John 12 JOHN 12:1-11 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom he had raised from the dead. So they prepared a dinner for Jesus there. Martha was serving, and Lazarus was among those present at the table with him. Then Mary took three quarters of a pound of expensive aromatic oil from pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus.
She then wiped his feet dry with her hair. (Now the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfumed oil.) But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was going to betray him) said, "Why wasn’t this oil sold for three hundred silver coins and the money given to the poor?" (Now Judas said this not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money box, he used to steal what was put into it.) So Jesus said, "Leave her alone. She has kept it for the day of my burial.
For you always have the poor with you, but you don’t always have me." Now the large crowd of Jewish people from Jerusalem learned that Jesus was there, and so they came not only because of him but also to see Lazarus whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus too, for on account of him many of the Jewish people from Jerusalem were going away and believing in Jesus. The chapter we have now begun finishes a most important division of John's Gospel. Our Lord's public addresses to the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem are here brought to an end.
After this chapter, John records nothing but what was said in private to the disciples. We see, for one thing, in this passage, what abounding proofs exist of the truth of our Lord's greatest miracles. We read of a supper at Bethany, where Lazarus "sat at the table" among the guests--Lazarus, who had been publicly raised from the dead, after lying four days in the grave. No one could pretend to say that his resurrection was a mere optical delusion, and that the eyes of the bystanders must have been deceived by a spirit or vision.
Here was the very same Lazarus, after several weeks, sitting among his fellow-men with a real material body, and eating and drinking real material food. It is hard to understand what stronger evidence of a fact could be supplied. He that is not convinced by such evidence as this may as well say that he is determined to believe nothing at all. It is a comfortable thought, that the very same proofs which exist about the resurrection of Lazarus are the proofs which surround that still mightier fact, the resurrection of Christ from the dead.
Was Lazarus seen for several weeks by the people of Bethany, going in and coming out among them? So was the Lord Jesus seen by His disciples. Did Lazarus take material food before the eyes of his friends? So did the Lord Jesus eat and drink before His ascension. No one, in his sober senses, who saw Jesus take "broiled fish," and eat it before several witnesses, would doubt that He had a real body. (Luke 24:42.) We shall do well to remember this. In an age of abounding unbelief and scepticism, we shall find that the resurrection of Christ will bear any weight that we can lay upon it.
Just as He placed beyond reasonable doubt the rising again of a beloved disciple within two miles of Jerusalem, so in a very few weeks He placed beyond doubt His own victory over the grave. If we believe that Lazarus rose again, we need not doubt that Jesus rose again also. If we believe that Jesus rose again, we need not doubt the truth of His Messiahship, the reality of His acceptance as our Mediator, and the certainty of our own resurrection. Christ has risen indeed, and wicked men may well tremble. Christ has risen from the dead, and believers may well rejoice.
We see, for another thing, in this passage, what unkindness and discouragement Christ's friends sometimes meet with from man. We read that, at the supper in Bethany, Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anointed the feet of Jesus with precious ointment, and wiped them with the hair of her head. Nor was this ointment poured on with a niggardly hand. She did it so liberally and profusely that "the house was filled with the odor of the ointment." She did it under the influence of a heart full of love and gratitude. She thought nothing too great and good to bestow on such a Savior.
Sitting at His feet in days gone by, and hearing His words, she had found peace for her conscience, and pardon for her sins. At this very moment she saw Lazarus, alive and well, sitting by her Master's side--her own brother Lazarus, whom He had brought back to her from the grave. Greatly loved, she thought she could not show too much love in return. Having freely received, she freely gave. But there were some present who found fault with Mary's conduct, and blamed her as guilty of wasteful extravagance.
One especially, an apostle, a man of whom better things might have been expected, declared openly that the ointment would have been better employed if it had been sold, and the price "given to the poor." The heart which could conceive such thoughts must have had low views of the dignity of Christ's person, and still lower views of our obligations to Him. A cold heart and a stingy hand will generally go together. There are only too many professing Christians of a like spirit in the present day. Myriads of baptized people cannot understand zeal of any sort, for the honor of Christ.
Tell them of any vast outlay of money to push trade or to advance the cause of science, and they approve of it as right and wise. Tell them of any expense incurred for the preaching of the Gospel at home or abroad, for spreading God's Word, for extending the knowledge of Christ on earth, and they tell you plainly that they think it waste. They never give a farthing to such objects as these, and count those people fools who do. Worst of all, they often cover over their own backwardness to help purely Christian objects, by a pretended concern for the poor at home.
Yet they find it convenient to forget the well known fact that those who do most for the cause of Christ are precisely those who do most for the poor. We must never allow ourselves to be moved from "patient continuance in well-doing," by the unkind remarks of such people. It is vain to expect a man to do much for Christ, when he has no sense of debt to Christ. We must pity the blindness of our unkind critics, and work on. He who pleaded the cause of loving Mary, and said, "Let her alone," is sitting at the right hand of God, and keeps a book of remembrance.
A day is soon coming when a wondering world will see that every cup of cold water given for Christ's sake, as well as every box of precious ointment, was recorded in heaven, and has its rewards. In that great day those who thought that anyone could give too much to Christ will find they had better never have been born. We see, lastly, in this passage, what desperate hardness and unbelief there is in the heart of man. Unbelief appears in the chief priests, who "consulted that they might put Lazarus to death." They could not deny the fact of his having been raised again.
Living, and moving, and eating, and drinking within two miles of Jerusalem, after lying four days in the grave, Lazarus was a witness to the truth of Christ's Messiahship, whom they could not possibly answer or put to silence. Yet these proud men would not give way. They would rather commit a murder than throw down the arms of rebellion, and confess themselves in the wrong. No wonder that the Lord Jesus in a certain place "marveled" at unbelief.
Well might He say, in a well-known parable, "If they believe not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." (Mark 6:6; Luke 16:31.) Hardness appears in Judas Iscariot, who, after being a chosen Apostle, and a preacher of the kingdom of heaven, turns out at last a thief and a traitor. So long as the world stands this unhappy man will be a lasting proof of the depth of human corruption.
That anyone could follow Christ as a disciple for three years, see all His miracles, hear all His teaching, receive at His hand repeated kindnesses, be counted an Apostle, and yet prove rotten at heart in the end, all this at first sight appears incredible and impossible! Yet the case of Judas shows plainly that the thing can be. Few things, perhaps, are so little realized as the extent of what desperate hardness and unbelief there is in the heart of man.
Let us thank God if we know anything of faith, and can say, with all our sense of weakness and infirmity, "I believe." Let us pray that our faith may be real, true, genuine, and sincere, and not a mere temporary impression, like the morning cloud and the early dew. Not least, let us watch and pray against the love of the world. It ruined one who basked in the full sunshine of privileges, and heard Christ Himself teaching every day. Then "let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." (1 Cor. 10:12.) Technical Notes: 1.--[ Then six days...
Bethany . ] Every intelligent reader of the Gospel will see that John purposely omits at this point certain events which are recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He passes at once from our Lord’s retirement to the city called Ephraim, to His return to Bethany for the last time. In this interval will be found the things related in Matthew 10:17-34; Mark 10:32-52; Luke 18:31-19:28.
In whatever part of Palestine this city Ephraim was, it is almost certain that between it and Bethany Jesus passed through Jericho, healed two blind men there, converted the publican Zaccheus, and spoke the parable of the nobleman who went into a far country, after giving to his ten servants ten pounds. Why St. John did not record these facts we do not know, and it is mere waste of time to inquire. A reverent mind will be content to remember that John wrote by inspiration of God and was guided by infallible direction, both as to what he recorded and what he did not record.
Reason and common sense, moreover, tell us that if the four Evangelists had all narrated exactly the same things, their value as independent witnesses would have been greatly damaged. Their variations and diversities are a strong direct proof of their credibility. Too close an agreement would raise a suspicion of collusion and look like an attempt to deceive. The expression “six days before the passover” is remarkable, because at first sight it seems to contradict Mark’s narrative of the anointing, which Mark expressly says was “two days before the passover” (Mark 14:1).
Hence some maintain that the Greek words should be translated “before the six days of the passover feast,” leaving the precise day indefinite and uncertain. To this, however, it is reasonably objected that the passover feast was more than six days, and that the proposed translation is not a probable rendering of the Greek words. To this I must add that in my opinion there seems no necessity for departing from the English version.
It is not only possible but probable, as Lightfoot maintains, that there were two distinct anointings of our Lord, one six days before the passover and the other two days before. [The reader is requested to refer back to the notes on John 2:2 where he will find this point fully discussed.] The passover was slain on the Thursday evening. At this rate, our Lord must have arrived at Bethany on Friday, the afternoon or evening before the Sabbath. Thus he must have spent His last earthly Sabbath with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, at Bethany.
The the disciples must have journeyed to Bethany with a full impression that a great crisis was at hand and the end of their Master’s ministry approaching, one can hardly doubt after reading the plain warnings recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But whether they really thought their Master would be put to death, or whether they did not secretly expect He would soon manifest His Divine power, take His kingdom and reign, is more than questionable.
A more deliberate, voluntary, calm walking up to death than our Lord’s last journey into Judea, it is impossible to conceive. [ Where Lazarus...raised from the dead. ] These words seem to show that Lazarus lived at Bethany and was not merely a visitor or lodger there. They also show the immense importance of the miracle wrought on him. Within two miles of Jerusalem and the temple there lived for weeks, if not for months, a man well known to many Jews, who had been actually raised from his grave after being four days buried.
He had not been raised only, and then disappeared from public notice, but he lived where he was raised. Lightfoot draws out the following interesting scheme of our Lord’s disposal of time during the last six days before His crucifixion: (1) On Saturday He supped with Lazarus. (2) On Sunday He rode into Jerusalem publicly on an ass. This was the day when the Jews used to take out a lamb from the flock, for each family, and to keep it separate for the passover.
On this day the Lamb of God publicly presented Himself in Zion. (3) On Monday He went to Jerusalem again and cursed the barren fig tree on the way. (4) On Tuesday He went again to Jerusalem and spoke for the last time to the people.
Returning, He sat on the Mount of Olives and delivered the famous prophecy of Matthew 24 and 25, and supped that night with Simon the leper. (5) On Wednesday He tarried in Bethany. (6) On Thursday He went to Jerusalem, ate the passover, appointed the Lord’s Supper, and the same night was taken before the priests as a prisoner. (7) On Friday He was crucified. 2.--[ There they made him a supper. ] These words show the joyful hospitality with which the Master was received by the disciples.
The expression “they” may perhaps be used indefinitely, according to a common Hebraism. (Compare Matthew 5:15, 10:10, 13:48, and John 15:6.) It then simply means “a supper was made.” If not so used, it evidently can apply to none but Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. Whether the supper was on Friday evening when our Lord arrived, after the Sabbath began, or on the Saturday, or the Sabbath Day, is immaterial. It is evident that hospitality was thought no breach of the Sabbath among the Jews.
Lightfoot says the feast of the Jews, on this particular day six days before the passover, was always peculiarly liberal and sumptuous. Hutcheson observes: “It is not unlawful at some times to enjoy the liberal use of the creatures in a sober manner. Christ does not decline this supper; sometimes He went to the feasts of Pharisees and sometimes of Publicans.” (Luke 7:36; Matt. 9:11.) [ And Martha served. ] The natural temperament of this good woman comes out here as elsewhere. She could not sit still and do nothing while her Lord was in her house.
She must be actively stirring and trying to do something. Grace does not take away our peculiar characteristics. [ But Lazarus...table with him. ] This appears to most commentators, from Chrysostom downwards, to be purposely mentioned in order to show the reality of Lazarus’ resurrection. He was not a ghost or a spirit. He had really been raised to life with a real body, and flesh and bones, and all the needs and conditions of a body. Thus we are practically taught that though a man’s body dies, it may yet live again. Is not this feast a faint type of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb?
Jesus Christ will be there; those believers who died and are raised again at His second advent will be there; and those who never died but are found alive and believing when He comes will be there. Then the number of guests will be complete. 3.--[ Then Mary took...anointed, etc. ] This remarkable action of Mary, which, according to our Lord’s saying in Matthew and Mark, is related all over the world, deserves our special consideration.
The action itself was not an uncommon one in Eastern countries where the heat is very great, and where the feet exposed to it by wearing sandals are liable to suffer much from dryness and scorching. There was nothing, moreover, out of the common way in a woman doing this service. To “wash the saints’ feet,” St. Paul names among the good works of a Christian widow (1 Tim. 5:10). The motive of Mary in doing what she did was evidently strong and grateful love to her Lord and Savior.
Not only from what she had learned from Him for her own spiritual benefit, but also for what He had done for her brother Lazarus, she felt there was nothing too great or too good to do for Him. Her feelings made her anxious to do her Master the highest honor, regardless of expense, and indifferent to any remark that witnesses might make. The extent of her gratitude is shown by the lavish profuseness with which she used the ointment on this occasion, although it was very costly.
This seems indicated by her “wiping our Lord’s feet with her hair,” having poured on them so much ointment that they needed wiping; and also by the “house being filled with the fragrance of the ointment.” She poured out so much ointment that the scent of it filled the whole apartment and the whole house where the guests were. Anyone who knows the powerful odor of otto of roses, in the present day, will easily understand this. What this “ointment of spikenard” was has puzzled the commentators in every age, as the Greek word throws no certain light on the question.
Some think that it means “potable” ointment, that might be drunk; some that it means perfectly “pure” ointment, that might be trusted as genuine and unadulterated. Augustine thinks that the expression denotes the place from which the ointment came. The question is of no importance and must be left unexplained for lack of materials to explain it. Enough for us to know that it was something very valuable and costly. How costly an ointment might be, anyone can guess who knows the value of pure otto of roses.
I can only repeat the opinion already expressed that this anointing was certainly not the anointing which is described in Luke 7, and most probably was not the anointing of Mark 14. The anointing in Mark was two days before the passover while this was six. In Mark the ointment was poured on the head, and here it was poured on the feet. In Matthew and Mark several “disciples” murmured, but here only Judas is named.
These discrepancies, in my judgment, are insuperable and make it necessary to believe that there were two distinct anointings at Bethany during the last six days preceding the crucifixion. I grant that it is a choice between difficulties, and that there are difficulties in the view I maintain. But I do not think them so weighty as those of the other view. At any rate, I am supported by the great authority of Chrysostom, Chemnitius, and Lightfoot as well as of Whitby and Henry. What the significance of Mary’s wiping our Lord’s feet with the hairs of her head may be is a difficult question.
Perhaps, from our ignorance of Eastern customs in the days of our Lord’s earthly ministry, we are hardly qualified to give an opinion about it now. On points like these, where we are ignorant, it is wisest not to conjecture. Calvin says: “The usual practice was to anoint the head, and on this account Pliny reckons it an instance of excessive luxury that some anointed the ankles.
What John says about the feet amounts to this, that the whole body of Christ, down to the feet, was anointed.” Rollock observes that at this time Mary seems to have had a deeper and more intimate perception of what there was in Christ, and of the real dignity of His person, than any of His disciples. 4.--[Then said...Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son. ] We know nothing of this Simon, who he was or why he is specially mentioned here. It is worth notice that hardly any name occurs so frequently in the New Testament as this. We have the following: The Apostle Simon, called also Peter.
The Apostle Simon, called also Zelotes and the Canaanite. Simon the brother of our Lord (Matthew 13:55). Simon the leper, in whose house the anointing took place (Matt. 26:6). Simon the Cyrenian, who carried the cross (Matt. 27:32). Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:40). Simon the sorcerer at Samaria (Acts 8:9). Simon the tanner (Acts 9:43). It would, of course, be interesting to know if Judas Iscariot was son of any of these. But we have no clue to guide us. Wordsworth sees in the mention of Judas by name a strong internal evidence of the late date of St. John’s Gospel.
Compare with this the fact that John alone mentions Peter and Malchus by name (John 18:10). [ Who would betray him. ] These words would be more literally rendered, “the one who was about to betray Him.” On the occasion of the anointing related in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, it is worth noticing that “some of the disciples,” and not Judas only, found fault with the action. It rather adds probability to the theory that there were two anointings at Bethany.
Chrysostom remarks that Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas was a traitor and often rebuked him with such words as, “One of you is a devil” (John 6:64). Augustine also remarks that we must not suppose Judas never fell till he received money from the Jews. He was false from the beginning. He also says that he was present at the institution of the Lord’s Supper and was a communicant. 5.--[ Why was not...poor? ] This carping question is a specimen of the way in which wicked men often try to depreciate a good action, and specially in the matter of giving money.
When the deed is done, they do not say downright that it ought not to have been done, but suggest that something better might have been done! Those who do good must be prepared to find their actions carped at and their motives depreciated, and themselves charged with neglecting one class of duties in over-zealousness for doing others. If we do nothing until everybody commends and praises us, we shall never do any good in the world. We may learn from this verse the costly nature of Mary’s ointment.
If workman’s wages were “a penny a day,” (Matt. 20:2), about 7½ d. of our money, this holy woman must have poured on our Lord’s feet what was worth between £9 and £10 of our money, according to the estimate of Judas. But allowances must perhaps be made for an exaggerated statement being made by an envious and wicked man. We may note here that giving to the poor was evidently assumed to be a part of every Christian’s duty. Compare this with Gal. 2:10. In a country like England, where there is a poor law, Christians are sadly apt to forget this.
The duty of “giving to the poor,” and not merely paying rates in obedience to law, is just as obligatory now as it was 1800 years ago. Ecolampadius remarks that the more wicked and graceless people are, the more ready they are to find fault with and blame others and to see no beauty in what they do. Quesnel remarks that Judas made a great ado about 300 pence, viz., £10 and a little ointment, when he was about to sell the Son of God for 30 pieces of silver, viz., £3 15s.
Henry observes: “Coldness of love to Christ and a secret contempt of serious piety, when they appear in professors of religion, are sad presages of final apostasy.” Stier remarks: “We have in the words of Judas an example of those judgments which have their foundation in the favorite principles of utilitarianism, and which may too often be applied falsely to the wounding of pious hearts.” “This lays bare the root of that suspicion with which missionary offerings for the extension of Christ’s kingdom are looked at, because of the poor whom we have at home.” “We have here, furthermore, an example of all cold judgments passed on the virtuous emotions of warm hearts, of all more or less conscious or unconscious censures of the artless outgoings and acts of honest feelings, and of all narrow-hearted criticism of others according to our own mind and temper.” 6.--[ This he said...poor. ] This is one of those parenthetical explanations or glosses which are so frequent in St.
John’s Gospel. The Evangelist tells us the true character of Judas and the reason he said what he did. He did not really care about the poor, but put their interest forward as a special and plausible argument for depreciating Mary’s action and discouraging such actions in others. There is something very instructive in this. The argument of Judas is frequently reproduced in the present day. Hundreds of people excuse themselves from one class of duties by pretended zeal for others, and compensate for neglecting Christ’s cause by affecting great concern for the poor.
Yet in reality they care nothing for the poor and only want to save their own money, and to be spared contributing to religious causes. Some, for instance, will never give money to benefit the souls of their fellow-countrymen and tell us we must first relieve their property and feed their bodies. Some again will give nothing to help missions abroad and tell us we must first mind the poor at home. Even the shareholders of some great joint stock companies have been known to express great concern for the poor and working classes as an excuse for carrying on their business on Sundays.
The language of St. John about Judas Iscariot shows us that this apparent zeal for the poor should always be regarded with suspicion and submitted to close analysis and cross-examination. He talked brave words about the poor, as if he cared more for them than anyone! Yet there is not the slightest proof in the Gospels that he cared more for them than others. Above all, the conclusion of the verse lets out the truth, and the unerring pen of inspiration reveals the man’s true motives. These things are written for our learning.
There are few greater impostors in the world than some of those who are pretending perpetually to care about the poor. The truest and best friends of the working classes and the poor, the people who give most and do most for them, will always be found among those who do most for Christ. It is the successors of Mary of Bethany, and not of Judas Iscariot, who really “care for the poor.” But they do not talk about it. While others talk and profess, they act. [ But because he was a thief. ] This is strong language and a very heavy accusation.
It seems to indicate that this was the habitual character of Judas. He always had been and always was a dishonest man. So says an inspired Apostle. In the face of this expression, it appears to me impossible to prove that Judas ever had the grace of God at any time, and that he only fell away at last. He was inwardly wrong at heart all the way through. Again, I find it impossible to believe that Judas was a highsouled and noble-minded (though greatly erring) man, and that his motive in betraying his Lord was to hasten His kingdom and to cut short the period of his humiliation.
I cannot reconcile this with the word “thief.” Let us note here how far a man may go in Christian profession without any inward grace. There is no evidence that Judas up to this time was unlike other Apostles. Like them he had seen all Christ’s miracles, heard Christ’s teaching, lived in Christ’s company, and had himself preached the kingdom of God. Yet he was at bottom a graceless man. Privileges alone convert nobody. Ferus remarks: “Let us never put confidence in man or in any sanctity of position, office, or dress.
If apostleship did not make Judas a saint, neither will position, office, or dress make you a saint. In fact, unless you first have inward holiness and have sought it from God, it may be that your office may render who more wicked. Let us note the amazing power of the love of money. No besetting sin seems so thoroughly to wither up and blight and harden the heart. No wonder it is called “the root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10). However many the faults and infirmities recorded of saints in the Bible, we have not a single example of one that was covetous.
Chrysostom observes: “A dreadful thing is the love of money! It disables both eyes and ears and makes man worse to deal with than a wild beast, allowing a man to consider neither conscience, nor friendship, nor fellowship, nor salvation.” Quesnel observes that “Christ allows His money to be taken from Him, but never His sheep.” [ And had the bag. ] The Greek word rendered “bag” is a curious one. The original idea is that of a bag in which musicians kept the mouthpieces or reeds of their instruments.
From that the idea evidently was attached to it of a bag carried about by any member of a company, such as that of the disciples, on behalf of his companions. Whether the common stock of provisions as well as of money was not kept in the bag perhaps admits of a question. Theophylact says that some think that Judas was trusted with the care of the money as one of the meanest and most inferior of Christian duties.
Thus in Acts the Apostles would not “serve tables” (Acts 6:2). [ And bare what was put in it. ] The last words would be more literally rendered “the things put therein.” Some, as Origen, Theophylact, Pearce, Lampe, Tittman, Bloomfield, and Clarke, have thought that the word “bare” means “took away, carried off, stole, secreted, or set apart for himself.” I doubt this. I prefer the simple idea of “carrying about.” It was the office of Judas to be the purse-keeper of the little company of disciples.
The contributions in money and provisions of those friends who ministered to our Lord, such as Joanna, Susanna, and many others (Luke 8:3), were probably meant by the things here mentioned. It is clear that our Lord had not earthly wealth, nor His disciples. It is equally clear that His friends, scattered all over Palestine, must have thought it a privilege, whenever He came among them, to contribute to His maintenance and support. Of these contributions in all probability Judas was treasurer.
Let professing Christians note that to have money passing through their hands is a snare and a temptation. It is a snare by which many in every age have been cast down. 7.--[ Then Jesus said, Let her alone. ] This is unquestionably a rebuke to Judas, and a somewhat sharp one. It shows how jealously our Lord regards any attempt to hinder, check, or discourage the zeal of His own people.
Even now, when some of His weak disciples undertake work which calls for enmity and opposition, He can make all difficulties vanish and say, “Let them alone.” [ Against the day...this. ] The first word here would be more literally rendered “for” the day. I believe we must not interpret this sentence as if our Lord meant that Mary really knew that our Lord’s burial was at hand. I think it rather signifies, “The ointment which Mary has poured on my feet, though she meant it only as a mark of honor, happens to be a most suitable thing since my death and burial are approaching.
She little knew in doing what she did the nearness of my death; but, as it happens, her action is most seasonable.” Some, as Chrysostom, think that our Lord intended to prick the conscience and soften the feelings of Judas by talking of His “burial,” and by the language of the next verse, “Me ye have not always.” It may possibly be so. But I rather think that in both instances He intended to direct the minds of all around Him, as He had evidently been doing for some weeks, to His approaching death and the conclusion of His ministry. He brings that conclusion in at every turn now.
Some think that the word “kept” refers to the ointment having been originally got by Mary for her brother Lazarus, and that there had been a long hoarding up of it from the day when Lazarus died, and that Judas blamed Mary for having “kept” it so long and not having sold it. But this is purely conjectural. May we not learn from our Lord’s words here that Christians do not always know the full meaning of what they do?
God uses them as His instruments without their being aware of it at the time. (Compare John 12:16.) Calvin says: “Those are absurd interpreters who infer from Christ’s reply that costly and magnificent worship is pleasing to God. He rather excuses Mary on the ground of her having rendered an extraordinary service, which ought not to be regarded as a perpetual rule for the worship of God.” 8.--[ For the poor...always. ] It is clear from these words that poverty will always exist; and we need not wonder.
So long as human nature is what it is, some will always be rich and some poor—because some are diligent and some idle, some are strong and some weak, some are wise and some foolish. We need never dream that by any arrangement, either civil or ecclesiastical, poverty can ever be entirely prevented. The existence of pauperism is no proof whatever that states are ill governed, or that churches are not doing their duty.
Ecolampadius thinks that our Lord here refers to the poor as being His members, and that there is a latent reference to the language of the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew about works of mercy being regarded as works done to Christ’s brethren and to Christ Himself (Matt. 25:40).
It is noteworthy that in this sentence Jesus passes from a singular verb to a plural one, and seems to address not Judas only but all present. [ But me ye have not always. ] These words show, for one thing, that our Lord’s bodily presence on earth was a great and miraculous event and, as such, deserved to be marked with peculiar honor; and for another thing, that His departure was at hand so that the opportunities for doing Him honor were becoming very few.
Moreover, if words mean anything, the sentence completely overthrows the whole theory of Christ’ body being present under the forms of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. That favorite Romish doctrine can never be reconciled with “Me ye have not always.” We may surely learn from this verse that relieving the poor, however good a work, is not so important a work as doing honor to Christ. In times like these it is well to remember this. Not a few seem to think all religion consists in giving temporal help to the poor.
Yet there are evidently occasions when the relief of the poor must not be allowed to supersede the direct work of honoring Christ. Doubtless it is well to feed, clothe, and nurse the poor; but it is never to be forgotten that to glorify Christ among them is far better. Moreover, it is much easier to give temporal than spiritual help, for we have our reward in thanks and gratitude and the praise of man. To honor Christ is far harder and gets us no praise at all. Augustine remarks: “In respect of the presence of His Majesty, we have Christ always.
In respect to the presence of the flesh, it was rightly said, ‘Me ye will not have always.’ The Church had Him in respect of the flesh for a few days, but now by faith and not with eyes it beholds Him.” Zwingle observes that this sentence “excludes Christ’s corporal presence from the Lord’s Supper. According to His Divine nature, Christ is always present with His people. According to His human nature, He is in one place in heaven, at the right hand of God.” Most of the other reformers make the same comment.
Rollock remarks that our Lord’s defense of Mary in this passage must not be alleged as a warrant for extravagant and profuse expenditure in the public worship of Christians. Jesus Himself points out that the occasion was extraordinary and singular—on the eve almost of His burial—an occasion which could only happen once.
This seems to imply that on ordinary occasions such an expenditure as that of Mary would not have been justifiable. 9--[ Now a great many...was there. ] We need not doubt that the news of our Lord’s arrival at Bethany would soon spread like lightning, partly because Bethany was so near Jerusalem, partly because of the recent miracle wrought there, partly because of the order of the rulers to give information where Christ was, partly because of the approach of the Passover and the crowds assembling all around Jerusalem. [They came not...but...see Lazarus...from the dead. ] This sentence is a genuine exhibition of human nature.
Curiosity is one of the most common and powerful motives in man. The love of seeing something sensational and out of the common way is almost universal. When people could see at once both the subject of the miracle and Him that worked the miracle, we need not wonder that they resorted in crowds to Bethany. Yet within ten days a far greater miracle was to take place—our Lord’s own resurrection. 10.--[ But the chief priests consulted. ] It admits of doubt whether the word rendered “consulted” would not be better rendered “purposed” or “determined,” as in Acts 15:37, 27:39, and 2 Cor. 1:17.
This is the view of Schleusner and Parkhurst. [ That they might...death also. ] It is difficult to conceive a greater proof of hardened and incorrigible wickedness of heart than this sentence exhibits. The chief priests could not possibly deny the fact of Lazarus having been raised, or explain it away. He was a witness whose testimony against their unbelief was overwhelming. They must therefore stop his mouth by killing him. And these were the chief ecclesiastical leaders of Israel! Moreover, Lazarus had done them no harm.
Though a disciple, there is no proof that he was a leading follower of Christ, much less a preacher of the Gospel. But he was an inconvenient standing evidence and so he must be removed! 11.--[Because...many of the Jews...believed in Jesus. ] This sentence shows the immense effect that the raising of Lazarus had on the public mind, in spite of all the priests could do to prevent it. In every age people will think for themselves when God’s truth comes into a land. Prisons and threats and penalties cannot prevent men thinking. Mind and thought cannot be chained.
When ecclesiastical tyrants burn martyrs and destroy Bibles and silence preachers, they forget their is one thing they cannot do: They cannot stop the inward machinery of people’s thoughts.
The expression “went away” will hardly bear the sense put on it by Pearce, of “withdrawing themselves from the service of the synagogue.” It probably only means “went to Bethany.” Bloomfield says, “it denotes their ceasing to pay that regard to the teaching of the Scribes which they formerly had done.” [ And believed in Jesus. ] I dare not think that this “believing” means more than intellectual conviction that Jesus must be the Messiah. I see no evidence that it means the faith of the heart.
Yet it is probable this was exactly the state of mind in which many hundreds or thousands of Jews were before the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the day of Pentecost— convinced but not converted, persuaded that Jesus was the Christ of God but afraid to confess Him. Hence on the day of Pentecost, we cannot doubt that many hundreds of Peter’s hearers were prepared to believe. The stony ground of prejudice and ignorant adhesion to Judaism had been broken to pieces, and the seed fell into soil prepared for it.
Poole thinks that Lazarus, after his marvelous resurrection, “possibly spoke of it to the honor and glory of God,” and that this excited the special anger of the priests. JOHN 12:12-19 The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him. They began to shout, "Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!
Blessed is the king of Israel!" Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, "Do not be afraid, people of Zion; look, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt!" (His disciples did not understand these things when they first happened, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written about him and that these things had happened to him.) So the crowd who had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead were continuing to testify about it.
Because they had heard that Jesus had performed this miraculous sign, the crowd went out to meet him. Thus the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that this is getting us nowhere. Look, the world has gone after him!" A careful reader of the Gospels can hardly fail to observe that our Lord Jesus Christ's conduct, at this stage of His earthly ministry, is very peculiar. It is unlike anything else recorded of Him in the New Testament.
Hitherto we have seen Him withdrawing as much as possible from public notice, retiring into the wilderness, and checking those who would have brought Him forward and made Him a king. As a rule He did not court popular attention. He did not "cry or strive, or cause His voice to be heard in the streets." (Matt. 12:19.) Here, on the contrary, we see Him making a public entry into Jerusalem, attended by an immense crowd of people, and causing even the Pharisees to say, "Behold, the world has gone after Him." The explanation of this apparent inconsistency is not hard to find out.
The time had come at last when Christ was to die for the sins of the world. The time had come when the true passover Lamb was to be slain, when the true blood of atonement was to be shed, when Messiah was to be "cut off" according to prophecy, (Dan. 9:26,) when the way into the holiest was to be opened by the true High Priest to all mankind. Knowing all this, our Lord purposely drew attention to Himself. Knowing this, He placed Himself prominently under the notice of the whole Jewish nation.
It was only fit and right that this thing should not be "done in a corner." (Acts 26:26.) If ever there was a transaction in our Lord's earthly ministry which was public , it was the Sacrifice which He offered up on the cross of Calvary. He died at the time of year when all the tribes were assembled at Jerusalem for the passover feast. Nor was this all. He died in a week when, by His remarkable public entry into Jerusalem, He had caused the eyes of all Israel to be specially fixed upon Himself. We learn, for one thing, in these verses, how entirely VOLUNTARY the sufferings of Christ were.
It is impossible not to see in the history before us that our Lord had a mysterious influence over the minds and wills of all around Him, whenever He thought fit to use it. Nothing else can account for the effect which His approach to Jerusalem had on the multitudes which accompanied Him. They seem to have been carried forward by a secret constraining power , which they were obliged to obey, in spite of the disapproval of the leaders of the nation.
In short, just as our Lord was able to make winds, and waves, and diseases, and devils obey Him, so was He able, when it pleased Him, to turn, the minds of men according to His will. For the case before us does not stand alone.
The men of Nazareth could not hold Him when He chose to "pass through the midst of them and go His way." (Luke 4:30.) The angry Jews of Jerusalem could not detain him when they would have laid violent hands on Him in the Temple; but, "going through the midst of them, He passed by." (John 8:59.) Above all, the very soldiers who apprehended Him in the garden, at first "went backward and fell to the ground." (John 18:6.) In each of these instances there is but one explanation. A Divine influence was put forth.
There was about our Lord during His whole earthly ministry a mysterious "hiding of His power." (Hab. 3:4.) But He had almighty power when He was pleased to use it. Why, then, did He not resist His enemies at last? Why did He not scatter the band of soldiers who came to seize Him, like chaff before the wind? There is but one answer. He was a willing Sufferer in order to procure redemption for a lost and ruined soul. He had undertaken to give His own life as a ransom, that we might live forever, and He laid it down on the cross with all the desire of His heart.
He did not bleed and suffer and die because He was vanquished by superior force, and could not help Himself, but because He loved us, and rejoiced to give Himself for us as our Substitute. He did not die because He could not avoid death, but because He was willing with all His heart to make His soul an offering for sin. Forever let us rest our hearts on this most comfortable thought. We have a most willing and loving Savior. It was His delight to do His Father's will, and to make a way for lost and guilty man to draw near to God in peace.
He loved the work He had taken in hand, and the poor sinful world which He came to save. Never, then, let us give way to the unworthy thought that our Savior does not love to see sinners coming to Him, and does not rejoice to save them. He who was a most willing Sacrifice on the cross is also a most willing Savior at the right hand of God. He is just as willing to receive sinners who come to Him now for peace, as He was to die for sinners, when He held back His power and willingly suffered on Calvary.
We learn, for another thing, in these verses, how minutely the PROPHECIES concerning Christ's first coming were fulfilled. The riding into Jerusalem on an donkey, which is here recorded, might seem at first sight a simple action, and in no way remarkable.
But when we turn to the Old Testament, we find that this very thing had been predicted by the Prophet Zechariah five hundred years before. (Zech. 9:9.) We find that the coming of a Redeemer some day was not the only thing which the Holy Spirit had revealed to the Fathers, but that even the least particulars of His earthly career were predicted and written down with precise accuracy. Such fulfillments of prophecy as this deserve the special attention of all who love the Bible and read it with reverence. They show us that every word of Holy Scripture was given by inspiration of God.
They teach us to beware of the mischievous practice of spiritualizing and explaining away the language of Scripture. We must settle it in our minds that the plain, literal meaning of the Bible is generally the true and correct meaning. Here is a prediction of Zechariah literally and exactly fulfilled. Our Lord was not merely a very humble person as some spiritualizing interpreters would have explained Zechariah's words to mean, but He literally rode into Jerusalem on an donkey. Above all, such fulfillments teach us what we may expect in looking forward to the second advent of Jesus Christ.
They show us that we must look for a literal accomplishment of the prophecies concerning that second coming, and not for a figurative and a spiritual one. Forever let us hold fast this great principle. Happy is that Bible-reader who believes the words of the Bible to mean exactly what they seem to mean. Such a man has got the true key of knowledge in looking forward to things to come.
To know that predictions about the second advent of Christ will be fulfilled literally, just as predictions about the first advent of Christ were fulfilled literally, is the first step towards a right understanding of unfulfilled prophecy. Technical Notes: 12. On the next day many people who had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem , 13. took branches of palm trees and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna! Blessed is the King of Israel who comes in the name of the LORD! 14. And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat on it; as it is written, 15.
Fear not, daughter of Zion ; behold, your King comes, sitting on an ass’s colt. 16. His disciples did not understand these things at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things to him. 17. Therefore the people who were with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave and raised him from the dead, bore record. 18. For this reason the people also met him, because they heard that he had done this miracle. 19. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing?
Behold, the world is gone after him! 12.--[ On the next day. ] This day must have been the Sunday before Easter, which is commonly known in England as “Palm Sunday,” from the circumstance here related. [ Many people...feast. ] This must include many of the Jews who had come up to the passover from Galilee and were doubtless well acquainted with our Lord’s ministry and the numerous miracles He had worked in Galilee. Some of them, in all human probability, had formed part of the multitude whom He fed with a few loaves in the wilderness. [ When they heard...
Jerusalem . ] We must suppose that by some means our Lord’s intention of coming to Jerusalem must have become known, either by Himself communicating it or by His disciples learning it and telling others. This information would be carried back to the city by those who came from thence to Bethany on Saturday. Bethany, however, was on the direct road from Jericho to Jerusalem, and the tidings of our Lord’s approach may have traveled before Him for some days. Rollock thinks this multitude must have been chiefly composed of Jews not residing in Jerusalem.
The Jerusalem Jews, he thinks, are an instance of the old proverb, which he quotes, “The nearer the Church the further from God.” 13.--[ Took branches...to meet him. ] The precise motive of this action we are left to conjecture. Palm branches were carried by processions attending kings or victorious generals on public occasions. The triumphant host in heaven, which John saw in vision, was composed of persons having “palms in their hands” (Rev. 7:9). It may be that some of the crowd on this occasion believed that Jesus was the Messiah.
Others, we may be sure, did what the rest did, without any special motive at all. At most, we can only suppose that the multitude had a vague idea that Jesus was somebody very remarkable—a prophet or someone raised up by God—and as such did Him honor.
Rollock thinks the custom of carrying branches at the feast of tabernacles, as the expression of joy, was the motive of the crowd here. [ And cried, Hosanna! ] This Hebrew word is taken from Psalm 118:25 and signifies “Save now, we beseech thee.” Calvin thinks this phrase testified that they acknowledged Christ to be the Messiah, and considers that the 118th Psalm had special reference to Messiah’s coming. [ Blessed is the King of Israel , etc. ] This sentence would be more literally rendered “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, the king of Israel.” It is partly taken from Psalm 118:26, but there the words are simply “Blessed be He who comes in the name of the Lord” and no mention is made of “the king.” We can only conjecture that some of the multitude had a vague idea that Jesus had come to be a temporal King and a conquering Messiah who would set Israel free from all foreign dominion.
These few caught up the words of the Psalm, and their cry was taken up by the many around them, perhaps without knowing distinctly what they did or said. Nothing is so soon caught up as a popular cry. From “Hosanna” to “Crucify Him” there was only an interval of a very few days! Nothing is so worthless as popular applause. Theophylact holds decidedly that the multitude honored our Lord as God. But I cannot think it. 14.--[ And Jesus, when he had found, etc. ] That there was no chance of accident in the ass being found we know from St.
Matthew’s Gospel, where we read that the disciples were sent to get the ass ready (Matt. 21:7). Every step of this triumphal progress into Jerusalem was prearranged. To ride upon an ass, we must always remember, was not so low and ignominious a mode of traveling as it may seem to us. The Eastern ass is a very different creature to the English ass—larger, stronger, and far more valuable. Asses are specially named as part of the wealth of Abraham, Jacob, and Job (Gen. 12:16, 30:43, Job 13:12). Solomon had an officer specially over the asses (1 Chr. 27:30).
Abraham, Balaam, Achsah, Abigail, and the Shunamite rich woman all rode on asses. To ride on white asses was a mark of great men in the days of the Judges (Judges 5:10). The idea therefore of anything degrading in riding on an ass must be entirely dismissed from our minds. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the ass is not the animal that a king or ruler, in any age, has ever chosen to use on public occasions in heading a procession. The horse has always been preferred.
The use of an ass, we cannot doubt, was meant to show that our Lord’s kingdom was utterly unlike the kingdoms of this world. No Roman soldier in the garrison of Jerusalem who (standing at his post or sitting in his barrack window) saw our Lord riding on an ass, could report to his centurion that He looked like one who came to wrest the kingdom of Judea out of the hand of the Romans, drive out Pontius Pilate and his legions from the tower of Antonia, and achieve independence for the Jews with the sword!
The Greek word rendered “young ass” here is a diminutive, and seems used intentionally to show that it was a very young or small ass. [ As it is written. ] By riding on an ass, our Lord had fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah in which, 500 years before, the prophet had foretold that the King of Zion would one day appear “riding upon an ass.” At the time when he prophesied this there were no kings in Jerusalem. The kingdom had ceased at the captivity.
We cannot doubt that this prophecy was well known among the Scribes and Pharisees, and taken together with the fact that Daniel’s 70 weeks were expiring, our Lord’s entry into Jerusalem in this fashion must have raised many thoughts in their hearts.
Let it be noted that many like events in our Lord’s earthly ministry were foreknown and foretold long before they happened, and with increasing minuteness and particularity as the roll of prophecy drew near to an end. 15.--[ Fear not, etc. ] It will be observed, of course, that John does not quote literally and exactly all that Zechariah said; he omits several words. The explanation is simple.
He did not quote from memory only and so forget part, but he purposely only quoted that part of the prediction which was now specially fulfilled—“the riding on the ass.” The object of the prophecy when it was first delivered, was to comfort the Jews in their low and decayed state after their return from Babylon by a promise of Messiah. Therefore Zechariah was taught by the Holy Ghost to say things which may be paraphrased as follows: “Fear not; be not cast down or depressed, O daughter of Zion, or inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Low and depressed as your condition may be now, there will be a day when you shall have a King again. There shall come One who will ride on a certain public occasion into thy gates—a King on an ass’s colt, not as a warrior with a sword in hand but as a peaceful Prince, a just and holy King better even than David, Solomon, Hezekiah, or Josiah, and bring with Him salvation for souls. Therefore think not yourself forsaken because you are poor now and have no king.
Look forward to your coming King.” Let it be noted that Christ’s coming, first or second, is always the great topic of comfort in prophetical writings. 16.--[ His disciples did not...at first. ] It is clear from this and other kindred passages that our Lord’s own immediate followers had a very imperfect knowledge of our Lord’s Person and work, and of the fulfillment of Scripture which was going on around them. Brought up amidst Jewish notions of a glorious temporal Messiah, they failed to see the full meaning of many of our Lord’s doings.
Let us never forget that men may be true Christians and right hearted and yet be very ignorant on some points. “Faith,” says Zwingle on this verse, “admits of degrees and increase.” In estimating others, we must make great allowance for early training and associations. [ But when Jesus was glorified. ] This must mean, as Theophylact says, our Lord’s ascension. After that time and the day of Pentecost, the minds of the disciples were greatly enlightened.
Compare John 7:39: “The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” [ Then they remembered...written of him. ] The power of memory to see things in a new light long after they happen, and then to recollect them vividly, is very remarkable. In no case does it appear more curiously than in the rising again in our minds of texts and sermons heard long ago, which at the time apparently left no impression on us. Preachers and teachers may take comfort in this. All is not lost that they say, although their hearers and scholars may seem at the time to pay no attention.
Their words in many cases shall have a resurrection. One great cause of this is that it is part of the Holy Ghost’s office “to bring things to remembrance” (John 14:26). [ And that they had done these things to him. ] The disciples found, long after the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, that they had been unconscious actors in a mighty accomplishment of Scripture. This is a thought for us all. We have not the least idea, during the greater part of our lives, how much of God’s great purposes on earth are being carried on through us and by us without our being conscious of it.
The full extent to which they are carried on we shall never know till we wake up in another world. We shall then discern with wonder and amazement the full meaning of many a thing in which we were unconscious agents during our lives. Calvin remarks: “Then, after the ascension, did it occur to the disciples that Christ did not do these things rashly, and that these men were not employed in idle amusement, but that the whole transaction had been regulated by the providence of God.” Poole observes that here St.
John “confesses his own ignorance.” He was present and saw all that was done, but did not understand it at the time. 17.--[Therefore the people...Lazarus...bore record. ] I feel no doubt that this verse describes one part of the multitude which met our Lord, and the following verse describes another part. One part, and of course a small one, consisted of those who had seen the raising of Lazarus. The other, and a much larger one, consisted of those who had only heard the report.
That there must have been a very large number of persons present at the miracle of Bethany is, I think, indirectly proved by the expression here used, “people that were with Him.” The words “bore record” must mean that they testified that a great miracle really had been worked, and that this same Jesus now riding on an ass before the eyes of the people was that very Person who had worked it. I do not see that we can possibly get more out of the expression, and I cannot suppose that these people testified their belief in Christ’s Messiahship.
The double expression, “called out of his grave” and “raised from the dead,” deserves notice. It is doubtless meant to keep before our minds the mighty simplicity of the means used by our Lord. He spoke and it was done. He “called” to Lazarus to come forth, and he was “raised” at once. 18.--[ For this reason, etc. ] This verse describes the state of mind of the larger part of the multitude which surrounded our Lord at His entry into Jerusalem. It consisted of those who had heard the report of His raising Lazarus—a story magnified, no doubt, in the telling.
Strong curiosity to see the Person who had done such a miracle would call forth an immense crowd in any city. But among Jews familiar with Old Testament miracles, assembled in enormous numbers for the Passover, excited by the rumor of Messiah coming—among such we may well believe that the report of Jesus coming in from Bethany would draw together many myriads of spectators to meet Him. The Greek words “for this reason” here seem to refer forward to the latter part of the verse and not backward to the preceding verse.
Compare 10:17 where the same form of language is used. 19.--[The Pharisees...said...ye prevail nothing. ] This is the language of men baffled, angry, and at their wits’ end from vexation to see their plans defeated. Instead of finding people willing to lay hands on Jesus as a malefactor and deliver Him up into their power, they beheld a large multitude surrounding Him with joyful acclamations and saluting Him as a King! Of course they could do nothing but sit still and see it. The least attempt to use violence against our Lord would have raised a tumult and endangered their own lives.
So they were obliged to see their most hated enemy entering Jerusalem in triumph, like Mordecai led by Haman (Esther 6:11). “Perceive ye,” I believe, should be taken as an imperative and not as an interrogative indicative. It sounds like the language of men looking on from the city walls or the temple courts as the huge procession wound slowly through the gates of the city. “Behold this sight! Behold how you do nothing effectual to stop this fellow’s course!
Your order to denounce Him and have Him apprehended is utterly useless and unprofitable.” Chrysostom and Theophylact think that those who said this had some faith and felt rightly, but had not courage enough to confess Christ. But I cannot agree with them. Calvin and other reformers think, on the contrary, that it was the language of Christ’s enemies. Bullinger observes that wicked men show their wickedness especially by their dislike of true religion, and their annoyance when, as in the case before us, it seems to enjoy a temporary popularity.
For neglect and contempt of religion, they show no concern at all. [ Behold, the world is gone after him! ] Some allowance of course must be made for the exaggerated language which angry and disappointed men use under the influence of passion. Nevertheless, the word “world” may not be really so extravagant as it appears at first when we consider the immense number of Jews who attended the passover feast. According to a computation made by Josephus, there were nearly three million people assembled on such occasions at Jerusalem.
At this rate we can understand that the crowd drawn together by our Lord’s public entry might well be so large as to warrant the saying, “The world is gone after him.” Most of the crowd, it may be remembered, were not dwellers in Jerusalem but strangers who were only visitors or sojourners—absent from home—and would materially swell a crowd. In leaving this passage, it is impossible not to feel that there must have been an overruling, constraining influence on the minds of the Jewish people on the occasion of our Lord’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem.
This, no doubt, was an influence miraculously exercised by our Lord in order to draw all men’s attention to Himself, and to make His approaching Sacrifice on the cross as public an event as possible. Rollock observes: “A secret power of royal authority stirred up the minds of the multitude to receive Christ as a king.” He also observes that it is the same power which Christ will put forth when He comes at the last day to judge the world.