Notes, Critical and Explanatory, on the Holy Scriptures

St. Chrysostom takes her to be Mary the sister of Lazarus : but distinguishes her from the sinful woman mentioned by St. Luke vii. 36. If the same fact be recorded by St. Matthew and St. John, as appears certain, it is here related out of place, since St. John states that it was six days before the passover. St. Jerom observes : " Let no one imagine that the woman who poured the ointment on His head is the same as

The time of His sufferings and death.

The blood by which the new covenant is sealed.

Many may embrace all, or may be understood of those who actually receive pardon.

Christ meant to assure them, that He would be no longer with them in convivial society. After His resurrection He ate and drank with them ; which may be considered the fulfilment of this declaration ; that renovated state being, as it were, the kingdom of His Father. In glory He tastes a new wine, the spiritual delights with which He inebriates His servants. The scriptural allusions to future bliss under the image of a banquet are frequent.

It is alleged by modern Jews that cocks vrere not kept in the city of Jerusalem, but this statement is controverted. Even if admitted, it does not interfere with the prediction, since in the silence of night the cock-crow might be heard from an elevated situation, scarcely four hun- dred paces distant from the city-walls. Besides, whatever may have been the usage of the Jews, the Romans may have had cocks in coops, in the city itself. The second crowing was usually styled the time of cock-crowing. " Hence St. Mark says : Before the cock crow twice." Mark xiv. .30. John xiii. 30.

This was the usual posture of suppliants. It denoted the entire hu- miliation of the soul in the presence of the Divine Majesty. Christ, as man, humbled Himself before the Godhead.

The second prayer is more simply an expression of resignation.

This was certainly not a Roman company. The weapons suit a tu- multuary gathering, or the officers of the Jewish tribunals. It is probable that many private individuals were associated on this occasion with the ordinary officers, and sent by the priests and members of the iSanhedrim.

The multitude may not have known what their leaders, with Judas, well knew, that Jesus was to be arrested. As the fame of His wonders was widely spread, some of them might have hesitated to join in the at- tempt to arrest Him, had they been previously informed. In the darkness of night, those who knew His person may not have at once recognised Him.

They knew that Christ had done nothing against the laws ; but being resolved on accomplishing His ruin, they sought out men, who, by per- jury, might procure His conviction. It does not ordinarily become a tribunal to seek witnesses, even of facts, since it betrays an eagerness for the conviction of culprits, which is not easily combined with judicial impartiality ; but how atrocious was it to seek false witnesses !

They did not find the false testimony such as they had sought, namely, plausible and consistent.

Christ had said, that if His enemies should destroy the temple of His body, He would raise it up in three days. John ii. 19. The false witnesses swore, that he had asserted His power to overthrow the Jew- ish temple, and to build it up again.

The high-priest, abandoning the testimony as worthless, seeks to elicit a confession from Christ Himself. To force it, he makes use of the most solemn adjuration, and questions Him on the weightiest point, whether he claimed to be the Messiah, nay, the Son of God.

St. Luke refers this to the ordinary wine-bowl, of which St. Matthew makes no mention. It may be taken generally for all the wine used on the occasion, of which a portion was applied to sacramental purposes. This might be called the fruit of the vine, because it was originally such, and still retained the appearances of wine, although by its consecration it became the blood of Christ.