Author: Bill Hall

11: Jesus sets forth a very important principle here, which could easily be missed. It is not enough to do good for the sake of doing good. One must do good because of he who is good. Good is to be done to one’s fellow because he is the creation of God, who is good. Good done only for the sake of good alone will ultimately find its meaning defined by the doer, which makes the deed no better or worse than he. Human beings, left to themselves, doing good only as they define it will ultimately create the most horrific form of evil. Judas could now attest to this truth, though he was unaware of it at the time.
Mary did good for Christ because he has done good for us all.
12: Whether Mary fully realized or understood what Jesus said her purpose was has been the target of speculation. However, Jesus clearly states her intentions, and it is best to take his word for it. The use of ointment for the burial of the dead was common. None would have denied this. It seems likely that those present would have taken Jesus seriously, even if they did not realize the implications of his statement.

10: It is said here that Jesus had something to say to those who were making these comments once he ‘understood’ it. Does this mean that he was unaware of their words? Was he limited and unable to know their thoughts at this time? On the contrary, it does not say when he ‘heard’ what was said because they were not in earshot. But, it says he ‘understood’ what they said because he perceived their thoughts without being told that they were thinking about him at all.
He quickly establishes Mary’s righteousness in this action by calling it a good work. Good can only come from God. Mary could do nothing good without him. Indeed, she is here taking the opportunity that she had to work a good work in the sight of God upon the very person of Christ. This is no light matter, but a great act of faith and love.

Many Jews today would argue that their Messiah has never come. They would say that he has yet to fulfill the prophesies of the Old Testament. Those who are still orthodox look each year for his arrival. The rest are, by and large, so far beyond hoping for his arrival that they are atheistic, or at least apathetic. So, has the Messiah come? Shouldn’t his own people be the ones we can trust in this matter? Are they right?
At the beginning of the New Testament, which claims that he has come, we find four witnesses who say that Jesus has indeed arrived already. All four tell us of a very particular indecent in the life of Jesus. Without this, it would be nigh impossible to prove the identity of the Messiah. With it, Jews must ignore much to overlook the facts.

Matthew’s Messiah came in accordance with prophecy. He is the Jew’s Messiah.

Matthew, in his account of the event, is careful to mention that Jesus entry into Jerusalem very specifically fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy. In Zechariah 9:9 some specifics concerning the Messiah’s arrival are mentioned. Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem matches this in every respect. The people rejoice over him. Some realized that he is the King. Salvation of the lost was a characteristic point of Christ’s teaching. His justness and meekness were well established. Both an ass and the foal of an ass were involved in his entry into the city. Matthew was thoroughly convinced that this Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

Mark’s Messiah came on an unbridled colt. He is creation’s Messiah.

Mark, a gentile, concerned himself with a great theme in relation to this event in the life of Jesus. He shows that Jesus is the Lord of creation. He tells us that the disciples were questioned concerning their loosing of the colt. The term ‘Lord’ here applied to Christ is a title of the Messiah. Jesus himself quoted Psalm 110:1 on another occasion, pointing out this special title.
More than this, Jesus’ title is proven by his riding on the colt. A literal fulfillment of Psalm 8 is here before Mark. Jesus could never have ridden upon this animal had he been an ordinary man. Only the Messiah of all creation would have this power. Under him the unbridled, stubborn, young donkey was as tame as the most well-trained domesticated pet. Doubtlessly, Mark saw Jesus as the Messiah of creation.

Luke’s Messiah came on just the right day. He is history’s Messiah.

Luke, ever the exacting record keeper, is very scientific about his account. He records Jesus’ words about the ‘day’ which the Jews should have recognized to be very important. Indeed, God had already, through the mouth of that great prophet, Daniel, made the time of the Messiah’s arrival quite clear. Daniel 9:24-27, upon close study, delineates a waiting period between 444 B.C. in the month of Nisan, and AD 33 in the same month. Any student of history, prophecy, and mathematics could easily see that Jesus entry into Jerusalem at that particular time was undeniable evidence of his identity. Luke was convinced that Jesus is the historical Messiah.

John’s Messiah came for the whole world. He is mankind’s Messiah.

John is perhaps the most understandable of all the witnesses. His approach to Christ is very human, and yet betrays an understanding of the Divine that only human weakness could bring one to need. Jesus confounded the religious leaders as the ‘whole world’ came his way. Even the Greeks began to seek the Truth pouring forth from the person of Jesus Christ. It is this appeal to all of mankind that excited John. John was totally dedicated to the notion that Jesus is the Messiah for all of mankind. He is the Savior of the world.

In order to believe that the Messiah has not yet arrived, one must completely and totally ignore the mountain of evidence stacked next to the only person in history who could possibly have been the Messiah. So the question must be asked, has your Messiah come? Are you still waiting as some are today? Or have you, like so many others, given up hope that he will ever come?

8: Judas was the source of this line of reasoning. It seems that many, if not all, of the disciples went along with his logic, no matter how little sense it made. They saw this flagrant use of such valuable perfume as a great waste. Jesus did not smell badly. Why did he need all of the perfume?
9: It seems that the part of the argument that got the attention of Judas’ fellows was this statement concerning the poor. On the surface it seems logical enough. But, upon closer inspection, one can see that Judas is questioning Christ’s own sensibilities towards the poor. He insinuates that Jesus is selfishly accepting this waste, and sinfully ignoring the great needs of the poor. Needless to say, trying to implicate Jesus Christ as a sinner is tantamount to blasphemy. All things considered, Jesus’ response was, characteristically, merciful.

7: The woman here is Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and Martha. In addition to his head, she anointed his feet. The alabaster box was commonly used for perfume. However, this was among the finest of perfumes on the planet. It was worth more than common folk could expect to save up in several years time. This perfume had a delightful and powerful aroma. Everyone present would immediately know what was being used.

6: This section about the dinner at Simon’s house is a flashback to the previous Sabbath, the day before Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on a colt. It is here to show that Judas had already gone to the chief priests at this point. Neither he, nor the Jewish leaders, knew, as Jesus had said, that he would find an opportunity to betray Christ as soon as he did.
Simon the Leper must not be confused with Simon the Pharisee. There was another incident in which Jesus was anointed by a woman. This occurred in the house of Simon the Pharisee in Galilee earlier in Christ’s ministry. Simon the Leper lived in Bethany, the same town as Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, and was presumably healed of his leprosy by Jesus.

3: The scribes were doctors of the law. The chief priests were evidently those chosen to be in the Sanhedrin. The elders were Hebrew civil magistrates. Thus all three made up more or less the whole of the Great Sanhedrin, which was the ruling body of the Jews at that time. The meeting was held in the house of the high priest. It must be understood that this was a secret meeting. They did not normally meet in this location for official business. Caiaphas, or Joseph Caiaphas, was the high priest at that time.
4: This consultation could not be considered legal. However, they were masters of trickery. Indeed, in that political climate, with the office of the high priest controlled by the Roman government, corruption was the name of the game. Subtlety here refers not to tricking Jesus, but to taking him without being noticed.
5: The desire of the religious leaders was to avoid taking action during the feast for fear of an uprising. This could cause political trouble for them and upset the balance of things. Yet, as Jesus had already stated to his disciples, God’s plan was different.

1: Jesus completed the Olivet Discourse and turned to the prediction of events sooner in God’s timetable.
2: According to Jesus, it was at that time two days until the passover. This places the statement he makes on Wednesday, April 1st, A.D. 33, the 12th of Nisan in the Hebrew Calendar. This was well known to the disciples. He then tells them that he, the Son of man, would be betrayed to be crucified. The implication was that this would occur during the following two days. And, indeed it did. In other words, Jesus predicted his betrayal by Judas before Judas or the Jewish leaders had as of yet made their plans.

42-44: The answer of the goats quickly shows two things. First, they have absolutely no idea what Jesus is talking about. This would be consistent with those who are influenced by the antichrist. They would have no cause to see Christ in need because they would have no cause to see the true Christ at all. Second, these people will be altogether unaware of this passage, or they will at the very least be totally confused as to its meaning.
45: Jesus mentions the ‘least’ of his brethren. What is the meaning of this? In many cases it may be Jewish children that are escaped and stand in need. In other cases it may be those who are alone, injured, ill, or otherwise handicapped in some way. This is not to say that Jesus sees them as somehow less important, but that in men’s eyes, these will be inconsequential persons.
46: Many have attempted to modify the meaning here of ‘everlasting’ torment. It cannot be changed without changing the intended meaning of the original. The everlasting conscious existence of the soul is nowhere specifically disputed in scripture. The goats ‘go away’ into torment. The sheep enter into eternal life by renaming on earth to enter into the earthly millennial reign of Christ.

10: Violence here is a very strong word used to solicit a strong reaction to those who would commit such atrocity against a brother. This brings great shame upon an otherwise proud people. They have been cut off in that there is not an Edomite (Idumaean) national presence today.
11: The Edomites took sides with the Babylonians. The casting of lots here referred to was common in ancient times. They would have cast lots to determine the extent and direction of their conquest, or to divide the spoils. The Edomites were right there with them.
12: Beginning in this verse, Obadiah lists seven things that Edom ‘should not’ have done. First, they should not gloat over the Jews as they were being alienated from their own land. Second, they should not have had a celebration when Jacob was defeated. Third, they should not have taken the opportunity to boast.
13: Fourth, they should not have invaded Judah’s territory. Fifth, they should have taken no pleasure in the pain of their brothers, or enjoyed taking their stuff.
14: Sixth, they should never have acted as guards for the enemy, to ensure complete victory over their own kin. Finally, they should not have snitched on those who had escaped from the foe.