out that 'eternal' (alúvios) in 'eternal punishment' must have the same meaning as in 'eternal life.'1 No doubt, but that does not give us the right to say that 'eternal' in both cases means 'endless.' The meaning of 'eternal' may possibly have no reference to duration of time. Nor is the expression 'eternal punishment' synonymous with 'eternal pain,' still less with 'unending pain,' and we are not justified in treating these expressions as equivalent. 'Eternal punishment' may mean 'eternal loss' or 'irreparable loss'; but there is no legitimate inference from 'irreparable loss' to 'everlasting suffering.' Comp. Dan. xii. 2, perhaps the earliest mention of 'eternal life' for the righteous.2

Characteristic expressions in ch. xxv.: TÓTе (1, 7, 31, 34, 41, 44, 45), φρόνιμος (2, 8, 9), ιδού (6), πορεύεσθαι (9, 16, 41), γάμοι = γάμος (10), ὕστερον (11), προσέρχεσθαι (20, 22, 24), συνάγειν (26, 32, 35, 37, 43), ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων (30), δεῦτε (34). Peculiar: ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Ι), συναίρειν (19), ἐξώτερος (30), ἐκεῖ (30), τάλαντον (15-28), τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον (41 and xviii. 8 only) ; peculiar to this chapter : τραπεζείτης (27), ἐρίφιον (33), κόλασις αἰώνιος (46).

In the rendering of the last expression we have another instance of the caprice of the AV. 'These shall go into everlasting (alwviov) punishment, but the righteous into life eternal (alúviov)'; which leads the English reader to suppose that, whether or no the 'life' lasts for ever, the punishment' certainly does. This impression will be deepened when he notices that, both in xviii. 8 and xxv. 41, Tò πup тò aiúvior is rendered everlasting fire,' and that in xix. 16 wn alwvios is again rendered 'eternal life.' In Mk. x. 17, which is parallel, swn alwvios is rendered 'eternal life.'

Again, in ver. 32 we find 'He shall separate (apopieî) them one from another, as a shepherd divideth (àpopíše) his sheep from the goats.'

With ver. 45 comp. Pirqe Aboth, ii. 13; "He that borrows from man is the same as if he borrowed from God," and therefore "he that borroweth and repayeth not " is a grievous sinner. See Montefiore, p. 754.

XXVI. 1-XXVIII. 20. THE PASSION, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION OF THE MESSIAH.

This is the seventh and last section of the Gospel. The main division of the Gospel in two parts (iv. 12-xiii. 52, xiv. 1xviii. 35) is preceded by two subordinate sections (i. 1-ii. 23, iii. 1-iv. 11), and followed by two subordinate sections (xix. I-XX. 34, xxi. 1-xxv. 46). This seventh section forms the natural conclusion to all. Everything, from the Birth onwards, has led up to this climax. It opens with three paragraphs (1-5, 6-13, 14-16) which are connected together by the thought

1 The expression 'eternal punishment' (kólaσis alúvios) occurs more than once in the Testaments: Reuben v. 5; Gad vii. 5; but is not found in the O.T. For the judgment of the Angels comp. the Ascension of Isaiah, i. 5, iv. 8, x. 12.

2 See the instances collected in Dalman, Words, pp. 156 ff.

of the action of the traitor, in whom Mt. takes a special interest. These paragraphs mark different stages in the process of betrayal.

In the first of them Mt. again joins Mk., whose narrative he left at xxiv. 42= Mk. xiii. 35, and the first two verses are the Evangelist's method of returning to the narrative of Mk. We have already had the formula, And it came to pass when Jesus finished,' used several times for connecting a long discourse. with what follows (vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53, xix. 1). Here Mt. inserts 'all' between 'finished' and 'these words,' to intimate that no more discourses of great length are to follow; see on vii. 28, p. 119.

XXVI. 1–5. The Approach of the Passover and the Malice of the Hierarchy.

Mt.

'Ye know that after two days the Passover cometh.' omits the mention of 'the Unleavened Bread' (tà "Ağvμa), which, although originally distinct from the Passover, had come to be synonymous with it (Lk. xxii. 1; see notes there), and therefore did not need separate mention. The meaning of 'after two days' is uncertain. If after three days' means on the third day,' 'after two days' ought to mean 'on the morrow,' but it is a strange expression to substitute for so simple and common a phrase as 'on the morrow.' Possibly the Aramaic original was less definite: 'after some days.' By adding 'and the Son of Man is being delivered up to be crucified' Mt. shows how entirely aware the Messiah was of all that His enemies were doing, and of how it will end; comp. xx. 19. 'Is betrayed to be crucified' (AV.) ties the meaning of rapadidorai to the act of the traitor; but it may refer to Christ's 'being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God' (Acts ii. 23); see on xvii. 22 and xx. 18, 19. In mentioning among the enemies of the Messiah 'the elders of the people' (xxi. 23, xxvi. 3, 47), Mt. perhaps wishes to intimate that the hostile. hierarchy consisted largely of representatives of the people; they were popular leaders and teachers. He alone tells us that the conspirators met at the house of Caiaphas,1 who had already advised putting Jesus to death (Jn. xi. 50); and he follows Mk. in saying that they agreed to do it by craft (dóλw); He was to be quietly put out of the way. This meant waiting till the Galilean pilgrims, who had come up for the Passover, and who were enthusiastic on His behalf, had gone home again. If He were arrested publicly, they would make a tumult (Oópvßos), a

1 Mk. does not mention the high priest by name, and Lk. does so only in a date (iii. 2). Jn. gives the name five times.

word specially used of excited multitudes (xxvii. 24; Acts xx. 1, xxi. 34). It was the unexpected offer of Judas which enabled them to abandon this unwelcome postponement, and proceed at once. Mt. perhaps means us to understand that it was at the very time (TÓTE) when this plot was being made, that Jesus predicted that He would be delivered up to be crucified at the Passover. His foes were intending to wait till after the Feast; but He knew what would happen through the agency of the traitor, whose work is the thread that connects these three paragraphs, 1-16.1

XXVI. 6-16. The Anointing at Bethany and its Sequel.

It would have been natural to mention the offer of the traitor immediately after the decision of the Sanhedrin (4, 5); but Mt. first tells of the incident in the house of Simon the leper, and then records the fact that Judas went to the hierarchy with his proposal. Evidently we are to suppose that the proposal was a consequence (TÓTE Topevleis) of that incident. The motives of Judas were doubtless mixed, but the Gospels clearly indicate that one of them was avarice. By the 'waste' of the ointment he had lost the care of more than 300 denarii (Mk. xiv. 5; Jn. xii. 5, 6), and he desired compensation. Thirty shekels would be about 120 denarii, and of the 300 denarii Judas would hardly have been able to steal more than 120. Whatever other motives he may have had for his treachery, disappointed avarice would seem to have been one of them. Our Lord's defence of Mary's extravagance was exasperating and might make Judas ready to make money by treachery, and by treachery that would wreak vengeance on Him.

It is clear from various passages (xxi. 17; Mk. xi. 11, 19, 27) that during these last days our Lord generally left the city in the evening and spent the night at Bethany. Therefore His being in a house at Bethany (6) is what we should expect. The fact that the owner of the house was named Simon, and that in it a woman poured ointment on our Lord from an alabaster box, are the only reasons for identifying this story with that in Lk. vii. 36–50. But Simon was one of the commonest of names, for there are at least ten in the N.T. and about twenty in Josephus; so that identity of name proves very little, and the addition of 'the leper' here points to a different person. An 'alabaster' may

1 Mt. is alone, not only in recording the prediction (2), but also in stating that there was a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin. Mk. and Lk. say merely that the hierarchy were seeking (sýrovv) how to destroy Him.

2 The Leper' does not necessarily mean that he was a leper at the time. Matthew was called ò reλwns after he had ceased to be a toll-collector. For

unguents in alabasters comp. Herod. iii. 20. Pliny says that unguenta optime

have been as common a receptacle for ointment as Simon was common among names. The great objection, however, to identifying the two incidents is the character of the women. John tells us that this woman was Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus (xii. 1-3), and it is difficult to believe that she was the 'sinner' mentioned by Lk. On the other hand there is no difficulty in believing that there were two anointings; indeed the first might suggest a second. The identification involves an imputation on Mary's previous life which "we are not warranted in casting, on a mere surmise, and without any evidence to support it" (Salmon, Human Element, p. 483). See notes on Lk. vii. 30, p. 209. It is certainly remarkable that, in spite of the promise that the woman's act should be spoken of wherever the Gospel was preached, her name is not mentioned by either Mt. or Mk. The reason may be that, when they wrote, she was still alive, and would not desire to have her name published. When Lk. (x. 38-42) and John wrote, she may have been dead. It is perhaps for a similar reason that Jn. alone mentions that it was Peter who cut off the ear of Malchus. No other Gospel gives the names.

Mt.

It is possible that a like feeling of caution or reserve caused Mt. and Mk. to withhold the name of him who took the lead in censuring Mary for her extravagance. The statements become more definite as the incident becomes more remote. Mk. says that 'there were some who had indignation' at her act. says that these were 'disciples.' Jn. says that it was Judas, and that it was the loss of possible gain that made him find fault. 'To what purpose was this waste?' It is likely enough that some of the disciples sympathized with this "plausible cui bono of a shortsighted utilitarianism" (Swete), and showed their sympathy by an approving murmur. Mt. omits the estimate of 'more than 300 denarii,' as he omitted the 'about 2000' (viii. 32), and 200 denariï' (xiv. 17), and 'by hundreds and by fifties' (xiv. 19). Perhaps such details seemed to him to be unedifying, or at any rate unnecessary. The remarkable rebuke to the plea for the poor, 'For ye have the poor always with you, but Me ye have not always,' is in all three Gospels. Its originality stamps it as authentic. Considering the teaching of Christ and of the O.T. respecting the poor, we may be sure that He alone would have used this argument; no one would have servantur in alabastris. Mt. omits the puzzling TOTIK. Both he and Mk. say that our Lord's head was anointed, perhaps influenced by Ps. xxiii. 5. Jn. says that Mary anointed His feet, and wiped them with her hair.

1Waste' is hardly strong enough; 'destruction' is nearer the meaning. The precious fluid was utterly thrown away and lost. Elsewhere ἀπώλεια commonly means 'perdition' in an intransitive sense (vii. 13; Jn. xvii. 12; Acts viii. 20; Rom. ix. 22, etc.).

invented it for him. Comp. Deut. xv. 11 (which is not easily harmonized with xv. 4), and also "God allows the poor to be with us for ever, that the opportunities of doing good may never fail" (Talmud). Mt. omits, as superfluous: 'whensoever ye will ye can [always] do them good.' The promise that Mary's act shall never be forgotten wherever the Gospel is preached is in Mt. and Mk., who do not give her name, but not in Jn., who does give it. The Evangelist's favourite Then' (Tóre) is meant to imply that the anointing led directly to the betrayal. Except in the list of the Apostles (x. 4), Judas has not been previously mentioned in the Synoptic narrative. It is not likely that the Sanhedrin had ventured to offer a reward to whoever would get Jesus out of the way; but their hostility to Him was notorious, and perhaps the intention to have Him arrested was somewhat widely known. Mt. alone states the amount, 'thirty pieces of silver,' and that it was paid at once.1 Mk. says that they 'promised' (nyeíλavro) and Lk. that they 'covenanted' (ouvélevTO) to give him money.' Mt. states the amount in anticipation of xxvii. 3-10, where Zech. xi. 12, 13 is compared ; and, unless Judas had already been paid, he could not have thrown the money back. Apparently the earliest tradition mentioned neither the amount, nor the time of payment. These divergencies about details need not trouble us. Having secured either the money or a promise, Judas went back, like Gehazi after securing the money-bags of Naaman, and 'stood before his Master' (2 Kings v. 25). Had he not thought that, while he sought opportunity to deliver Him up, Jesus knew all that was passing in his mind? He must have noticed that Jesus did seem to read men's thoughts.

XXVI. 17-19. The Preparations for the Passover.

Mt.'s narrative is only half as long as those of Mk. and Lk., which are very similar. But there is hardly anything in Mt. which could not be derived from Mk. For 'where is My guestchamber?' Mt. has 'My time is at hand'; but almost all the other differences are those of omission. Mt. says nothing about

the man with the pitcher of water. He again (ver. 9) omits a definite number, and does not tell us that two disciples were sent (Mk. xiv. 13), still less that they were Peter and John (Lk. xxii. 8). Lk. knows so much about Peter and John after the

1 In the apocryphal Narrative of Joseph of Arimathæa (ii.) it is stated that Judas received thirty pieces of gold. This change seems to be made because the coins are identified with those brought by the Magi, which were lo t during the flight into Egypt, found by a herdsman and offered in the Temple.

2 The word implies a good opportunity' (evkaipla); comp. Lk. xxii. 6. On the character of Judas see Fairbairn, Expositor, Ist series, xii. pp. 47-70.