3. St. Matt. xxvi. 1; St. Mark xiv. 1; St. Luke xxii. 1.
Considering the multiplicity of occurrences, it will be better to group them together,
rather than follow the exact order of their succession. Accordingly, this chapter will be
devoted to the events of the third day in Passion Week.
1. As usually, the day commenced4 with teaching in the Temple.5 We gather this from
the expression: 'as He was walking,'6 viz., in one of the Porches, where, as we know
considerable freedom of meeting, conversing, or even teaching, was allowed. It will be
remembered, that on the previous day the authori ties had been afraid to interfere with
Him. In silence they had witnessed, with impotent rage, the expulsion of their traffic-
mongers; in silence they had listened to His teaching, and seen His miracles. Not till the
Hosanna of the little boys - perhaps those children of the Levites who acted as
choristers in the Temple 7 - wakened them from the stupor of their fears, had they
ventured on a feeble remonstrance, in the forlorn hope that He might be induced to
conciliate them. But with the night and morning other counsels had come. Besides, the
circumstances were somewhat different. It was early morning, the hearers were new,
and the wondrous influence of His Words had not yet bent them to His Will. From the
formal manner in which the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders are introduced,8
and from the circumstance that they so met Christ immediately on His entry into the
Temple, we can scarcely doubt that a meeting, although informal,9 of the authorities had
been held to concert measures against the growing danger. Yet, even so, cowardice as
well as cunning marked their procedure. They dared not directly oppose Him, but
endeavoured, by attacking Him on the one point where he seemed to lay Himself open
to it, to arrogate to themselves the appearance of strict legality, and so to turn popular
feeling against Him.
4. St. Matthew.
5. St. Luke.
6. St. Mark.
7. For these Levite chorister -boys, comp. 'The Temple and its Services,' p. 143.
8. St. Mark.
9. There is no evidence of a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, nor, indeed, was there any
case which, according to Jewish Law, could have been laid before them. Still less can we
admit (with Dean Plumptre ), that the Chief Priests, Scribes, and Elders represented 'the
then constituent elements of the Sanhedrin.'
For, there was no principle more firmly established by universal consent than that
authoritative teaching10 required previous authorisation. Indeed, this logically followed
from the principle of Rabbinism. All teaching must be authoritative, since it was
traditional - approved by authority, and handed down from teacher to disciple. The
highest honour of a scholar was, that he was like a well-plastered cistern, from which
not a drop had leaked of what had been poured into it. The ultimate appeal in cases of
discussion was always to some great authority, whether an individual Teacher or a
Decree by the Sanhedrin. In this manner had the great Hillel first vind icated his claim to
be the Teacher of his time and to decide the disputes then pending. And, to decide
differently from authority, was either the mark of ignorant assumption or the outcome of