Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:8
But when his disciples saw [it,] they had indignation, saying, To what purpose [is] this waste?
8. when his disciples saw it, they had indignation ] “There were some that had indignation” (Mark); “Then said one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot” (John).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 8. His disciples] One of them, viz. Judas. This mode of speaking was common among the Hebrews. So, Mt 27:44, the thieves also, i.e. one of them. So, Mt 28:17, some doubted, i.e. one, Thomas. See also Ge 8:4; Jdg 12:7; Ne 6:7, c. By a figure called among rhetoricians enallage, the plural is put for the singular it is, however, possible that Judas, who made the objection, was followed in the sentiment by the rest of the disciples.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
But when his disciples saw it,…. What the woman did, what a costly box of ointment it was, and with what profusion she used it,
they had indignation: Mark says, “within themselves”, Mr 14:4; either among themselves, or their indignation was secret in their breasts; their resentment was private, though it might be betrayed by their looks, and afterwards showed itself in words. This indignation was either at the woman, for the Evangelist Mark observes, that “they murmured against her”, Mr 14:5, that she should act such an imprudent part, and be guilty of such extravagance; or at Christ himself, for suffering such an action to be done unto him; for so the Syriac version reads the above clause in Mark, and “they murmured , against him”; so De Dieu observes it should be rendered; though Tremellius, Boderianus, and others, translate it, “against her”: or else their indignation was neither at Christ, whom they dearly loved; nor at the woman, they being taught to love their enemies, and much more the friends of Christ; but at the action, which they looked upon as an ill judged thing, that sprung from misguided zeal, and which they thought could never be acceptable to their master, who was not used to encourage such profuseness and extravagance.
Saying, to what purpose is this waste, or “loss?” They call that waste, or loss, which was spent on Christ himself; whereas, whatever is laid out for the honour of Christ, or the good of his interest, ought not to be reckoned loss, for it will be returned with great increase and advantage; but they could not see what end was to be answered by this expense. It is easy to observe the variableness and inconstancy of the disciples: one time, because the inhabitants of a certain village did not receive Christ, they were for calling for fire from heaven to destroy them; and here is a poor woman that exceeds, as they thought, in her respects to him, and they are filled with indignation.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
This waste ( ). Dead loss () they considered it, nothing but sentimental aroma. It was a cruel shock to Mary of Bethany to hear this comment. Matthew does not tell as John does (Joh 12:4) that it was Judas who made the point which the rest endorsed. Mark explains that they mentioned “three hundred pence,” while Matthew (26:9) only says “for much” ().
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
To what purpose is this waste? Wyc., Where to this loss? Tynd., What needed this waste? See on Joh 12:3.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
8. And when the disciples saw it. This also is not unusual with the Evangelists, when a thing has been done by one, to attribute it to many persons, if they give their consent to it. John says that the murmur proceeded from Judas, who betrayed Christ, (Joh 12:4.) Matthew and Mark include all the disciples along with him. The reason is, that none of the others would ever have dared to murmur if the wicked slander of Judas had not served for a torch to kindle them. But when he began, under a plausible pretext, to condemn the expense as superfluous, all of them easily caught the contagion. And this example shows what danger arises from malignant and envenomed tongues; for even those who are naturally reasonable, and candid, and modest, if they do not exercise prudence and caution, are easily deceived by unfavorable speeches, and led to adopt false judgments. But if light and foolish credulity induced the disciples of Christ to take part with Judas, what shall become of us, if we are too easy in admitting murmurers, who are in the habit of carping wickedly at the best actions?
We ought to draw from it another warning, not to pronounce rashly on a matter which is not sufficiently known. The disciples seize on what Judas said, and, as it has some show of plausibility, they are too harsh in forming a judgment. They ought, on the contrary, to have inquired more fully if the action deserved reproof; more especially when their Master was present, by whose decision it was their duty to abide. Let us know, therefore, that we act improperly, when we form our opinion without paying regard to the word of God; for, as Paul informs us,
None of us liveth or dieth to himself, but all must stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, where we must give our account, (Rom 14:7; 2Co 5:10.)
And though there was a wide difference between Judas and the others — because he wickedly held out a plausible cloak for his theft, while the rest were actuated by foolish simplicity — still we see how their imprudence withdrew them from Christ, and made them the companions of Judas.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(8) When his disciples saw it.There is a singular narrowing of the limits in the three narratives. St. Mark reports that some had indignation; St. John (Joh. 12:4), as knowing who had whispered the first word of blame, fixes the uncharitable judgment on Judas Iscariot, Simons son. The narrow, covetous soul of the Traitor could see nothing in the lavish gift but a waste (literally, perdition) that was matter for reproach. There is something almost terribly suggestive in the fact that our Lord repeats the self-same word when He describes Judas as a son of perdition (Joh. 17:12). He had wasted that which was more precious than the ointment of spikenard. He wondered that his Master should accept such an offering. His indignation, partly real, partly affected, was perhaps honestly shared by some of his fellow-disciples, probably by those of the third group, with whom he came most into contact, and of whom we may well think as having a less glowing love, and narrower sympathies than the others.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. When his disciples This odour of the perfume, though it filled the room with fragrance, is not grateful to every taste. The disciples, as we learn from John, have indignation. Judas seems to have commenced it, and we know how, when a censure is commenced, it may be taken up by all.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “To what purpose is this waste? For this perfumed oil might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.” ’
While John tells us that Judas was prominent in this indignation, there is no reason to doubt that he was not the only one, as Matthew reminds us here. And they were overall quite right in their general viewpoint. This incident is not to be seen as an excuse for unnecessary extravagance. It was a unique moment in history. But the place where they failed was in not recognising that sometimes an extravagant gesture which reveals a tender love is worth more than its weight in gold. Judgment on such matters requires a fine line to be drawn, and this particular ‘extravagance’ was typical of the kind of woman that Mary was. She was the kind who wanted to express herself forcibly. It would not necessarily have been right for everyone. Martha would never have done it, even though she loved the Lord equally in her own way. She was too practical. What made it right was the spontaneous love that lay behind it towards the One Who had come from Heaven and was about to suffer. It is very possible that she had taken on board the fact that Jesus was anticipating His death and wanted to demonstrate her spiritually based love before it was too late. What is certain is that she saw Jesus as worthy of every denarius of what she gave.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 26:8. But when his disciples saw it It appears from Joh 12:4-6 that none but Judas found fault with what this woman had done. St. Matthew has probably put the disciples in general, for one of the disciples; as he says elsewhere, with St. Mark, that the thieves reviled Christ, though it appears from St. Luk 23:39 that there was but one guilty of thatcrime. By the figure called enallage, the plural number is put for the singular, which Longinus mentions as an elegance in his treatise on the sublime. See Jos 7:1; Jos 7:21 and compare Luk 23:36. Joh 19:29 with Mat 27:48 and Mar 15:36. Some have thought that Judas Iscariot was the son of that Simon, in whose house the feast was made; but the name was so common, that it cannot be concluded with any certainty.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 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).
] 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).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
8 But when his disciples saw it , they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
Ver. 8. They had indignation ] Not all, but one of them was displeased, viz. Judas (as John explains Matthew), who yet was of such esteem and authority among the disciples, that what he did they are all said to do, and possibly they might, some of them, be drawn to do the same by his example, and upon so specious a pretence of charity to the poor.
To what purpose is this waste? ] All seems to be lost to flesh and blood that is laid out upon Christ, his servants and services. “The people is idle,” said Pharaoh, when they would needs go worship in the wilderness. And Seneca jeers the Jews for wasting a seventh part of their lives on a weekly Sabbath. (Aug. de Civ. Dei.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
8. ] Judas alone is mentioned, Joh 12:4 . It may have been that some were found ready to second his remark, but that John, from his peculiar position at the table, if, as is probable, the same as in Joh 13:23 , may not have observed it. If so, the independent origin of the two accounts is even more strikingly shewn.
] Bengel remarks, ‘Immo tu, Juda, perditionis es ( , Joh 17:12 ).’
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:8 . , as in Mat 20:24 . The disciple-circle experienced various annoyances from first to last: Syrophenician woman, mothers and children, ambition of James and John, Mary of Bethany. The last the most singular of all. Probably all the disciples disapproved more or less. It was a woman’s act, and they were men . She was a poet and they were somewhat prosaic. , waste, a precious thing thrown away. To how many things the term might be applied on similar grounds! The lives of the martyrs, e.g., cui bono? That is the question; not so easily answered as vulgar utilitarians think. Beside this criticism of Mary place Peter’s revolt against the death of Jesus (Mat 16:22 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
His disciples. In the former case it was Judas Iscariot. App-158.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
8. ] Judas alone is mentioned, Joh 12:4. It may have been that some were found ready to second his remark, but that John, from his peculiar position at the table,-if, as is probable, the same as in Joh 13:23,-may not have observed it. If so, the independent origin of the two accounts is even more strikingly shewn.
] Bengel remarks, Immo tu, Juda, perditionis es ( , Joh 17:12).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:8. , waste) or perdition.-Nay, thou, Judas, art [the son] of Perdition;[1113] see Joh 17:12.
[1113] In the original, both Greek and Latin, the same word is used to express Waste and Perdition.-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
they: 1Sa 17:28, 1Sa 17:29, Ecc 4:4, Mar 14:4, Joh 12:4-6
To: Exo 5:17, Amo 8:5, Hag 1:2-4, Mal 1:7-10, Mal 1:13
Reciprocal: Joh 12:5 – was
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE BEST IS NOT TOO GOOD
To what purpose is this waste?
Mat 26:8
I. The origin of the question.How do these words emerge again and again from the deep of mens hearts and find utterance more or less distinct from their lips! Sometimes they are words of disciples spoken in simplicity and good faith. Sometimes they spring out of a far more bitter root.
II. The odour of the ointment.How much time, for instance, the Christian man must seem to the votary of this world to be throwing away in meditation and prayer. The world grudges and resents any signal outbursts of feeling and passion, any manifest warmth and heat of the affections, in any of the services offered to God. To be drunk with wine it can understand and pardon, but not to be filled with the Spirit. And not otherwise is it when the inner devotion of heart finds utterance in some costly offering of the hands. While the Church is filled with the odour of the ointment, there will not be wanting some to exclaim, To what purpose is this waste?
III. The best demanded.But see how our Lord silenced the murmurers, allowed and accepted the gift. She hath wrought a good work upon Me. No cold utilitarianism is to reign in Christs Churchno niggard calculation of the cheapest rate at which He may be served. The best which any man can bring to Him is not too good, the richest and the rarest is not too rich and rare for Him.
Archbishop Trench.
Illustration
A Christian gentleman, when blamed by his partner for doing so much for the cause of God, replied, Your foxhounds cost more in one year, than my religion ever cost in two.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
26:8
According to Joh 12:4-6 it was Judas who made the complaint. And the same passage explains his motive to have been a selfish one. John calls him a thief and Jesus calls him a devil in Joh 6:70, all of which accounts for his conduct.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
But when his disciples saw it; they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
[To what purpose is this waste?] it was not without cause that it was called “precious ointment,” Mat 26:7, and “very costly,” Joh 12:3; to shew that it was not of those common sorts of ointments used in feasts, which they thought it no waste to pour upon the waiter’s head, or to daub upon the wall. But this ointment was of much more value, and thence arose the cavil.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 26:8. Were sore displeased. Judas was the spokesman, and probably the instigator of this indignation, the others siding with him. The three accounts here show perfect independence. The disciples (Matthew); there were some (Mark); one of the disciples, Judas Iscariot (John). No doubt, all shared the feeling for the time; Mark distinguishes some in a company, of which the disciples formed a part; John mentions the author of the objection, and gives his motives. If John and Judas were reclining at this table in the same relative positions as at the Last Supper. John would probably have heard nothing but the remark of Judas.
To what purpose is this waste. Simon the Pharisee, in the similar case, objected to the character of the woman; here the value of the ointment is thought, as Judas suggested, to have been squandered by this act of Mary. Sacrifices, made out of love to Christ, seem wasteful to the world, and even to the Church when under the influence of a mercantile spirit.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
That is, when Judas, and some other disciples whom he had influenced, saw this action, they murmured; particularly Judas blamed this holy woman for needless prodigality, and did tacitly reflect upon Christ himself, for suffering that wasteful expence. O! how doth a covetous heart think everthing too good for Christ: he that sees a pious action well done, and seeks to undervalue it, show himself possessed with a spirit of envy. Judas’s invidious spirit makes him censure an action which Christ highly approved.
Learn thence, That men who know not our hearts, may through ignorance or prejudice, censure and condemn those actions which God doth commend and will graciously reward. Happy for this poor woman that she had a more righteous judge to pass sentence upon her action than wicked Judas!
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
26:8 But when his {d} disciples saw [it], they had indignation, saying, To what purpose [is] this {e} waste?
(d) This is a figure of speech called synecdoche: for it is said that only Judas was moved at this; Joh 12:4 .
(e) Unprofitable spending.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Evidently Judas Iscariot led the disciples’ criticism of Mary’s act (Joh 12:4). According to the Gospel records, every time Mary tried to do something for Jesus she was misunderstood. [Note: Wiersbe, 1:95.] The disciples failed to appreciate the significance of what Mary was doing and that such an anointing was appropriate in view of Jesus’ identity as "the Lord’s Anointed" and His impending death (cf. Mat 16:21-28; Mat 17:22-23; Mat 20:18-19). Regardless of Judas’ true motive the other disciples felt that Mary’s gift was inappropriate since so many poor people could have profited from it. They did not realize that the sacrifice that Jesus was about to make would solve the basic need of every poor person throughout all of history. Their objection was not evil but wrong due to lack of understanding. Mary does not seem to have understood that Jesus was going to die any more than the disciples. She evidently made her great sacrifice simply because she loved Jesus.