Down an Unfamiliar Road

I’ve always loved using illustrations in my sermons just as Jesus used parables to explain the truth more clearly. I collected dozens of such books from antique book stores, especially when I visited London. Here is one I think you will appreciate for the message it brings.

Yeas ago, there was once a swing bridge built on a huge pillar out in the middle of a large river. During most of the day, the bridge sat sideways with its length running parallel with the river banks, allowing ships to pass thru freely on both sides of the bridge. But at certain times each day, a train would come along and the bridge would be turned sideways so it crossed the river, allowing the train to pass over.

A switchman sat in a small shack on one side of the river where he operated the controls to turn the bridge and lock it into place for the trains to cross. One evening, the switchman was waiting for the last train of the day to come. He checked his watch, and at the scheduled time he stepped to the controls and turned the bridge into position. But to his dismay, he found that the locking control on the other side did not work. If the bridge was not locked in position it would wobble back and forth at both ends and cause the train to jump the track and go crashing into the river. And this would be a passenger train with many people aboard.

Suddenly, thru the dimming twilight, he caught sight of the train lights coming down the tracks. He quickly hurried across the bridge to the other side of the river where there was a manually operated control lever which he could operate to lock the bridge in place. But he would have to pull back the lever and hold it firmly in place as the train crossed the river. So he took hold of the lever and leaned backward to apply his weight to it, locking the bridge. He could hear the rumble of the train behind him, so he kept applying the pressure to keep the mechanism locked. Many lives depended on this man’s strength.

Then, from the direction of his control shack on the other side of the river, he heard a sound that made his blood run cold. “Daddy, where are you?” His little four-year-old son was crossing the bridge looking for him. His first impulse was to yell at the child, “Hurry! Hurry!” But the train was already too close; the boy’s tiny legs would never allow him to make it across the bridge in time. In the same instant, he thought of leaving the lever to run and snatch up his son and carry him to safety. But he realized that he could not get back to the lever in time for the train to pass safely. One thing was for sure, either he had to think of the many people on the train or his little son. It took only a moment for him to make his decision. He closed his eyes and pulled with all his might on the lever to keep the bridge locked in place.

The train sped safely and swiftly by over the river on its way. No one on board was even aware of the tiny broken body thrown mercilessly into the river by the rushing locomotive. Nor were they aware of the pitiful figure of the sobbing man, still clinging tightly to the locking lever long after the train had passed. Neither did they see him walking home more slowly than he had ever walked before, to tell his wife the horrible news of how they had just lost their little boy.

As we comprehend what this experience must have meant to this man and how it affected him, we begin to realize what our Father in Heaven must have had to endure when He sacrificed His Son to bridge the gap between us and eternal life. Can there be any wonder that the earth trembled and the skies darkened when His Son was crucified? And how it must now affect Him when people ignore that bridge and try to paddle their way across the rapidly flowing river of death with little thought or appreciation for the sacrifice God made. But those who do take the bridge to the other side, the day they see Jesus, the one who gave His life for that bridge, they will no doubt fall down at His feet to thank and praise Him and the Father for their wonderful act of love, grace, and mercy.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part VII

Verse 21b: Then Jesus said, “Believe me when I say that one of you twelve here will hand me over to my enemies.”

A German Jewish Rabbi who published his polemic version of the events in the life of Jesus during medieval times, adds this to Matthews narrative: “Jesus said to Peter the donkey, ‘ Peter, one of us will betray me this night, and I will be held and suffer punishment.’ Peter then said to him, ‘Since you know the future, you must be God, why, then, didn’t you tell me until now?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Tell no man that I am God, for, from the time that I abandoned the Torah of my birthplace, I have rebelled against my Creator and against His Torah.’”¹ This is a very lame effort to try and discredit Jesus as being the faithful Messiah that He was claimed to be. What our Rabbi friend forgot is that Jesus had been telling His disciples for quite some time that He would suffer, but He chose this occasion to make the official announcement that the time had come for it to take place, and He would be revealing the traitor who would initiate the action.

Verse 22: The followers were very sad to hear this. Each one said, “Lord, surely I am not the one!”

No one can say this was not a normal reaction on the part of dedicated disciples upon hearing that one of them would be so disrespectful and irreverent as to betray their Master to the enemy. What gain could be made with such action? How could that ever be seen as some victory for their Messiah? So they found it unconscionable that Jesus would even bring it up. Therefore, it was predictable that each one of them would want to clear themselves of any possible guilt by asking the Lord to declare for all to hear that they were not the one.

Origen made this commentary on the implications of such a betrayal. He writes: “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 darkness² a man can be besieged and fall or be so weakened by the power of the enemy that he becomes evil.”

Origen goes on to say: “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.’³ But whoever is not yet perfect should remain aware that he is still capable of falling.”⁴ As we will learn later, Peter had good reason to question whether or not it was him, as did the others who fled the scene when Jesus was arrested, along with Thomas who would doubt His resurrection.

Verses 23-24: Jesus answered, “One who has dipped his bread in the same bowl with me will be the one to hand me over. The Son of Man will suffer what the Scriptures say will happen to Him. But it will be very bad for the one who hands over the Son of Man to be killed. It would be better for him if he had never been born.”

The real subject of this portion of the text is Judas Iscariot. It appears, that as they were eating Jesus was talking to them about His being betrayed to the authorities. Needless to say, the disciples were more than disappointed, they were shocked. So each one began to ask Jesus, “Is it me?” One by one they threw the question at Him, until finally, He answered, that the same person who had been dipping their bread into His bowl of Charoset would be the betrayer.

In Jewish literature, we find Charoset described as a sweet paste consisting of figs, nuts, almonds, and other fruits; to which they added apples; all which they crushed with pestle and mortar, and mixed with vinegar; into which they sprinkled calamus root and cinnamon and then formed small long threads in remembrance of the straw they used to build with while in Egypt; and it was necessary for it to be thick in memory of the clay used to make the buildings for Pharaoh. Another interesting fact that Maimonides shares with us is that on any other night the bread would be dipped only once in the Charoset, but on this night it was to be dipped twice.⁵

When the recollection of this incident by Matthew, Luke, and John are put together, it suggests that Judas had already dipped his matzah in the bowl once, now Jesus dips in His matzah again and gives it to Judas. That, even more than His words, gave the disciples the signal that this was the betrayer, again fulfilling the words: “My best friend, the one I trusted, the one who ate with me—even he has turned against me.”⁶ No doubt everyone’s eyes were focused on those reclining closest to Jesus.

Verse 25: Then Judas, the very one who would hand him over, said to Jesus, “Teacher, surely I am not the one you are talking about, am I?” Jesus answered, “Yes, it is you.”

This response by Judas Iscariot must come because everyone was looking at him. So it is no wonder that he turned to look at Jesus and say quite incredulously, “Surely Lord, You’re not talking about me!” According to John Gill, the Ethiopian version of Matthew reads: “Then Judas, which betrayed Him or that was about to betray Him, had taken a step towards it, was seeking an opportunity to do it, and at length effected it.” The Persic version reads, “Judas Iscariot; who after all the rest had put the question to Him asked.” And one of the oldest Hebrew versions of Matthew reads: “Judas, who sold Him, answered and said to Him: Rabbi am I this one?”⁷ It doesn’t seem possible that Judas was so innocent of what he had done that he could honestly have no knowledge that he was the one. Perhaps in the translation from the original Aramaic, the real sense and meaning of Judas’ question might have been more like, “Lord, how did you know it was me.”

I can imagine a hush then fell over the room; everyone stopped eating, and all eyes were fixed on the Master. We don’t know for sure if Jesus simply looked down at the bowl where He had just dipped His flatbread or looked straight into Judas Iscariot’s eyes, but in either case, I’m sure His words, “Yes, you’re the one.” were cutting even though they were said gently. But our Lord then tells everyone that this was not unexpected; that His leaving was already scheduled from long ago and recorded in the Scriptures.⁸

By so doing, our Lord makes it clear that this was all voluntary on His part. But what about Judas Iscariot, was his act voluntary? I have no doubt but that it was. He was not bribed by the leading priests, he voluntarily went to them with the idea and they bought it for 30 pieces of silver. And our Lord’s statement that it would have been better that such a traitor had never been born, was part of Jewish oral tradition. In the Talmud we read, “Whosoever takes no thought for the honor of his maker, it would have been merciful he had not been born into the world. What does this mean? Rabbi Joseph asked: It refers to one who commits transgression in secret.”⁹ So we see that Jesus was not pronouncing a curse on Judas Iscariot, but simply repeating what the Rabbis’ had taught about those who stoop so low as to betray their own mentor to the enemy.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part VI

From all accounts, it appears that the man who owned this house was a follower of Jesus. They may have met the last time our Lord was in this area when He came to cleanse the Temple. However, what man would have a room big enough to host a supper for thirteen people or more? There is an interesting custom spoken of in the Babylonian Talmud that may help shed some light on the place where Jesus ate with His disciples. It reads, “A synagogue which contains a dwelling for the synagogue attendant is liable to have a piece of parchment in a case inscribed with specified Hebrew verses from the Torah.¹”² Jewish commentator Rabbi Rashi explains, “In the metropolis people from many cities assemble in the synagogue, it, therefore, seems to belong to everybody, i.e., to nobody, whilst in the villages those who attend are known to all, being like partners in the synagogue.”³ In the same Talmud we read: “…a synagogue in a large town since people from all parts come to it, may not be sold, it being regarded as belonging to a wider public.”⁴

In other words, the place Jesus sent His followers to did not belong to the man who took care of it, he was merely the synagogue attendant. And, the owner of the lot was compelled at festival time to allow those who asked to use the space freely. For as Moses Maimonides states, “A house in the city which is sold is never designated as the permanent property of the buyer.”⁵ Many scholars believe that this later became the Upper Room where the disciples and followers awaited the arrival of the Holy Spirit, while other say it was within Jerusalem proper, because after the supper was over they did not have to walk far over to the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus was later arrested.

Verses 20-21a: In the evening Jesus was at the table with the twelve followers. They were all eating.

According to the law of Moses, this meal was to be consumed at night.⁶ Now, the mood and tone changes from what we’ve been reading in Matthew’s account of what happened during these last days of Jesus’ before His crucifixion and resurrection. Gone were the miracles, the teaching sessions, addressing large crowds of followers, and debates with the scribes and Pharisees. Our Lord’s focus on His suffering and death now were paramount in His mind and actions.

He may have felt much like His royal ancestor, David, who thought about what was facing him through the actions of someone who betrayed him, “It is you, the one so close to me, my companion, my good friend, who does this. We used to share our secrets with one another, as we walked through the crowds together in God’s Temple.”⁷ As the Rabbinical fathers point out, this was a close relationship that involved knowing one another very well because of shared interests and purpose and learning from one another.⁸

Later on, our Lord would even used the words of His forefather when addressing the one who would turn his back on Him, “My good friend, the one I trusted, the one who ate with me—even he has turned against me.”⁹ All the prophesies that foretold His suffering and death were about to be fulfilled. And perhaps the words in Isaiah about His pain and suffering were on His mind. Also, the word that the prophet Zechariah received may have given Him cause to ponder, “The Lord All-Powerful says, ‘Sword, wake up and strike the shepherd, my friend! Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will run away. And I will punish those little ones.’”¹⁰

In the Jewish Mishnah we read these instructions: “On Passover eve close to minhah time,¹¹ a man may not eat until night falls. And even the poorest person in Israel may not eat unless he reclines [as a sign of freedom]. And they [the charity officials] may not provide him with less than four cups of wine; even if he is so poor that he normally receives from the charity plate but did not receive wine, he must purchase it himself.”¹²

In deference to the famous picture of the Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci, Jesus and His disciples did not “sit upright” at the table, but they “reclined” alongside the table. In the Mishnah we find the following instructions, “If those at the table are sitting upright, and are not part of the group, each one says Grace for himself. If they have reclined, one says Grace for all.”¹³ We know that after Jesus took the bread He blessed it, so this is even more indication that they were reclining next to the table. And in the Talmud we find this teaching: “Even the poorest man in Israel must not eat until he reclines. It was stated: For the eating of the unleavened bread reclining is necessary…As for the drinking of] the wine, — It was stated in Rabbi Nahman’s name that reclining is necessary.”¹⁴

Then, in an older version of the Talmud we read this: “Said Rabbi Levi, ‘Because it is the custom of slaves to eat standing, here [on Passover night, the Mishnah requires people] to eat reclining to proclaim that they have gone out from slavery to freedom.’ Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Joshua b. Levi, ‘That olive’s amount [of unleavened bread] with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover ― one must eat it reclining.”’ ¹⁵

The account Maimonides gives of this usage reads this way: “Even one of Israel’s poor should not eat until he can recline. A woman need not recline. If she is an important woman, she must recline. Even a son in the presence of his father or an attendant in the presence of his master must recline. However, a student before his teacher should not recline unless his teacher grants him permission. Reclining on one’s right side is not considered reclining. Neither is reclining on one’s back or leaning forward. When must one recline? when eating the matzoh and when drinking these four cups of wine. While eating and drinking at other times: if one reclines, it is praiseworthy; if not, there is no requirement.”¹⁶

Also in this same Tractate, Maimonides comments on the Haggadah, which is the guide used for the Seder meal, and points to the moment when the son asks the host, “Why is this night different from all other nights?”¹⁷ The host then cites five different reasons, and the fifth one is, “On all other nights, we eat either sitting upright or reclining. On this night, we all recline.”¹⁸ And for our Lord and His disciples, this truly was a night different from all others. But not because they were reclining, but because it would be their last meal together.

This may bring up the question, how then was it that John was observed leaning on Jesus’ chest? We may find the explanation in these instructions in the Talmud: “Said the Exilarch¹⁹ to Rabbi Shesheth: Although you are venerable Rabbis, yet the Persians are better versed than you in the etiquette of a meal. When there are two couches [in the set], the senior guest takes his place first and then the junior one above him. When there are three couches, the senior occupies the middle one, the next to him in rank takes the place above him, and the third one below him. Rabbi Shesheth said to him: So when he wants to talk to him [the senior guest], he has to stretch himself and sit upright to do so!”²⁰

Scholars point out that the disciples went to prepare a place for the supper, and it was not until the next night that Jesus and the others arrived to eat. If this was the case in such a small room where thirteen long couches around a table would be difficult to arrange, then the triple couch would have Jesus in the middle and perhaps Peter above Him and John below. But all of this is speculation and does not earn that much importance. What is important, is what happened that night at the meal and how it affected the rest of the outcome for the ensuing hours in the life and ministry of Jesus, and the meaning it gave to a meal that Christians have commemorated ever since.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part V

But there is an underlying truth here not easily seen. You can only be betrayed by a friend, never by an enemy. So if anyone today is accused of betraying our Lord, they must first of all have claimed to be His friend. And the price of betrayal is also noteworthy. We know that 30 shekels of silver were the price to be paid to replace a servant who had been accidentally killed by a neighbor’s bull.¹ Also, when Israel and Judah were negotiating with Zechariah on keeping the union together, he said to them, “If you want to pay me, pay me. If not, don’t!” So they paid me 30 pieces of silver. Then the Lord told me, ‘So that’s how much they think I’m worth. Throw that large amount of money into the Temple treasury.’ So I took the 30 pieces of silver and threw them into the treasury at the LORD’s Temple.”² So it appears that either Judas Iscariot did not value our Lord’s capture too highly, or else the leading priests didn’t think his help was worth much more than that. But in either case, it was a disgrace for the royal son on of David, the promised Messiah, the Son of the living God to be betrayed for such a pitiful amount. Yet today, there are some who do the same for even less.

Early church scholar Origen had this to add: “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,’³ 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,’⁴ the time for betraying the Word of truth was specifically when very few of the faithful were with Christ.”⁵

While all of this may have been a surprise to the disciples and followers of Jesus, it was known to Him from the beginning. That’s why He was able to remain so calm and resolute. But His chief disciples did not have such faith or confidence and would deny that he even knew Him. So Jesus will soon have to deal with their anxiety and total disbelief in what was happening under circumstances that will test their commitment to the breaking point.

Verse 17: On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the followers came to Jesus. They said, “We will prepare everything for you to eat the Passover meal. Where do you want us to have the meal?”

We must remember, that Jesus and His followers were in Bethany, about 1½ miles from Jerusalem at this time. So the question was, into which city were they supposed to go so they could prepare for the Passover meal? It is important to notice that according to Jewish tradition, Passover is an eight-day festival that celebrates Israel’s emancipation from Egyptian slavery and their freedom to seek the Promised Land. During this commemoration period, there are many meals eaten and lighting of candles. This is how they prepare for the final day when the lamb is sacrificed. So when the disciples asked Jesus where they should go to start preparing, it was not just for one meal, but for the initial meal.

As far as the sacrifice of the lamb was concerned, that place was already settled in the Law of Moses: “You must not sacrifice the Passover animal in any of the towns that the LORD your God gives you. You must sacrifice the Passover animal only at the place that the LORD your God will choose to be the home for His name. There you must sacrifice the Passover animal in the evening when the sun goes down. This is the festival when you remember that God brought you out of Egypt. You must cook the meal and eat it at the place the LORD your God will choose. The next morning you may go back home.”⁶

Chrysostom tells us his understanding of this timing for this first meal that Jesus was to eat with His disciples. He writes: “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.‘⁸”⁹

Verses 18-19: Jesus answered, “Go into the city. Go to a man I know. Tell him that the Teacher says, ‘The chosen time is near. I will have the Passover meal with my followers at your house.” They obeyed and did what Jesus told them to do. They prepared the Passover meal.

Again, it is necessary that we keep in mind that any meal eaten during the time was considered a part of the Passover. So it is clear that this would be the first and last one they would eat together. What was important now was finding the right place. The Greek word translated from the Aramaic that Jesus uses to identify the individual they should contact is deina. It refers to a particular person whose name one cannot immediately recall or someone whose name is not important enough to mention. Jesus did not need to give them the man’s name. Jesus clearly says: “a man I know.” This is the same reading in the Aramaic Version, so leaving out the man’s name was not something the scribe overlooked in the translation.

Luke researched this event and came up with a more definitive scenario: “He [Jesus] said to them, ‘Listen, after you enter the city, a man carrying a pitcher of water will meet you. Follow him into the house which he enters. Tell the master of the house, “The Teacher says to you, my time is at hand. Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’”¹⁰

So Jesus’ instructions to His disciples to prepare the meal were very ordinary for that day. But since this took place before Passover Day, it is explained by Rabbi Maimonides: “It is a positive commandment of the Torah to eat matzah [flatbread without yeast] on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, as is stated: “In the evening, you shall eat matzot.”¹¹ This applies in every place and at every time. Eating matzah is not dependent on the Paschal sacrifice. Rather, it is a mitzvah [commandment] in its own right. The mitzvah may be fulfilled throughout the entire night. Throughout the other days of the festival, eating matzah is left to one’s choice: If one desires, one may eat matzah. If one desires, one may eat rice, millet, roasted seeds, or fruit. Nevertheless, on the night of the fifteenth alone, [eating matzah] is an obligation. Once one eats a piece the size of an olive, he has fulfilled his obligation.”¹² Therefore, since Jesus would not be able to eat the actual Passover lamb in the Seder Meal with His disciples, He was satisfied to eat this meal of unleavened bread as His last supper.

Taking all this into account, some Bible scholars believe that Jesus and His disciples had the meal of flat matzah on Thursday evening, because after the meal they went over to the Mount of Olives for the night, and it was there He was arrested early Friday morning and would be on the cross before sundown that same day. But for all intents and purposes, knowing the exact date in history is not as significant as knowing that He did die and rose again from death to provide eternal life for all who believe in Him as their Lord and Savior.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part IV

Although in Mark’s Gospel the Greek says she broke “syntribō” the “alabastron,” meaning a container made of alabaster,¹ which some English versions translate as “box,” “vial,” “flask,” “jar,” etc., the Syriac Version says “she opened it.² The Persian Version adds even more by saying that “she broke open the top.”³ Most likely she broke the sealed thin neck of a jar and then poured the perfume on Jesus’ head while He was eating. From Jewish sayings, we know that pouring oil on the heads of guest seated at a table was an accepted custom for high ranking and special dignitaries.

In the Jewish Talmud, we find this discussion about such anointings: “The dripping of oil on the heads of the scholars. Rabbi Papa said to Abaye: Did the master speak of oil used for cleaning the head? — He said to him: Orphan, did not your mother do the dripping of the oil on the heads of the scholars at the time of the event? As in the case when one of the scholars was occupied with the wedding of his son in the house of Rabbah ben ‘Ulla — and some say, Rabbah ben ‘Ulla was occupied with the wedding of his son in the house of one of the scholars — and he dripped oil on the heads of the scholars at the time of the event.”⁴

So not only was some of our Lord’s followers upset due to the cost of the perfume but in a sense, they were passively saying that He wasn’t worth such an honor. Then again, with regard to seeing the perfume as being wasted perhaps they were reminded of what one well-known Rabbi did: “On the eve of every Sabbath Rabbi Huna would send a messenger to the market and any vegetables that the market gardeners had left over he bought up and had them thrown into the river. Should he not rather have had these distributed among the poor?”⁵

Verses 10-13: But Jesus knew what happened. He said, “Why are you harassing this woman? She did a very good thing for me. You will always have the poor with you. But you will not always have me.”

Again, let’s note that Matthew does not say Jesus saw what happened, but that He knew what had just occurred. So after the Master heard them complaining, He countered their indignation by telling them that they were in error to criticize her, because they didn’t understand that what she did was in preparation for what was to come. No matter how Mary looked at it, Jesus saw it from a different perspective. In any case, He wanted to let them know that what she had just done would become a part of the Good News story as it spread all over the world.

But He also reminds them that their good intentions were sorely misplaced. All the money in the world could never wipe out poverty. Even the logic of a court jester would suffice to teach them that if everybody in the world was rich, there would be no one to do the work required to keep them clothed, fed, and transported. Jesus was not putting down the poor, but merely recognizing that it is an accepted and vital part of life here on earth. And to show that they were not discriminated against in the kingdom of heaven, He was set to die to make them heirs and joint heirs with Him.

Was this some new social theory developed by our Lord? Absolutely not! Moses instructed the children of Israel before they entered the Promised Land, “There will always be poor people in the land. That is why I command you to be ready to help your brother or sister. Give to the poor in your land who need help.”⁶ As part of their verbal tradition, the Jews, refers to the times of the Messiah by saying in the Babylonian Talmud, “…for it is said, For the poor shall never cease out of the land.”⁷ This was said in the context of what things were then and the way they would be in the time of the Messiah’s eventual arrival. This would suggest that the Jews did not consider that there would ever be a time without poor people.

Thus we can say, Jesus indicates by his rebuke that the real contention of those who opposed the woman’s actions did not suggest it was unworthy of the Messiah, but that the woman’s act made little sense to them since they did not really believe that Jesus was the Promised One. Yet, she quietly performed her magnificent service and then allowed Christ to answer her critics. As a result, her act was assigned to immortality by Jesus’ own words. Our Lord now clarifies what the anointing was all about:

Verses 12-13: “This woman poured perfume on my body. She did this to prepare me for burial after I die. The Good News will be told to people all over the world. And I can assure you that everywhere the Good News is told, the story of what this woman did will also be told, and people will remember her.”

In Jewish tradition, there is a story about Abraham having a conversation with Death, and asking Death to let him have a little reprieve until he could get accustomed to the idea of dying. So just before Death came to take him by the hand to lead his body to the grave, we read: “Michael the archangel came with a multitude of angels and took up his precious soul in his hands in a divinely woven linen cloth, and they tended the body of the just Abraham with divine ointments and perfumes until the third day after his death,⁸ and buried him in the land of promise, the oak of Mamre, but the angels received his precious soul, and ascended into heaven, singing the hymn of ‘holy, holy, holy’ to the Lord the God of all,⁹ and they set it there to worship the God and Father.”¹⁰

Since there were no plans for Abraham to rise from death in three days, this reflects how one prepares for their stay in the grave. But since Jesus was going to rise in three days, the ointments and perfumes were applied early since the women who came to the tomb to do the same would not find Him there. What a wonderful lesson for us when we may be criticized for being too involved or giving too much time to the work of the Lord. Instead of becoming protective and responding defensively, why not let Christ take up our cause. Who knows, He may bless us in a way that will be remembered after our critics are long gone.

Verses 14-16: Right after this one of the twelve disciples went to talk to the leading priests. This was the follower named Judas Iscariot. He said, “I will hand Jesus over to you. What will you pay me for doing this?” The priests gave him 30 silver coins. After that, Judas waited for the best time to hand Jesus over to them.

After what we’ve seen now in the scheduling and meeting of the Sanhedrin, the visit by Judas Iscariot to the leading priests was more than just a coincidence. Perhaps when he saw how Jesus allowed this woman to pour expensive perfume on His head, and did not find it strange but supported her, this may have been the jab that sent this money-conscious thief over the edge and justified his visit to where this ad hoc Sanhedrin committee was meeting. The amount Judas received may seem trivial to some people today, but there are those in our lifetime who have betrayed Him for a lot less than this.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part III

As another highly respected Rabbi points out that these instructions from Moses are a warning that such discussions with the Judges of the Supreme Sanhedrin are not merely ‘consultations or options,’ but must not be deviated from.¹ He takes his cue from what the Jewish teachers said on this subject: “A Sage who rebels against the ruling of the court [is strangled],”² which is another way of saying, hanged. So it goes without saying, that this kangaroo court of Sanhedrin members was so committed to getting rid of Jesus that they were willing to violate whatever laws or rules were incumbent upon them. Nevertheless, they would have to wait for the right time and place.

Chrysostom sees the same thing when he says: “How many chief 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… 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.”³

Verse 6: While this was happening, Jesus was in Bethany at the house of a former leper named Simon.

Most scholars take the designation of Simon the leper to, first of all, distinguish him from other Simons living in Bethany, and second, that this was his former state before he was healed. Since he is included here in the Scripture, there is strong support that he was among one who was healed by Jesus. It would not violate the Gospel record nor be unsupported by the timeline of Jesus’ ministry to wonder if Simon was the only one of the ten lepers healed who came back to thank Jesus.⁴

Verse 7: While He was there, a woman came to see Him. She had an alabaster jar filled with expensive perfume.⁵ She poured the perfume on Jesus’ head while He was eating.

The fortuitous break the Jewish leaders were waiting for to carry out their plot was just around the corner but little did anyone know what would precipitate such an act of betrayal. It may have started with the caring act of reverence and admiration on the part of a woman who wanted to show her devotion to Jesus the Messiah.

At this point, let’s take off our western culture hats and put on our Jewish kippahs, or as they are known in Yiddish, yarmulkes. We should not see Jesus sitting in a chair at a table, facing the woman as she comes in. Rather, He was reclining on His side at the table with His legs bent at the knees so His feet faced behind Him. He does not see the woman enter the house, come up behind Him and begin to pour out her perfume on His head. It should be noted that Matthew does not say that Jesus then turned around to see who it was. He didn’t have to, He was the Messiah and knew exactly what was going on.

Chrysostom gives us his view of who this woman was. He writes: “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 to be much admired, the sister of Lazarus.⁶ 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 to be the most unclean disease and those who inflicted by it were shunned. 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.”⁷

Some scholars believe that the precious ointment she brought was a composition of those spices mentioned in Exodus.⁸ We are told by one Rabbi that when it comes to expensive perfume, we should take into consideration what the patriarch Job had to say concerning their preparation: “He makes the depths seethe like a pot, he makes the sea [boil] like perfume in a kettle.”⁹ The Rabbi states that the Hebrew word merkabah¹⁰ is understood as the perfume compound mentioned in God’s instructions to Moses,¹¹ because the word used there is mirqachath, which is another way of transliterating the Hebrew, merkahah. But he adds: “Can this possibly be a reference to “ambergrtis”, which is a waxy secretion of the sperm whale much valued in perfumery?”¹² This may have been a reference to the one in Job’s oceanic perfume kettle.

Verses 8-9: The disciples saw the woman do this and were upset with her. They said, “Why waste that perfume? It could be sold for a lot of money, and the money could be given to those who are poor.”

Again, Matthew doesn’t say Jesus saw her do it but His disciples did. This further substantiates the picture of her coming up from behind Jesus to anoint Him. This makes it possible that the disciples were watching what was going on while Jesus was dining with Simon. But instead of being thrilled at such adulation for their Master, it angered some of them. The woman involved here is accepted by most scholars to be the sister of Lazarus, whose act of anointing Jesus is outlined in John’s Gospel.¹³ Yet, some take the anointing Jesus received in Luke as performed by a different woman.¹⁴ Matthew calls the ointment she brought as “expensive perfume.” From Mark we learn that it was called “Spikenard.”¹⁵

To give you some idea of how such ointments and perfumes were regarded in those days, we turn to a Roman author, naturalist, and philosopher (23-79 AD), who wrote: “There are some single essences also which, individually, afford ointments of very high character: the first rank is due to malobathrum,¹⁶ and the next to the iris of Illyricum and the sweet marjoram of Cyzicus, both of them herbs. There are perfumers who sometimes add some few other ingredients to these: those who use the most, employ for the purpose honey, grains of salt, omphacium,¹⁷ leaves of agnus,¹⁸ and panax,¹⁹ all of them foreign ingredients. The price of ointments of cinnamon is quite enormous; to cinnamon there is added oil of balanus, xylobalsamum, calamus, sweet-rush, seeds of balsamum, myrrh, and perfumed honey: it is the thickest in consistency of all the ointments; the price at which it sells ranges from thirty-five to three hundred denarii per pound. Ointments of nard, or foliatum, are composed of omphacium or else oil of balanus, sweet-rush, costus, nard, amomum, myrrh, and balsamum.”²⁰

So we can see why pouring out such an expensive unguent on some stranger’s head was considered a waste of a valuable commodity. This same naturalist goes on to add: “Unguents keep best in boxes of alabaster, and perfumes when mixed with oil, which conduces all the more to their durability the thicker it is, such as the oil of almonds, for instance. Unguents also improve with age; but the sun is apt to spoil them, for which reason they are usually stowed away in a shady place in vessels lined with lead.”²¹ So this was not some cheap perfume this woman brought to anoint Jesus, it was the best money could buy. How much more then, should those things we offer in exultation, honor, and glory to Him be the very best we can possibly bring in our praise and worship.

During this intense season of political discourse, I’m reminded of something one of America’s most talkative yet lovable politicians named Hubert Horatio Humphrey (1911-1978), senator and Vice President of the United States (1965-1969), once said: “The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.” I guess the only ones that can take seriously are those whose words are confirmed by their actions. Not by what they will do, but by what they have already done.

There are many beautiful and inspirational songs we sing in praise and worship today, but having grown up during the time when the church hymnal was used, I still find that whenever one of these old hymns is sung, my heart warms and my eyes get teary. Here is the story of one of those songs as written by the author:

Back in 1932, I was 32 years old and a fairly new husband. My wife, Nettie and I were living in a little apartment on Chicago’s Southside. One hot August afternoon I had to go to St. Louis, where I was to be the featured soloist at a large revival meeting. I didn’t want to go. Nettie was in the last month of pregnancy with our first child. But a lot of people were expecting me in St. Louis. I kissed Nettie good-bye, clattered downstairs to our Model A, Ford, and in a fresh Lake Michigan breeze, chugged out of Chicago on Route 66.

However, outside the city, I discovered that in my anxiety at leaving, had forgotten my music case. I wheeled around and headed back. I found Nettie sleeping peacefully. I hesitated by her bed; something was strongly telling me to stay. But eager to get on my way, and not wanting to disturb Nettie, I shrugged off the feeling and quietly slipped out of the room with my music.

The next night, in the steaming St. Louis heat, the crowd called on me to sing again and again. When I finally sat down on the platform, a messenger boy ran up with a Western Union telegram. I ripped open the envelope. Pasted on the yellow sheet were the words: YOUR WIFE JUST DIED. People were happily singing and clapping around me, but I could hardly keep from crying out. I rushed to a phone and called home. All I could hear on the other end was “Nettie is dead. Nettie is dead.”

When I got back, I learned that Nettie had given birth to a boy. I swung between grief and joy. Yet that night, the baby died. I buried Nettie and our little boy together, in the same casket. Then I fell apart. For days I closeted myself. I felt that God had done me an injustice. I didn’t want to serve Him anymore or write gospel songs. I just wanted to go back to that jazz world I once knew so well before I was converted in 1921 at the age of 22.

But then, as I hunched alone in that dark apartment those first sad days, I thought back to the afternoon I went to St. Louis. Something kept telling me to stay with Nettie. Was that something from God? Oh, if I had paid more attention to Him that day, I would have stayed and been with Nettie when she died. From that moment on I vowed to listen more closely to Him.

But still, I was lost in grief. Everyone was kind to me, especially a friend, Professor Frye, who seemed to know what I needed. On the following Saturday evening, he took me up to Madam Malone’s Poro College, a neighborhood music school. It was quiet; the late evening sun crept through the curtained windows. I sat down at the piano, and my hands began to browse over the keys.

Something happened to me then I felt at peace. I feel as though I could reach out and touch God. I found myself playing a melody, one I’d never heard or played before, and the words that came into my head just seemed to fall into place:

“Precious Lord, take my hand,
lead me on, let me stand!
I am tired, I am weak,
I am worn, Through the storm,
through the night lead me on to the light,
Take my hand, precious Lord, lead me home.”

The Lord gave me these words and melody. He also healed my spirit. I learned that when we are in our deepest grief when we feel farthest from God, this is when He is closest, and when we are most open to His restoring power. And so I go on living for God willingly and joyfully until that day comes when He will take me and gently lead me home.

When my way grows drear precious Lord linger near,
When my light is almost gone,
Hear my cry, hear my call,
Hold my hand lest I fall,
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home.

Thomas A. Dorsey

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part II

It is reasonable to believe that the number who met at Caiaphas’ house was only a small, ad hoc, hand-picked portion of this mighty council. However, we are told that forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin forsook their locale in the Chamber of Hewn Stone and took its seat in the trade Halls, which was another location near the Temple Mount.¹ A Jewish genealogist also mentions this: “Forty years before the Temple was destroyed did the Sanhedrin abandon [the Temple] and held its sittings in Hanuth.²”³ In other words, they moved from the Temple Mount inside the walls to the Mount of Olives outside the walls of Jerusalem proper.

With this time-frame being in 30 AD, it fell during the ministry of Jesus. But we also find another contributing factor mentioned: “Capital cases were only dealt with by any court of 23 while the Sanhedrin sat in the Hewn-Stone Chamber of the Temple: the abandoning of their seat, therefore, meant the cessation of judging capital cases.”⁴ This provides more evidence as to why the High Priest went to Pontius Pilate in order to get the death sentence for Jesus. Rabbi Maimonides adds: “Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, capital punishment was nullified among the Jewish people. Although the Temple was still standing, since the Sanhedrin went into exile (left the Chamber of Hewn Stone) and were not in their place in the Temple, these laws could not be enforced.”⁵ When we look at this through a figurative lens, we can see the “Hewn Stone” as a symbol of Jesus Christ the stone which the builders threw away, and since this happened just as Jesus’ ministry was beginning, it makes for a graphic illustration of how He, the Cornerstone, was rejected in favor of the stone tablet of Moses.

Now, as we have seen, by abandoning their traditional meeting place in the Temple and relocating to “Chanoth” (the Sheds or vendor’s stalls), the Sanhedrin could no longer enforce capital punishment, which was their argument to convince Pontius Pilate to act on their behalf.⁶ Some scholars have raised the question, why did the Sanhedrin not meet in the Temple chamber? Dr. John Gill says, “To me, the reason seems to be that they chose not to meet there, but at the high priest’s palace because of privacy, that it might not be known they were together, and about any affair of the moment; and particularly this: the high priest’s residence was always Jerusalem, and he never removed from there; nor did he go from the Temple over there except at night, or an hour or two during the day; for he had an apartment in the temple, which was called the chamber of the high priest, where he was the whole day.”⁷

Maimonides agrees: “There was a chamber prepared for him [the high priest] in the Sanctuary which was called: The Chamber of the High Priest. The glory and the honor of [the High Priest] would be to remain in the Sanctuary the entire day and to go to his private home only at night or for an hour or two during the day. His home should be in Jerusalem and he should never depart from there.”⁸ Matthew now reveals the reason for their meeting.

Verses 4-5: In the meeting, they tried to find a way to arrest and kill Jesus without anyone knowing what they were doing. They planned to arrest Jesus and kill Him. They said, “We cannot arrest Jesus during Passover. We don’t want the people to become angry and cause a riot.”

So we can see, that the high priest met during his break from the Temple at night to plan the arrest of Jesus. We will see in verse 14, it was after this meeting that Judas Iscariot went to initiate his act of betrayal. And as mentioned above, this meeting may also have been connected with the establishment of the feast days for Passover. What had happened to Jesus’ royal ancestor King David, was now happening to Him, “My enemies are always twisting my words. They are always making plans against me. They hide together and watch every move I make, hoping for some way to kill me.”⁹

The Psalmist described their tactics, “They use the law to make life hard for the people. They attack those who do right. They say innocent people are guilty and put them to death.”¹⁰ And the same spirit that came against the prophet Jeremiah, was alive in the hearts of these enemies of our Lord, “Let us destroy the tree and its fruit! Let us kill him! Then people will forget him.”¹¹ The Jewish high priest who called this meeting was known by his Greek name, Caiaphas.

Bible historians tell us that his first name was Joseph and that he succeeded Simon son of Camith, as high priest, around 25 AD. Then, some two years after our Lord’s death, he was deposed by Vitellius governor of Syria. He was also the son-in-law of the high priest Annas, who held that office himself by appointment of Valerius Gratus, who preceded Pontius Pilate, about 18-36 AD, which was a longer period than several of his predecessors and successors. But behind all of this, we find these words: “People might make many plans, but what the LORD says is what will happen.”¹²

Apparently, the leaders of the Sanhedrin had enough members arrive to constitute a majority. And after much deliberation, they concluded it would be advisable to wait until the feast of Passover was complete. But it also raises another issue. It appears that they had already pronounced our Lord guilty of whatever charges they might bring against Him. This was contrary to their own rules. According to the Rabbis: “As each individual is convicted, he is placed under detention and the court then determines if these individuals make up a majority of the city.”¹³ It appears that they had no intention of examining each of Jesus’ followers to see how many believed in Him as the Messiah. Perhaps they feared that it would be a majority and that would put them in a very delicate situation, to say the least.

But Rabbi Maimonides gives us a closer look at the proper procedure. “How is the applicable law for a rebellious elder carried out? When a matter is undecided because of its difficulty and a sage who is scholarly enough to issue rulings whether with regard to a matter which he arrived at through his own reasoning or which he received from his teachers. He and the sages who differ with him ascend to Jerusalem and come to the court which holds sessions at the entrance to the Temple Mount. The court tells them: ‘This is the law.’ If the elder listens and accepts the ruling, it is desirable. If not, they all go to the court which holds sessions at the entrance to the Temple courtyard.”¹⁴

By following the account of what happened to Jesus, it is clear that the rules were made up as they went along. Maimonides continues to spell out the proper procedure: “If the elder listens and accepts the ruling, they go their [separate]ways. If not, they all go to the Supreme Sanhedrin in the Chamber of Hewn Stone from which the Torah emanates to the entire Jewish people, as Deuteronomy states: ‘You will then act according to what they have told you there in that place which ADONAI will choose.’¹⁵ The Supreme Sanhedrin will then tell them: ‘This is the law’ and they all depart…There are four transgressors whose execution must be announced publicly: a rebellious elder, lying witnesses, a person who entices others to worship idols, and a wayward and rebellious son. For with regard to all of them, the Torah states: ‘so that people will hear and become afraid.’”¹⁶ They did not plan to give Jesus any of these rights. So instead of being a court, they became conspirators.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

Part I

Verses 1-2: After Jesus finished saying all these things, He said to His followers, “You know that the day after tomorrow is Passover. On that day the Son of Man will be handed over to His enemies to be killed on a cross.”

Now we see a significant change in the direction of our Lord’s warning. It is no longer something in the future, but events in the next few days that would change the world. So often when we read in the Gospels about when the feasts were scheduled to commence, it is easy to think that they were fixed dates just like what we have in our calendars. But a research of Jewish literature shows that each feast was schedule based on many factors. One leading Rabbi said: “When the court institutes a leap year, they write a letter to all the people in distant places, notifying them that a leap year has been instituted, and the reason for which it was instituted. These letters were written in the name of the ‘nasi.’‘¹”²

The Rabbi continues: “They would say, ‘Let it be known that I and my colleagues have agreed to add to this year this many days’ – for it was possible for them to declare a month of twenty-nine days or a month of thirty days. The intent is that the court had the option of notifying the people in the outlying areas that the month would [probably] be either full or lacking. Scholars add: ‘Since through calculations, it is possible to know whether or not it is likely for the moon to be sighted on the thirtieth night, the court would notify the people in the outlying areas accordingly. This notification would, however, be conditional on the actual sighting of the moon‘.”³

Scholars believe that this Rabbi’s statement is based on a narrative in Jewish tradition that tells how Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel sent letters to Jews throughout the diaspora notifying them of the declaration of a leap year.⁴ So, apparently, Jesus and His followers received word that the Sanhedrin had scheduled the Passover and it was only two days away. With Christ’s reference here to the Passover, let us look at another simile. Out of a family’s whole flock, only one sheep would be chosen to die as a sacrifice to pay for their safe passage out of Egypt. How would this sheep be chosen? What would determine its being picked depended on the qualifications necessary? It must have no injuries, cuts, or bruises. It must be clean and whole in every way.

Among the flock that Jesus led on this day, He alone was the one who met those prerequisites. No one could volunteer to take His place: not Peter, not James, not John. And since no one could substitute for Him back then, no one can substitute for Him now: not the Chinese Buddha of Nepal, nor the Muslim Mohammad of Arabia, nor the Hindu Vishnu of India. He alone is still the one Lamb who qualifies to pay for the redemption and salvation necessary caused by sin in the world.

So how could our Lord know for certain that the time had come for Him to be offered up as the Lamb of God? Early church scholar Origen gives us his answer: “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.’⁵ In another place, ‘Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour!⁶ No, this is why I came to this hour.” And elsewhere, “Father, the hour has come! Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.”⁷ 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.‘⁸”⁹

In his sermon on this text, Chrysostom gives his interpretation: “Notice how Jesus 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 are 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.”¹⁰

Verse 3: Then the leading priests and the older Jewish leaders had a meeting at the palace where the high priest lived. The high priest’s name was Caiaphas.

Some Bible scholars believe that this meeting took place two days earlier just as Jesus was teaching His disciples on what was going to happen (see Verse 1). Here Matthew mentions the “leading priests.” This not only included the past and present high priests, but also those who were the heads of the 24 courses of the priests chosen to be members of the Sanhedrin. Then, he mentions the “older Jewish leaders.” These no doubt included the doctors of the law and Scribes. Most of these were Pharisees, but some were Sadducees. There may have been one or two members of the Herodians as well. The Aramaic version states that this group consisted of the “high priests, scribes, elders, and people of the court.” Therefore it included civil magistrates and religious judges so that it represented both the ecclesiastical section as well as the lay people.

One Jewish scholar offers this inside account: “We appoint to a Sanhedrin – both to the Supreme Sanhedrin and to a minor Sanhedrin – only men of wisdom and understanding, of unique distinction in their knowledge of the Torah and who possess a broad intellectual potential. They should also have some knowledge concerning other intellectual disciplines, e.g., medicine, mathematics, the fixation of the calendar, astronomy, astrology, and also the practices of fortune-telling, magic, sorcery, and the hollowed teachings of idolatry so that they will know how to judge them. We appoint to the Sanhedrin only priests, Levites, and Israelites of a lineage of fine repute who can marry into the priesthood. This is derived from Numbers 11:16: ‘And they will stand there with you.’ Implied is that they should resemble you, Moses in wisdom, the fear of heaven, and in the lineage.”¹¹

So we are not talking about a small group of rebel clergy. Rabbi Maimonides also tells us, “A king of Israel may not be included in the Sanhedrin, for we are forbidden to disagree with him and repudiate his words. The High Priest, by contrast, may be included in the Sanhedrin if his knowledge makes him fitting.”¹² This honorable Jewish judicial body had always met in a chamber within the Temple court. According to the Jewish Mishnah, we read that in the Temple court there were six chambers, three on the north side and three on the south side. Those to the south were the “Wood Chamber”, the “Golah Chamber,”¹³ and the “Chamber of Hewn Stone” (in Hebrew, “Lishkat ha-Gazit”). It says of the Chamber of Hewn Stone, that it was there the Great Sanhedrin of Israel used to sit and judge.¹⁴ But under the stress of this situation with a rogue prophet about to strip away not only their hypocrisy but their power over the people as well, they threw out the rules and decided to do things their way.