Commentaires bibliques

CHAPTER 26

Matthew 26:3. After ἀρχιερεῖς Elz. Scholz have καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς, which, in accordance with A B D L א, min. vss. Or. Aug., has been deleted as an interpolation from Mark 14:1, Luke 22:2.

Matthew 26:4. The order δόλῳ κρατήσωσι (reversed in Elz.) is supported by decisive evidence.

Matthew 26:7. βαρυτίμου] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : πολυτίμου, which, though in accordance with A D L M Π א, min., is, nevertheless, taken from John 12:3. Comp. Mark 14:3. From this latter passage is derived the order ἔχουσα ἀλάβ. μύρου (Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following B D L א, min.).

τὴν χεφαλήν] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : τῆς κεφαλῆς, following B D M א, min. Chrys. But the genitive would be suggested to the transcribers by a comparison with Matthew 26:12, quite as readily as by Mark 14:3.

Matthew 26:8. αὐτοῦ] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted, both here and in Matthew 26:45, as being a common interpolation; similarly with Tisch. after βλασφ., Matthew 26:65.

Matthew 26:9. τοῦτο] Elz. inserts τὸ μύρον, against decisive evidence; borrowed from Mark 14:5; John 12:5.

The article, before πτωχοῖς, which may as readily have been omitted, in accordance with John 12:5, as inserted, in accordance with Mark 14:3, is, with Elz. and Tisch. 8, to be left out. There is a good deal of evidence on both sides; but the insertion might easily take place out of regard to Matthew 26:11.

Matthew 26:11. πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς πτωχούς] E F H M Γ, min. Chrys.: τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ πάντοτε. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche. As this reading may have been taken from John 12:8 as readily as that of the Received text from Mark 14:7, the matter must be determined simply by the balance of evidence, and this is in favour of the Received text.

Matthew 26:17. ἑτοιμάσωμεν] The evidence of D K U, min. Or. in favour of the reading ἑτοιμάσομεν (Fritzsche) is inadequate.

Matthew 26:20. Lachm. and Tisch. read μαθητῶν after δώδεκα, on the authority of A L M Δ Π א, min. vss. Chrys. Correctly; the omission is due to Mark 14:17.

For ἕκαστος αὐτῶν, Matthew 26:22, it is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., to adopt εἷς ἓκαστος, in accordance with weighty evidence. Had εἷς been derived from Mark 14:19, we should have had εἷς καθʼ εἷς; κὐτῶν, again, was an interpolation of extremely common occurrence.

Matthew 26:26. εὐλογήσας] Scholz: εὐχαριστήσας, following A E F H K M S U V Γ Δ Π, min. vss. Fathers. Considering, however, the weight of evidence that still remains in favour of εὐλογ. (B C D L Z א), and having regard to the preponderating influence of Luke and Paul (1 Corinthians 11:23 ff.) rather than Mark, upon the ecclesiastical phraseology of the Lord’s Supper, it is better to retain εὐλογ.

For this reason we should also retain τόν before ἄρτον, though deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, and not found in B G D G L Z א, min. Chrys. Theophyl.

For ἐδίδου Lachm. reads δούς, omitting at the same time καί before εἶπε, in accordance with B D L Z א** min. Cant. Copt. Due to a desire to make the construction uniform with the preceding. Had δούς been changed to a tense in accordance with Mark and Luke, we should have had ἔδωκε.

Matthew 26:27. τὸ ποτήριον] The article, which is deleted by Tisch., and is wanting in B E F G L Z Δ א, min., is due to the ecclesiastical phraseology to which Luke and Paul have given currency.

Matthew 26:28. τὸ τῆς] Lachm. and Tisch. have simply τῆς, in accordance with B D L Z א, 33. τὸ is an exegetical addition.

καινῆς before διαθ. is wanting in B L Z א, 33, 102, Sahid. Cyr., and is a liturgical addition. Had it been originally written, this is just the place of all others where it would not have been omitted.

Matthew 26:31. διασκορπισθήσεται] A B C G H* I L M א, min. Or. (once): διασκορπισθήσονται. So Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Received text is a grammatical correction.

Matthew 26:33. Instead of εἰ καί of the Received text, there is decisive evidence for the simple εἰ. καί would be written in the margin from Mark 14:29, but would not be inserted in the text as in the case of Mark.

ἐγώ] The evidence in favour of inserting δέ (which is adopted by Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche) is inadequate. An addition for the purpose of giving prominence to the contrast.

Matthew 26:35. After ὁμοίως important witnesses read δέ, which has been adopted by Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Fritzsche. Taken from Mark 14:31.

Matthew 26:36. ἓως οὗ] Lachm.: ἓως οὗ ἄν; D K L Δ, min.: ἓως ἃν. The reading of Lachm., though resting only on the authority of A, is nevertheless to be regarded as the original one. οὗ ἄν would be omitted in conformity with Mark 14:32 (C M* א, min. have simply ἓως), and then there would come a restoration in some instances of οὗ only, and, in others, merely of ἄν.

Matthew 26:38. We should not follow Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. 7, in adopting ὁ Ἰησοῦς; after αὐτοῖς; a reading which, though attested by important witnesses, is nevertheless contradicted by a preponderance of evidence (A B C* D J L א, and the majority of vss.), while, moreover, it would be inserted more readily and more frequently (in this instance probably in conformity with Mark 14:34) than it would be omitted.

Matthew 26:39. προελθών] so B M Π, It. Vulg. Hilar. Elz. Lachm. and Tisch. 7. The preponderance of evidence is in favour of προσελθών, which, indeed, has been adopted by Matth., Scholz, and Tisch. 8; but it is evidently a mechanical error on the part of the transcriber; προέρχεσθαι occurs nowhere else in Matth.

The μου after πάτερ (deleted by Tisch. 8) is suspected of being an addition from Matthew 26:42; however, the evidence in favour of deleting it (A B C D א, etc.) is too weighty to admit of its being retained.

Matthew 26:42. τὸ ποτήριον] is wanting in A B C I L א, min. vss. and Fathers; in D it comes before τοῦτο (as in Matthew 26:39); in 157, Arm., it comes before ἐάν, in which position it also occurs in Δ, though with a mark of erasure. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch. A supplement from Matthew 26:39. Further, the ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ following, though the evidence against it is not quite so strong (B D L א, however), and though it is defended by Fritzsche, and only bracketed by Lachm., is to be condemned (with Griesb., Rinck, Tisch.) as an interpolation from Matthew 26:39.

Matthew 26:43. εὑρίσκει αὐτοὺς πάλιν] Lachm. and Tisch., with the approval of Griesb. also: πάλιν εὗρεν αὐτούς, following B C D I L א, min. and the majority of vss.; while other important witnesses (such as A K Δ) also read εὗρεν, but adhere to the order in the Received text. Accordingly, εὗρεν is decidedly to be adopted, while εὑρίσκει is to be regarded as derived from Matthew 26:40; as for πάλιν, however, there is so much diversity among the authorities with reference to its connection, and consequently with reference to its position, that only the preponderance of evidence must decide, and that is favourable to Lachm. and Tisch.

In Matthew 26:44, again, πάλιν is variously placed; but, with Lachm. and Tisch., it should be put before ἀπελθών, in accordance with B C D I L א, min. vss. ἐκ τρίτου, which Lachm. brackets, is, with Tisch., to be maintained on the strength of preponderating evidence. Had it been inserted in conformity with Matthew 26:42, it would have been placed after πάλιν; had it been from Mark 14:41, again, we should have had τὸ τρίτον. The omission may have been readily occasioned by a fear lest it should be supposed that Jesus prayed τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον but once before.

After εἰπών Tisch. 8 repeats the πάλιν (B L א, min. Copt.), which may easily have been omitted as superfluous. However, the preponderance of evidence (especially that of the vss. also) is against adopting it, so that there is reason to regard it rather as a mechanical repetition.

Matthew 26:50. The reading ἐφʼ ὅ (instead of ἐφʼ ᾧ, as in Elz.) is attested by decisive evidence.

Matthew 26:52. ἀπολοῦνται] F H K M S U V Γ Δ, min. vss. and Fathers: ἀποθανοῦνται. Approved by Griesb. in opposition to the principal mss.; a gloss, for which Sahid. must have read πεσοῦνται.

Matthew 26:53. The placing of ἄρτι after παραστ. μοι, by Tisch. 8, is in opposition to a preponderance of evidence, and is of the nature of an emendation; ὧδε is likewise inserted by some.

πλείους] Lachm. and Tisch.: πλείω, after B D א*. Correctly; the reading of the Received text is an unskilled emendation. For the same reason the following ἤ, which Lachm. brackets, should, with Tisch., be deleted, in accordance with B D L א; though we should not follow Tisch. 8 in reading λεγιώνων (A C K L Δ Π* א*) for λεγεῶνας, because the genitive is connected with the reading πλείους.

Matthew 26:55. πρὸς ὑμᾶς] is, with Tisch., following B L א, 33, 102, Copt. Sahid. Cyr. Chrys., to be deleted as an interpolation from Mark 14:49.

Matthew 26:58. ἀπὸ μακρόθεν] ἀπό should be deleted, with Tisch., in accordance with important evidence. Taken from Mark 14:54.

Matthew 26:59. καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι] is wanting, no doubt, in B D L א, min. vss. and Fathers, but it was omitted in conformity with Mark 14:55. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. A desire to conform with Mark also serves to explain the fact that, in a few of the witnesses, ὅλον is placed before τὸ συνέδρ.

θανατώσωσιν] θανατώσουσιν, as read by Lachm. and Tisch., is supported by decisive evidence, and had been altered to the more usual subjunctive. αὐτόν should likewise be put before θανατ. (B C D L N א, min. Vulg. It.).

Matthew 26:60. The reading of the Received text, which is attested by the important evidence of A C** E F G, etc., and likewise maintained by Fritzsche and Scholz, is: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον. Καὶ πολλῶν ψευδομαρτύπων προσελθόντων οὐχ εὗρον. Griesb.: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον πολλῶν ψευδ. προσελθ. Lachm. and Tisch.: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον πολλ. προσελθ. ψευδ., after which Lachm. gives the second οὐχ εὗρον in brackets. This second οὐχ εὗρον is wanting in A C* L N* א, min. vss. and Fathers (Or. twice); while in A B L Θ.f א, min. Syr. Or. Cyr. the order of the words is: πολλ. προσελθ. ψευδ. Further, Syr. Arr. Pers.p Syr.jer Slav., though omitting the second οὐχ εὗρον, have retained καὶ before πολλῶν; and this reading (accordingly: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον καί πολλῶν προσελθόντων ψευδομαρτύρων) I agree with Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 282 f., regarding as the original one. This καὶ, the force of which was missed from its not being followed by a verb, occasioned considerable embarrassment to the transcribers, who disposed of the difficulty by adding a second οὐχ εὗρον, while others got rid of the troublesome καί by simply omitting it.

δύο-g0- ψευδομάρτ-g0-.] Tisch., following B L א, min. vss. (also Syr.) and Or. (once), reads merely δύο. Correctly; ψευδομάρτ. is an addition, which might seem all the more necessary since a saying of Christ’s actually underlay the words.

Matthew 26:65. ὅτι] is wanting before ἐβλασφήμ. in such important witnesses, that Lachm. and Tisch. are justified in deleting it as a common interpolation.

Matthew 26:70. For αὐτῶν πάντων read, with Tisch. 8, following preponderating evidence, merely πάντων, to which αὐτῶν was added for sake of greater precision.

Matthew 26:71. For τοῖς ἐκεῖ, which Tisch. 8 has restored, Scholz and Tisch. 7 read αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖ. Both readings are strongly attested; but the latter is to be preferred, because the current τοῖς ἐκεῖ would involuntarily suggest itself and supersede the less definite expression αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖ.

Matthew 26:74. καταθεματίζειν] Elz., Fritzsche: καταναθεματίζειν, against decisive evidence. A correction.

Matthew 26:1 f.[21] For this form of transition, by which a marked pause is indicated at the close of a somewhat lengthened discourse, comp. Matthew 7:28, Matthew 11:1, Matthew 13:53, Matthew 19:1.

πάντας] referring back, without any particular object in view (such as to call attention to the fact that our Lord’s functions as a teacher were now ended, Wichelhaus and the earlier expositors), to the preceding discourse, consisting, as it does, of several sections (Matthew 24:4 to Matthew 25:46), not a parallel to LXX. Deuteronomy 31:1 (Delitzsch).

ΜΕΤᾺ ΔΎΟ ἩΜΈΡΑς] after the lapse of two days, i.e. the day after next the Passover commenced. It would therefore be Tuesday, if, as the Synoptists inform us (differently in John, see on John 18:28), the feast began on Thursday evening.

τὸ πάσχα] פֶּסַח, Aram. פַּסְחָא, the passing over (Exodus 12:13), a Mosaic feast, in commemoration of the sparing of the first-born in Egypt, began after sunset on the 14th of Nisan, and lasted till the 21st. On its original meaning as a feast in connection with the consecration of the first-fruits of the spring harvest, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 466 f.; Dillmann in Schenkel’s Lex. IV. p. 387 f.

καὶ ὁ υἱός, κ.τ.λ.] a definite prediction of what was to happen to Him at the Passover, but represented as something already known to the disciples (from Matthew 20:19), and which, though forming part of the contents of οἴδατε, is at the same time introduced by a broken construction (not as dependent on ὍΤΙ), in accordance with the depth of His emotion.

[21] See on ch. 26 f. (Mark 14, Luke 22); Wichelhaus, ausführl. Kommentar über die Gesch. des Leidens J. Chr., Halle 1855; Steinmeyer, d. Leidensgesch. d. Herrn in Bezug auf d. neueste Krit., Berl. 1868.

Matthew 26:3-5. Τότε] i.e. at the time that Jesus was saying this to His disciples. Fatal coincidence.

εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχ.] It is usual to understand the palace of the high priest, in direct opposition to the use of αὐλή[22] in the New Testament (not excluding Luke 11:21). We should rather interpret it of the court enclosed by the various buildings belonging to the house (see Winer, Realw. under the word Häuser; Friedlieb, Archäol. d. Leidensgesch. p. 7 f.), such courts having been regularly used as meeting-places. Comp. Vulg. (atrium), Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Maldonatus. This meeting is not to be regarded as one of the public sittings of the Sanhedrim (on the probable official meeting-place of this body at that time, the so-called taverns, see Wieseler, Beitr. p. 209 ff.), but as a private conference of its members.

τοῦ λεγομ. Καϊάφα] who bore the name of Caiaphas. Comp. Matthew 2:23. This was a surname; the original name was Joseph (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2); but the surname having become his ordinary and official designation, it was used for the name itself: hence λεγομένου, not ἐπικαλουμένου or ἐπιλεγομένου. Caiaphas (either = בַּיְפָא, depressio, or כֵּיפָא, rock) obtained his appointment through the procurator Valerius Gratus, and, after enjoying his dignity for seventeen years, was deposed by Vitellius, Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2, 4. 3.

ΣΥΝΕΒΟΥΛΕΎΣΑΝΤΟ, ἽΝΑ] they consulted together, in order that they, John 11:53.

μὴ ἐν τῂ ἑορτῇ] namely: let us arrest him, and put him to death! For the absolute ΜΉ, comp. on Galatians 5:13. The reference is to the entire period over which the feast extended, not to the place where it was celebrated (Wieseler, Chronol. Synops. p. 367). It is true no scruple was felt, especially in urgent and important cases (comp. on Acts 12:3 f), about having executions (Sanhedr. f. 89. 1) during the feast days (although most probably never on the first of them, on which, according to Mischna Jom tob v. 2, the trial took place; comp. on John 18:28, and see, above all, Bleek’s Beitr. p. 136 ff.), and that with a view to making the example more deterrent (Deuteronomy 17:13). But the members of the Sanhedrim dreaded an uprising among the numerous sympathizers with Jesus both within and outside the capital (a very natural apprehension, considering that this was just the season when so many strangers, and especially Galilaeans, were assembled in the city; comp. Joseph. Antt. xvii. 9. 3; Bell. i. 4. 3), though, by and by, they overcame this fear, and gladly availed themselves of the opportunity which Judas afforded them (Matthew 26:14). “Sic consilium divinum successit,” Bengel. To regard μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ as meaning: previous to the feast! as though, during the feast itself, the execution were to be considered as already a thing of the past (Neander, p. 678; Hausrath), would be quite in keeping with John’s statement as to the day on which the crucifixion took place (comp. on Mark 14:2); but it would not suit the connection as found in Matthew and Mark, because, according to them, the consultation among the members of the Sanhedrim had taken place so very shortly before the Passover (Matthew 26:2) that the greater part of the multitude, whose rising was apprehended, must have been present by that time.

[22] Of course αὐλή is used as equivalent to βασιλειον (see, for example, the passages from Polyb. in Schweighäuser’s Lex. p. 101), not only by later Greek writers (Athen. Deipn. iv. p. 189 D; Herodian, i. 13. 16, frequently in the Apocr.), but also by Homer (see Duncan, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 181), Pindar, and the Tragedians, etc. Never, however, is it so used in the New Testament. Even in John 18:15, αὐλὴ τοῦ ἀρχιερ. is undoubtedly the court of the house.

Matthew 26:6 ff. This anointing, which is also recorded in Mark 14:3 ff. (followed by Matthew), is not the same as that of Luke 7:36 ff., but is so essentially different from it, not only as to the time, place, circumstances, and person, but as to the whole historical and ethical connection and import, that even the peculiar character of the incident is not sufficient to warrant the assumption that each case is but another version of one and the same story (in opposition to Chrysostom, Grotius, Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk. p. 110 ff.; Strauss, Weisse, Hug, Ewald, Bleek, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Schenkel, Keim). This, however, is not a different incident (in opposition to Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Osiander, Lightfoot, Wolf) from that recorded in John 12:1 ff.[23] The deviations in John’s account of the affair—to the effect that the anointing took place not two, but six days before the feast; that Martha was the entertainer, no mention being made of Simon; that it was not the head, but the feet of Jesus that were anointed; and that the carping about extravagance is specially ascribed to Judas—are not to be disposed of by arbitrarily assuming that the accounts of the different evangelists were intended to supplement each other (Ebrard, Wichelhaus, Lange), but are to be taken as justifying the inference that in John alone (not in Matthew and Mark) we have the narrative of an eye-witness. The incident, as given in Matthew and Mark, appears to be an episode taken from a tradition which had lost its freshness and purity, and inserted without exact historical connection, although, on the whole, in its right order, if with less regard to precision as to the time of its occurrence. Hence the loose place it occupies in the pragmatism of the passage, from which one might imagine it removed altogether, without the connection being injured in the slightest degree. The tradition on which the narrative of Matthew and Mark is based had evidently suffered in its purity from getting mixed up with certain disturbing elements from the first version of the story of the anointing in Luke 7, among which elements we may include the statement that the name of the entertainer was Simon.

[23] On the controversy in which Faber Stapul. has been involved in consequence of his theory that Jesus had been anointed by three different Marys, see Graf in Niedner’s Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 1852, I. p. 54 ff. This distinguishing of three Marys (which was also adopted by so early an expositor as Euthymius Zigabenus, and by τινές, to whom Theophylact refers) is, in fact, rather too much at variance with the tradition that the sister of Lazarus is identical with the woman who was a sinner, Luke 7, and was no other than Mary Magdalene. Yet in none of the three accounts of anointing is this latter to be understood as the Mary referred to.

Matthew 26:6. Γενομ. ἐν Βηθαν] i.e. having come to Bethany, 2 Timothy 1:17; John 6:25, and frequently in classical writers; comp. on Php 2:7. To remove this visit back to a point of time previous to that indicated at Matthew 26:2, with the effect of simply destroying the sequence (Ebrard, Lange), is to do such harmonistic violence to the order observed in Matthew and Mark as the τότε of Matthew 26:14 should have been sufficient to avert.

Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ] In a way no less unwarrantable has the person here referred to (a person who had formerly been a leper, and who, after his healing, effected probably by Jesus, had continued to be known by this epithet) been associated with the family of Bethany; he has been supposed to have been the deceased father of this family (Theophylact, Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 481), or some other relative or friend (Grotius, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Lange, Bleek), or the owner of the house. Of the person who, according to Matthew and Mark, provided this entertainment, nothing further is known; whereas, according to John, the entertainment was given by the family of which Lazarus was a member; the latter is the correct view, the former is based upon the similar incident recorded in Luke 7.

Matthew 26:7. Γυνή] According to John, it was Mary.

ἀλάβαστρον] Among classical writers the neuter of this word does not occur except in the plural; in the singular ἀλάβαστρος is masculine, as also in 2 Kings 21:13, and feminine. “Unguenta optime servantur in alabastris,” Plin. N. H. iii. 3; Herod, iii. 20; Theocr. Id. xv. 114; Anth. Pal. ix. 153. 3; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 92.

ἐπὶ τ. κ. αὐτοῦ] A divergence from John’s account, not to be reconciled in the arbitrary manner in which Calvin and Ebrard have attempted, as though the oil had been so unsparingly poured on that it ran down and was used for the feet as well (comp. Morison). Matthew narrates an anointing of the head; John, of the feet. The practice of anointing the heads of guests by way of showing them respect is well known (comp. Plat. Rep. p. 398 A, and Stallbaum thereon). Seeing, however, that the anointing of the feet was unusual (in opposition to Ebrard), and betokened a special and extraordinary amount of respect (as is, in fact, apparent from Luke 7:46), our passage would have been all the less likely to “omit” it (Lange), had it really formed part of the tradition.

ἀνακειμένου] while He was reclining at table, a circumstance qualifying the αὐτοῦ.

Matthew 26:8. The feature peculiar to John, and having an essential bearing upon the character of his narrative, to the effect that it was Judas who censured the proceeding, had come to be obliterated in the tradition represented by our present passage. Our narrative, then, is certainly not contradictory of that of John, but only less precise. Arbitrary attempts have been made to explain our passage by saying either that, in Matthew, the narrative is to be regarded as sylleptical (Jerome, Beza, Maldonatus), or that Judas simply gave utterance to an observation in which the others have innocently concurred (Augustine, Calvin, Grotius, Kuinoel, Paulus, Wichelhaus), or that several of them betrayed symptoms of murmuring (Lange).

ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη] this loss, in making such a use of an expensive oil. This word never occurs in the New Testament in a transitive sense (as in Polyb. vi. 59. 5).

Matthew 26:9. Πολλοῦ] put more precisely in Mark 14:5; John 12:5. On the expensiveness of spikenard, a pound of which is alleged to have cost even upwards of 400 denarii, see Plin. N. H. xii. 26, xiii. 4.

καὶ δοθῆναι] the subject (the equivalent in money, had it been sold) may be inferred from the context (πραθῆναι πολλοῦ). See Kühner, II. 1, p. 30 f.

Matthew 26:10. Γνούς] Comp. Matthew 16:8. We may imagine what precedes to have been spoken among the disciples in a low murmuring tone.

κόπους παρέχειν, to give trouble, to cause annoyance. See Kypke, Obss. I. p. 130. Comp. πόνον παρέχειν (Herod, i. 177), and such like.

ἔργον γάρ, κ.τ.λ.] Justification of the disapproval implied in the foregoing question. καλόν, when used with ἔργον, is, according to ordinary usage, to be taken in an ethical sense; thus (comp. Matthew 5:16): an excellent deed, one that is morally beautiful, and not a piece of waste, as ye are niggardly enough to suppose. The disciples had allowed their estimate of the action to be determined by the principle of mere utility, and not by that of moral propriety, especially of love to Christ.