We know that the Father had set the hour of his Passion. For he said to his mother at one point, My hour has not yet come.^[1] In another place, Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour! No, this is why I came to this hour.^[2] And elsewhere, Father, the hour has come! Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.^[3] Since the Father set the hour of his Son’s Passion, he could not suffer anything from the time the devil had departed from him until his Passion.^[4]

Let them^[1] blush with shame who think the Savior dreaded death and said out of fear of suffering, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. After two days, about to celebrate the Passover, he knew that he was to be betrayed and crucified. However, he did not turn away from the snares or take flight in fear. While the rest were unwilling to proceed, he remained unruffled when Thomas said, Let us go that we may die with him.^[2] Wishing to put an end to the earthly festivity and to declare the truth in the passing shadow of Passover, he said, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.^[3] Indeed, Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed if we eat it with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.^[4] Furthermore, because he says, After two days the Passover will be here and omits a simple explanation, we should seek what is holy. After two days of the brilliant light of the Old and New Testaments, the Passover is celebrated for the world. This Passover, called pesaḥ in Hebrew, is not named after Christ’s suffering as many believe.^[5] It refers to the passing over, when the destroying angel saw the blood on the doors of the Israelites, passed by and did not strike them down.^[6] In other words, the Lord, giving help to his people, came down from above. Our passing over—that is to say, pesaḥ—will be celebrated if we put behind us both earthly things and Egypt and move on to heavenly things.

He therefore used the verb impersonally—that is, he will be delivered up. He did not say by whom, because the words apply to all those who delivered him up. But not everyone delivered him up in the same way. God delivered him up out of mercy for the human race: he has not spared even his own Son but has delivered him for us all.^[1] But the rest delivered him up for a bad reason, each one according to his own malice:^[2] Judas out of greed, the priests out of jealousy and the devil out of fear—lest the human race be plucked from his hands because of Christ’s teaching, little knowing that the human race would be plucked away more through his death than through his teaching and miracles. He was in fact delivered up to be crucified so that, disarming the principalities and powers,^[3] he might triumph over them on the cross.

When he had reminded them of the kingdom, he spoke again of the season of his suffering and of final judgment. It was as though he had said, Why are you afraid of the dangers that are only for a season when such good things await you? Notice how he has thrown into the shade what was most painful to them. For he does not say, You know that after two days I am betrayed, but You know that after two days is the Passover feast, to show that what is done is a mystery. A feast and celebration is being kept for the salvation of the world. With foreknowledge he is prepared to suffer all. So then, as though this were sufficient consolation for them, he did not even say anything to them now about a resurrection. He had already spoken about it, and did not need to speak about it again. And moreover, as I said, he shows that even his suffering itself is a deliverance from countless evils, having by the Passover reminded them of the ancient benefits received in Egypt.

They are coming to the high priest with the desire to obtain their authority from him, by whom they ought to have been hindered.

How many high priests were there? For the law wills there should be one, but then there were many. From this it is beginning to be evident that the Jewish structure of governance had begun to collapse. For Moses, as I said, commanded there should be one and that when he was dead there should be another.

The words of the prophet, And the rulers took counsel together against the Lord and his anointed,^[1] were fulfilled^[2] when the chief priests and elders of the people gathered in the court of the high priest and took counsel together against the Lord and his anointed. They were not true priests but of the people and elders. They only seemed to be the people of God but were after all the people of Gomorrah. It was they who would say, Crucify him! Crucify him! and Away from the earth with such a one!^[3] Furthermore, what Isaiah said, Hear the word of the Lord, O leaders of Sodom; pay heed to God’s law, O people of Gomorrah,^[4] applies to the Jewish leaders who lived at the time of Christ. And what Ezekiel said to Jerusalem, It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you,^[5] can be said more rightly of Jerusalem, over which the Lord wept, than of the time of the prophet. The chief priests sinned more greatly than Sodom. They did not recognize God’s high priest but plotted against him. The elders of the people, not knowing the firstborn of every creature^[6] and the one who is older than all creatures, took counsel against him. Jerusalem was forsaken at that so-called court where they took counsel together how they might seize Jesus by stealth. Unfortunately this was the city that first killed the prophets and then the Lord of the prophets. That city took action against the founder of the whole world.

What did they consult together? That they might seize him secretly, or that they might put him to death? Both, for they feared the people. Thus they waited for the feast to be past, for they said, Not on the feast day, lest he should make the Passion conspicuous. They were afraid of causing an uproar. Note that they never were afraid of the judgment of God but only the judgment of people.

They took counsel in order to arrest Jesus by stealth. The prophet had aptly said about them, May the Lord cut off all deceitful lips. By stealth they wanted to seize him and to kill him. But they said, Not during the feast, lest there be a riot among the people, for they had seen Jesus performing many signs and wonders. Many indeed were those who sided with Jesus. They proclaimed that a great prophet has arisen in Israel.^[1] But others were against him, and they said, It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.^[2] Many had come to see the Lord. The people showed great eagerness for him. They either loved Christ or hated him. They either believed in him or did not believe in him. The priests’ counsel remained steadfast (while they themselves who took counsel would not remain steadfast) that he should be killed not on the feast but on another day. Christ our Passover^[3] was soon to be sacrificed so that, leaving behind the unleavened bread of the Jews, we might feast on the spiritual and true unleavened bread.

Yet for all this, boiling with anger, they changed their purpose again. For though they had said, Not at the feast time, when they found the traitor, they did not wait but killed him at the feast.

About to suffer for the whole world and to redeem all nations by his blood, Jesus tarries in Bethany at the home of obedience.^[1] It was once the house of Simon the leper—but he was no longer a leper. After he had been cured by the Savior he was still known by his original name, that the power of the healer might appear. In fact, one of the apostles listed with his original occupation and vice is Matthew the publican, though he certainly ceased to be a publican. There are those who want the house of Simon the leper to be known as that part of the people who believed in the Lord and were cured by him. Simon himself, moreover, is termed the obedient one.^[2] His name can be interpreted also as the clean one in whose house the church was healed.

It may seem that this woman is the same in all the Gospel narratives. But I doubt it. In John she is another person, one much to be admired, the sister of Lazarus.^[1]

But not without purpose did the Evangelist mention the leprosy of Simon. He did this in order to show how the woman gained confidence and came to Jesus. Leprosy seemed a most unclean disease and to be abhorred. Yet she saw that Jesus had both healed the man and had gone into his house. This is why he remained with the leper. She grew confident that he could also easily wipe away the uncleanness from her soul.

It is significant that the city is named Bethany, that we might learn that it is of his own free will that he comes to suffer. If before he was fleeing from their envy, now he comes near, within about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem. His former pattern of withdrawing himself now belongs to a past dispensation.

The woman therefore having seen him, and having become extraordinarily confident, came directly to him. This was wholly unlike other women in the narrative, for example, the woman with the issue of blood. She was conscious of her uncleanness and approached him with fear and trembling, slowly and shrinking back.^[1] And so it was with many women, the Samaritan,^[2] the Canaanite^[3] and others. This woman is conscious of her impurity. She comes to him in a private house, not publicly. And whereas all of these other women came to him for the healing of the body alone, this woman came to him to honor him only, and for the amendment of the soul. She was not at all afflicted in body. This is what makes her especially remarkable. And she does not come to him on the premise that he is a mere man. If that were so, she would not have wiped his feet with her hair. Her action was directed to one greater than man. Therefore she brings to Christ that part which is the most honorable member of the whole body, her head, and lays her hair over his feet.

This woman prefigures the Gentile people, who gave glory to God in the suffering of Christ. She thoroughly anointed his head. Recall that Christ’s head is God.^[1] Ointment represents the fruit of good works. And special thanks are due to the female gender for the care of the body. So then, he transferred all care of his body and all affection for his precious soul to the honor and praise of God. But the disciples, keen on saving Israel, become quickly upset as usual: This ought to have been sold to help the poor. But the ointment the woman carried was not for sale.

With good reason, therefore, when Luke spoke of the woman who was a sinner, he introduced her as weeping copiously. She thus washed the feet of Jesus with her tears . . . only anointing, and not his head but his feet.^[1] This woman, however, who was not described as a sinner, did not anoint but poured ointment, and not on his feet but on his head.^[2] As to what is written about Mary, the sister of Lazarus, she too anointed the Lord’s feet. Note what the Gospel says: The whole house was filled with the odor of the ointment.^[3]

Perhaps the differences in these women therefore may signify the differences in the faithful. Some of them pour out precious ointment over the head of Jesus, others do not anoint the head but only the feet, and others do not pour out abundantly but anoint only so much. Some of them anoint with ointment, leaving the whole house filled with the odor of his divinity. Then there are others, also acceptable to Christ, for they anoint his feet with ointment, which the Pharisees did not even anoint with oil.

I know that some people criticize this passage because one Evangelist said only Judas became indignant since he kept the money purse and was a thief from the beginning,^[1] whereas Matthew wrote that all the apostles were indignant. Some may be unaware of the figure of speech called syllepsis, customarily termed all for one and one for all. The case is somewhat similar with Paul the apostle, who wrote in his epistle to the Hebrews (though many Latins have doubts about this),^[2] describing the sufferings and merits of the heroes of faith, inferring: They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword.^[3] The Jews assert that only one person, Isaiah the prophet, was tortured. We may also point out that the apostles were indignant for the sake of the poor but Judas for the sake of his own gain. Hence his grumbling was also mixed with his misdeeds, because he had no concern for the poor but only wanted to be able to steal.

And why was it Jesus did not merely say, She has done a good work, but before this he said, Why do you trouble the woman? He does not want to require too much of the woman. He takes into account her person. He said this that they might not mar her budding faith but rather cherish it.

The Lord told them they would have much time to look after the poor. Further, it is only at his command that salvation can be given to the Gentiles buried with him in the outpouring of ointment by this woman, for rebirth is given only to those who have died with him in the profession of baptism.^[1]

The ointment with an agreeable odor represents what the faithful do for God. This very work of the faithful of God, which is ointment, becomes something else for the good of humanity—for instance, almsgiving, visits to the sick, welcoming strangers, humility, gentleness, pardon, and so forth. These are things that benefit human beings. He who does them to Christians anoints the Lord’s feet with ointment, for they are the Lord’s feet with which he will always walk. . . . This is the ointment which also anoints Christ’s head and flows down over his whole body, that is, it pours down on the whole church. This is the precious ointment that fills the whole house with its odor, that is, the church of Christ. This is the work that is proper not for penitents but for the preeminently holy people. Certainly the teaching necessary for people which feeds those who are poor in spiritually good things or those who are perhaps weak in avoiding sin—this is the plain ointment with which the Lord’s feet are anointed. However, the knowledge of the true faith which pertains to God alone—this is the precious ointment that anoints God, Christ’s head.

He said, She has done it for my burial, that they might not be perplexed. See how he consoles her with what follows, saying, What she has done shall be spoken of in the whole world.

And this was at once consolation to his disciples and comfort and praise to her. For all the world will celebrate her hereafter. Now she has announced beforehand my suffering by bringing to me what is needed for a funeral. So let no one reprove her. For I am so far from condemning her as having done wrongly or from blaming her as having not acted rightly that I will not permit what has been done to lie unnoticed. The world will know that which has been done in this house and in secret. It is in truth the deed of a reverential mind and fervent faith and a contrite soul.

Judas means confessor. Luke the Evangelist numbers both Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot among the twelve apostles.^[1] Since two of Christ’s disciples were given this same name and since there can be no meaningless symbol in the Christian mystery, I am convinced that the two Judases represent two distinct types of confessing Christians. The first, symbolized by Judas the son of James, perseveres in remaining faithful to Christ. The second type, however, after once believing and professing faith in Christ, then abandons him out of greed. He defects to the heretics and to the false priests of the Jews, that is, to counterfeit Christians, and (insofar as he is able) delivers Christ, the Word of truth, over to them to be crucified and destroyed. This type of Christian is represented by Judas Iscariot, who went out to the chief priests and agreed on a price for betraying Christ.

Then. When? It was when it had been made clear that he was being prepared for burial, that the Gospels would be preached everywhere and that he had been shown honor. Then Judas did the devil’s deed.

But what can be the reason they mention his surname? Because there was also another Judas.

And why do they specifically say that he was one of the twelve? They have opted entirely to hide none of those things which seem to be matters of reproach. And yet they might have merely said that he was one of the disciples, for there were others besides. But now they add, of the twelve, as though they had said, of the first company of those selected as the best, of those alongside Peter and John.

Let us consider what Judas said to the Jewish priests: What will you give me if I hand him over to you? He was willing to take money in exchange for handing over the Word of God. They do the same thing who accept sensual or worldly goods in exchange for handing over and casting out from their souls the Savior and Word of truth who came to dwell with them. Indeed, it would be fitting to apply Judas’s example to all who show contempt for the Word of God and betray him, as it were, by committing sin for the sake of money or for any selfish motive. People who behave in this way appear openly to be calling out to the powers of the enemy who offer worldly gain in return for the sin of betraying God’s Word, saying, What will you give me if I hand him over to you?

And they gave him thirty pieces of silver. The number of coins they gave Judas was equivalent to the number of years the Savior had sojourned in this world. For at the age of thirty, he was baptized and began to preach the gospel, like Joseph was thirty years old when he began to gather grain for his brothers.^[1] Just as at that time the grain was prepared by God for the sons of Israel but given also to the Egyptians, so also the gospel was prepared for the saints but preached also to the unfaithful and wicked.

The Romans had set the Jews over the people in order that they should provide for their good order.^[1] But by this time the Jews were becoming insurgent. Their government was now undergoing a change according to prophecy.

To these priests Judas went and said, ‘What will you give me if I deliver him to you?’ And they paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him. Judas was by now afraid of the multitude and desired to seize him alone.

O madness! The covetousness of Judas altogether blinds him! He had often seen Jesus when he went through the midst and did not betray him. Jesus had afforded many demonstrations of his Godhead and power, and no one had laid hold on him. Even at the supper Judas did not cease to talk with him and receive his care. This could have put an end to his evil thought. But all this profited nothing.

From then on he sought an opportunity to betray him. Luke’s Gospel shows most clearly the kind of opportunity for which Judas was looking when it says, And he sought an opportunity to betray him in the absence of the crowds,^[1] that is, when the people were not with him but when he was alone with his disciples. His betrayer did the deed after supper, when Christ was alone in the garden of Gethsemane. For once Judas reached his agreement with the Jews, he determined that his opportunity would come when Jesus was not with the crowds. Notice how even today the betrayers of Jesus Christ, Word of truth and Word of God, see their best opportunity to hand him over at a time when Christians are being persecuted. . . . They are at their worst when the number of his faithful is at its fewest. And since there is a time for all things, for Solomon said there is a time to be born and a time to die,^[2] the time for betraying the Word of truth was specifically when very few of the faithful were with Christ.

By the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, he means the day before that feast. For it is customary always to reckon the day from the evening.^[1] He mentions this with regard to the evening of the Passover. It was on the fifth day of the week they came to him. Hence on the day before the feast of unleavened bread they came to him. As to the time, Mark says, On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb.^[2]

The disciples came to him then on the first day, that is, the evening, when the Passover was drawing very near, and said, Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover? Even from this it is clear that he had no house, no place in which to live, and I suppose neither had they. For surely they would have asked him to come there. But none of them had anything, having given away all their worldly possessions. Why did he keep the Passover? To indicate in every way and until the last day that he was not opposed to the law. And for what possible reason does he send them to an unknown person? To also show by this that he might have avoided suffering. For he had the power to change the minds of those who crucified him. So it is once again clear: He is willing to suffer.

Saying a certain person does not reveal a name but indicates any one of the saints. For the Word governs over every saint. The disciples of the Lord are the first he receives—evangelists, apostles foreordained in their souls even in the same way as the Christ. He does not exclude; rather, unbidden, the Holy Spirit dwells within each from the hour of holy baptism. So this certain man is the one with the earthen pot washed with water as described by Mark and Luke.^[1]

I think that the man carrying a jar of water^[1] whom the disciples met when they entered the city and whom Jesus wanted them to follow into his house was bringing it into the house not only that the house might be clean but also more richly endowed. He was serving the head of the household (that is, the intellect),^[2] bearing purifying water in an earthen vessel that the heights of power might belong to God.^[3] Or perhaps he was supplying potable water in the earthen vessel so that the Son of God could provide new growth to the vine, for the servant of the intellect is the water of the Law and the Prophets, which must be mixed with the wine of the evangelical word. But we who wish to belong to the church and to celebrate the Passover with Jesus follow that man, whom I believe to be Moses, giver of the law, who bears this kind of water, carrying spiritual doctrine about in historical vessels.

The other Evangelist writes that they found a large upper room furnished and ready and they made preparations there for him. It seems to me that the room symbolizes the spiritual law which, emerging from the restraints of the written record, receives the Savior in a lofty place. Paul says that what he formerly counted as gain, he now despised as loss and refuse, that he might prepare a worthy guest chamber for the Lord.

Perhaps someone will ask: If the twelve apostles all had clean consciences (that is, if they were all innocent of any act of betrayal against the teacher), why were they sorrowful at the news that he would be betrayed, as though it could have been one of them to whom he was referring? I believe that each of the disciples knew from the things Jesus had taught them that human nature is unstable and vulnerable to be turned toward sin and that in struggling against the principalities and powers and rulers of this world of darkness^[1] a man can be besieged and fall or be so weakened by the power of the enemy that he becomes evil. Aware of these things, then, each disciple was very sorrowful because Christ had said one of you will betray me. And each disciple, not knowing what he might do in the future, began to inquire one by one: Is it I, Lord? Yet, if the apostles had good reason to fear that they might betray him, we who have not yet tasted of perfection must also be afraid of falling victim to future weakness. This is why the apostle said, I am certain that neither death nor life . . . is able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.^[2] But whoever is not yet perfect should remain aware that he is still capable of falling.

When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples; and as they were eating, he said, ‘Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.’ Even before the supper he had washed the feet of Judas. See how he spares the traitor. He did not say, Judas, you will betray me, but only one of you will betray me. This was again to offer time for repentance by keeping his identity concealed. He was willing to allow all the others to be alarmed, just for the sake of redeeming this one. All the others, whose feet he had washed and who had accompanied him everywhere and to whom he had promised so many things, were alarmed unnecessarily because of the one.

Intolerable sorrow then seized that holy company. John says, The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke.^[1] Each of them asked in fear concerning himself, although conscious to themselves of no such imagination. But Matthew writes, They were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, ‘Is it I, Lord?’ He answered, He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me.

Note precisely at what time Jesus revealed his identity. It was when it was his will to deliver the rest from this trouble. For they were horrified with fear and pressing in their questions. He wanted to give Judas time to change his mind, but he wanted also to relieve the others from their distress. But Judas continued to be incorrigible and past any hope of change. So now he is unmasked.

According to all appearances, Jesus departed and was about to suffer on the cross. In reality, however, he both departed and remained in the world with his disciples, keeping them in the faith, for they would not have been able to abide in his faith, especially once they saw him dead, if he had not been guarding their hearts invisibly. Christ didn’t say woe to that man by whom he is betrayed but woe to that man through whom he is betrayed, showing that Judas was only the means of his betrayal, whereas the agent of his betrayal was another, that is, the devil. The woe, however, is not only for Judas but for every betrayer of Christ, for whoever betrays one of Christ’s disciples betrays Christ himself. Even though he is betrayed by the devil, nevertheless woe to those through whom his betrayal comes.

The others were grieved and very much saddened as they questioned Christ: Surely, Lord, you don’t mean me? Lest he seem to betray himself by keeping silent, he too, whose conscience was troubling him and who had boldly placed his hand in the dish, questioned him: Surely, teacher, you don’t mean me? To this he added lip homage and a show of incredulity. The others, who were not traitors, said, Surely, Lord, you don’t mean me? He who was the traitor did not call him Lord but teacher, as if to have an excuse, upon rejecting the Lord, for having betrayed at most a teacher. Jesus answered, ‘You have said so.’ The traitor was put to shame by the same response Christ would later give to Pilate.^[1]