day before my delivery to the Jews; making this a prediction of what passed, ver. 6-13; Mark xiv. 3-9. It must be observed that John xii. 7, there is a remarkable various reading: ina eiv thn hmeran tou entafiasmou mou thrhsh auto. See Wetstein, and add Codd. Vercell.

and Veron. in Blanchini. Of this reading we have a sound interpretation in Mill, proleg. xlv. Sine eam ut opportune usa hoc unguento, velut ad sepulturam meam, jamjam occidendi, illud servasse ostendatur. And likewise in Bengelius ad loc. who observes that the common reading is, Faciioris sensus causta; and adds, Verbum thrhsh servaret, pendet ex praeterito, cujus vis latet in afev authn, i.e. Noli reprehendere hanc, quoe unguentum ideo nec vendidit, nec pauperibus dedit, ut, &c. And the common reading is thus rightly explained by Lightfoot, 2, 588. 'If Baronius's exposition do not take, then add this clause:-Let her alone; for this may be an argument and sign that she hath not done this vainly, luxuriously, or upon any delicacy spent so costly an ointment upon me; because she hath reserved it for this time, wherein I am so near my grave and funeral, and poured it not on me before.' Lardner's comment, ubi supra, p. 312, is applicable to the three evangelists. If this ointment were laid out upon a dead body, you would not think it too much. You may consider this anointing as an embalming of me. The words are a prediction of Christ's death, which was to happen on the third day after; and they are a prediction beautifully taken from the occasion. She has done this to embalm me, Matthew. She has anticipated the embalming of me, Mark.

She has not sold this ointment, and given it to the poor, that she might reserve it to this day, which is, as it were, the day of my embalming, so soon is my burial to follow, John.

"Dr. Scott, on Matthew, quotes the following passage from Theophylact: eqov hn toiv ioudaioiv meta murwn entafiazein ta swmata, wv kai oi aiguptioi epoioun, dia to ashpta threisqdi, kai aneu duswdiav. It was a custom among the Jews, as well as among the Egyptians, to embalm the bodies of the dead, as well to keep them from putrefaction, as to prevent offensive smells.

The expressions therefore of the three evangelists agree in sense and substance. I have explained the more difficult in St. John; leaving every one to his own judgment whether it be the true one or not; though I incline to think that the unusual phrase ought generally to be admitted into the text.

"6thly. In St. John, Mary anoints Jesus in Matthew and Mark, a woman not named.

"Ans. Lardner says, ubi supra, p. 315. 'St. John having before given the history of the resurrection of Lazarus, it was very natural for him, when he came to relate this anointing of our Lord, to say by whom it was done. But the two former evangelists having never mentioned Lazarus or his sisters in their Gospels, when they came to relate this action forbear to mention any name, and speak only of a certain woman. Luke x. 38-42, has an account of our Lord's being entertained at the house of Martha. But he says nothing of this anointing. If he had related it, I make no question that he, like St. John, would have said by whom it was done.' Upon the whole, there is no solid objection to the hypothesis, that we have three accounts of the same transaction. But it is incredible that there should be two unctions of Jesus, in Bethany, within four days, not plainly distinguished from each other; that the kind and price of the ointment should be the same; that the two actions should be censured in the same manner; and that words to the same effect should be used in defense of the woman who anointed Jesus, within so short a time, in the same place, and among the same persons. See Doddridge on John xii. 1. As to the precise time of this transaction, it is natural to conclude from the accounts of Matthew and Mark, that it happened two days before the passover. I had much pleasure in observing that Mr. Jebb, in his Harmony, assigns it the same order as I do. I likewise find in Ward's Dissertations, p. 112, the following remark.

'John only mentions the day when Jesus came to Bethany, without specifying the time when he was entertained there by Simon the leper; whereas the other two evangelists acquaint us with the day when that was done, and what followed upon it, with relation to Judas.' And again, Wall says, Critical Notes, v. 3. p. l2: 'Wednesday he seems to have stayed at Bethany, and supped there. At which supper, Mary, sister of Lazarus, poured that ointment on his body which he interpreted to be for his burial.' And on John xii. 2: 'This seems to be the same supper which Matthew and Mark do say was at the house of Simon the leper; for there it was that Mary anointed him. But then we must not take it to be the same night that he came to Bethany, but two days before the passover.' "That Judas went to the high priests on the evening or night of our Wednesday, may be collected from ver. 14-17, and the parallel places in this harmony; and he seems to have acted partly in disgust at what had passed. This is a good argument for fixing the unction for Wednesday. As it will appear that the other apostles did not suspect his treachery, we may suppose that Judas withdrew himself clandestinely, probably after our Lord had retired to privacy and devotion. Our Lord's words, chap. x16: 2, may have led Mary to show this respect to Jesus, lest no future opportunity should offer. See Lardner, ubi supra, p. 327. Dr. Priestley thinks that 'if the verses that contain this story in ver. 6-13, be considered, they will be found to stand very awkwardly in their present situation, where they interrupt an account of a consultation among the Jews about putting Jesus to death.' Harm. p. 100. But it seems to me that the story has a remarkably apt connection with the preceding and subsequent history. The Jewish rulers consult how they may take Jesus by craft, and without raising a tumult among the people. An accident happens which offends one of Jesus's familiar attendants; who immediately repairs to Jesus's enemies, and receives from them a bribe to betray him in the absence of the multitude." Newcome's Harmony, Notes p. 39, &c.

I have added the above, not from a conviction that the point is so elucidated as to settle the controversy, but merely to place before the reader both sides of the question. Still, sub judice lis est; and any man may doubt, consistently with the most genuine piety, whether the relations given by the evangelists, concerning the anointing of our Lord, should be understood of two different unctions, at two different times, in two different places, by two different persons; or whether they are not different accounts, with some varying circumstances, of one and the same transaction. I incline, at present, to the former opinion, but it would be rash to decide where so many eminently learned and wise men have disagreed.

The question considered, whether our Lord ate the passover with his disciples before he suffered? Every candid person must allow that there are great difficulties relative to the time in which our Lord ate the last passover with his disciples. In the Introduction to my Discourse on the nature and design of the Holy Eucharist, I have examined this subject at large, and considered the four following opinions, viz. I. Our Lord did not eat the passover on the last year of his ministry. II. Our Lord did eat it that year; and at the same time with the Jews. III. He did eat it that year, but not at the same time with the Jews. IV. He did eat a passover of his own instituting, but widely differing from that eaten by the Jews. The two first opinions do not appear to be solidly supported. The two last are of the most importance, are the most likely, and may be harmonized. I shall introduce a few observations on each in this place. And I. On the opinion that "our Lord did eat the passover this year, but not at the same time with the Jews." Dr. Cudworth, who of all others has handled this subject best, has proved from the Talmud, Mishna, and some of the most reputable of the Jewish rabbins, that the ancient Jews, about our saviour's time, often solemnized as well the passovers as the other feasts, upon the ferias next before and after the Sabbaths. And, that as the Jews in ancient times reckoned the new moons, not according to astronomical exactness, but according to the fasiv, or moon's appearance: and, as this appearance might happen a day later than the real time, consequently there might be a whole day of difference in the time of celebrating one of these feasts, which depended on a particular day of the month; the days of the month being counted from the fasiv, or appearance of the new moon. As he describes the whole manner of doing this, both from the Babylonish Talmud, and from Maimonides, I shall give an extract from this part of his work, that my readers may have the whole argument before them.

"In the great or outer court there was a house called Beth Yazek, where the senate sat all the 30th day of every month, to receive the witnesses of the moon's appearance, and to examine them. If there came approved witnesses on the 30th day, who could state they had seen the new moon, the chief man of the senate stood up, and cried �dqm mekuddash, it is sanctified; and the people standing by caught the word from him, and cried, Mekuddash! mekuddash! But if, when the consistory had sat all the day, and there came no approved witnesses of the phasis, or appearance of the new moon, then they made an intercalation of one day in the former month, and decreed the following one and thirtieth day to be the calends.

But if, after the fourth or fifth day, or even before the end of the month, respectable witnesses came from far, and testified they had seen the new moon in its due time, the senate were bound to alter the beginning of the month, and reckon it a day sooner, viz. from the thirtieth day.

"As the senate were very unwilling to be at the trouble of a second consecration, when they had even fixed on a wrong day, and therefore received very reluctantly the testimony of such witnesses as those last mentioned, they afterwards made a statute to this effect-That whatsoever time the senate should conclude on for the calends of the mouth, though it were certain they were in the wrong, yet all were bound to order their feasts according to it." This, Dr. Cudworth supposes, actually took place in the time of our Lord; and "as it is not likely that our Lord would submit to this perversion of the original custom, and that following the true fasiv, or appearance of the new moon, confirmed by sufficient witnesses, he and his disciples ate the passover on that day; but the Jews, following the pertinacious decree of the Sanhedrin, did not eat it till the day following." Dr. C. farther shows from Epiphanius, that there was a contention, qorubov, a tumult, among the Jews about the passover, that very year. Hence it is likely that what was the real paschal day to our Lord, his disciples, and many other pious Jews who adopted the true fasiv phasis, was only the preparation or antecedent evening to others, who acted on the decree of the senate. Besides, it is worthy of note, that not only the Karaites, who do not acknowledge the authority of the Sanhedrin, but also the rabbins themselves grant that, where the case is doubtful, the passover should be celebrated with the same ceremonies, two days together; and it was always doubtful, when the appearance of the new moon could not be fully ascertained.

Bishop Pearce supposes that it was lawful for the Jews to eat the paschal lamb at any time between the evening of Thursday, and that of Friday; and that this permission was necessary, because of the immense number of lambs which were to be killed for that purpose: as, in one year there were not fewer than 256,500 lambs offered. See Josephus, War, b. vii. c. 9. sect.

John Gill's Bible Commentary

Greek Textus Receptus