The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 2 — Section 557

0<lour. So likewise do they come into the Churches, or brotherhoods of the BBinte. " Vcrily I say unto you, WhercRoe,er this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, l-bcre this that this woman hath done shall be told." So far-reaching is the perfect love. (2) " Shall be told for a memorial of her." 'l'he loving are immortalized by their intimate association with the immortal Christ of God, (3) Note here a manifestation nf_the J?ivinity of our Lord. We see it: (a) In his prescience of the wide notoriety of this action of Mary, (b) In the providence which ensured it. (c) In the inspiration which moved the evangelists to record it. II. YET SHE ENCOUNTERED TROUBLERS EVEN IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 1. Foremost amongst the;e was Judas lscari.ot, (1) To him the fr11grance of M&ry's spikenard wns nauseous. All tbo virtue he could discover in it was its corn• mercia.J. value. •• Three buudred pence l" As a typical Jew, he knew the price. "To what purpose is this waste?" So lightly did he value the Son of God, tha.t he could. bargain away bis life for thirty pieces of silver, or about £4 l0s.-the miserable price of a slave. (2) This man of commerce had no heart to see what Mary saw so clearly, viz. that nothing can be " waste" that is lovingly done to the honour of the gracious Saviour of mankind. Any demur to this great truth came as a trouble to her noble heart.. It is ever a pain to a generous soul to be denied the opportunity of doing good, or when a proffered kindness is refused. (3) Judas had no eyes to see-which perhaps M&ry in her modesty had not thought of, but which Jesus saw so clearly-that this action of here had a moral significance which made it worthy of the attention of the uni,erse and of the ages. The material commercialiet is blind to spiritual va.lues.. His arithmetic cannot weigh the soul against the world (see eh. xvi. 26). (4) Judas set up the general claims of the poor in opposition to the personal claims of Christ, as though these claims were inimical Who has done most for the poor-Judas or Jesus? Is not Jesus, even in his absence, ever present representatively in the poor? Are not the poor cared for by his true disciples for their Lord's sa.ke? (5) Ilut. this plea for the poor was a cover for covetousness. " Thie said he, not that be cared for the poor ; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein" (John xii. 6). How commonly do the covetous evade appeals, say for foreign missions, by suggesting the counter-claims of the "heathen at home," or of " poor relations," or vaguely "so many calls," none of which are, in fact, considered l How Judas-like! 2. With lscariol were others who came under his evil influence. (1) Some think that Judas was the sole tronbler of Mary. They contend that the plural is in this narrative to be taken as singular, according to a Hebraistic usage (cf. eh. :u:vii. 44, where "the thieves also" is put for one thief; and eh. :u:viii. 17, where "some doubted" means one-- Thomas). So "when his disciples fia.w it, they had indignation," is taken to mea.n one of them-Judas. (2) No doubt Judas was the chief offender. Hence John speaks of Judas only as troubling Mary, which was sufficient for his purpose; but it must be noted that, in quoting the words of Jesus in the sequel, the plural is used as in the other evangelists. (3) The persistent use of the plural throughout the narrative in Matthew and in Mark can scarcely be explained away upon the principle ofan enaUage, as the rhetoriciwu; call this substitution of the plural for the singular. (4) While, then, it may well be doubted that the whole college of the apostles "'.ere compromised in this unenviable distinction of being troublers of the gentle and lovmg Mary-John, at the least, may be excepled-yet that some of them so came under the evil i~u~nce of Judas as to share with him in Christ's rebuke is evident. Are there not st1ll in our Churches many too easily imposed upon by represe~ta~ives of the co!etous tra.ito!,.who artfully plead specious pretexts of cha.rity to the gnevrog and troubling of the spmtual kindred of Mary? (5) There is this great difference, however, between Ju~as and those apostles who sided with him, viz. they were moved, by a real thoug~ mi~pl~ced con• cern for the poor, while his only concern was to gratify the greed_ of his thiev1Bh hea!t• Let us beware how we listen to those who affect to set up philanthropy to the dis. paragcment of religion. Let us beware ~ow we depreciaUI or discredit the services of the people of God whose methods may differ from our own.-J, A. M. Vere. 17-30.-The Lord's Supper. The institution of the Holy Supper. was ln connection with the eating of the Passover. The occasion was most appropnat~ ~nd .flignifica.nt; for the Jewish feast had been instituted to foreshadow what the Christian cm, xxv1, 1-75.] THE GOSPEL .ACCORDING TO ST. MATTllEW. 663