Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 12:5
Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
5. three hundred pence ] Here, as in Joh 6:7, the translation ‘pence’ is very inadequate and misleading; ‘three hundred shillings’ would be nearer the mark (see on Mar 6:7). S. Mark adds that some were very indignant at her.
to the poor ] More accurately, to poor people; there is no article (comp. Luk 18:22).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 5. Three hundred pence] Or denarii: about 9. 13s. 9d. of our money; reckoning the denarius at 7 3/4d. One of my MSS. of the Vulgate (a MS. of the 14th century) reads, cccc denarii.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
5. three hundred pencebetweennine and ten pounds sterling.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence,…. Meaning Roman pence, one of which is, of the value of our money, seven pence halfpenny; so that three hundred pence amount to nine pounds seven shillings and six pence:
and given to the poor? this was his pretence, and with which he covered himself; his uneasiness was, because it was not sold, and the money put into his hands, as appears by what follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Sold (). First aorist passive indicative of , old verb to sell (Mt 13:46).
For three hundred pence ( ). Genitive of price. Same item in Mr 14:5, while in Mt 26:9 it is simply “for much” (). But all three have “given to the poor” ( ). First aorist passive indicative of with dative case (note absence of the article, poor people), real beggars, mendicants (Matt 19:21; Luke 14:13). But only John singles out Judas as the one who made the protest against this waste of money while Mark says that “some” had indignation and Matthew has it that “the disciples” had indignation. Clearly Judas was the spokesman for the group who chimed in and agreed with his protest. The amount here spent by Mary (ten guineas) would equal a day labourer’s wages for a year (Dods).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Three hundred pence [ ] . Or three hundred denarii. On the denarius, see on Mt 20:2. Mark says more than three hundred pence. Three hundred denarii would be about fifty dollars, or twice that amount if we reckon according to the purchasing power. The poor [] . See on Mt 5:3. No article : to poor people.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Why was not this ointment sold,” (dia ti touto to muron ouk eprathe) “For what reason was this ointment not sold,” in the open market, in the market place, in the commercial world.
2) “For three hundred pence, and given to the poor?” (triakosion denarion kai edothe ptochois) “For three hundred denari (pennies) and doled out to the poor?” The price or value was more than fifty dollars in the market place today. But Judas Iscariot, while appealing to the interest of the impoverished, was then a greedy soul, conniving a means of treachery by which he would betray Jesus, a bargain that he finished after taking a sop and leaving that banquet that night, as recounted, Mat 26:14-15; Mar 14:10-11; Joh 13:11; Joh 13:18; Joh 13:27-30.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred denarii? A pound of ordinary ointment, Pliny tells us, cost not more than ten denarii; but the same Pliny says, that the highest price of the best ointment was three hundred and ten denarii. Now the Evangelists agree, that this was the most costly ointment, and Therefore Judas is correct in valuing a pound of it at three hundred denarii, — a sum which, according to the computation of Budaeus, amounts to fifty livres of French money. And as almost every kind of luxury involves excess and superfluity, the greater the waste of money, the more plausible reason had Judas for murmuring; as if he had said, “Had Mary spent little, there would have been some excuse for her; but now, since, in a matter of no importance, she has wasted a vast sum of money, has she not done an injury to the poor, who might have obtained from such a sum great relief? What she has done, therefore, admits of no apology.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence?Both the earlier Gospels preface this estimate by a reference to the use which was made of the ointment as actual waste. St. Matthew says only that it might have been sold for much. St. Mark, that it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, that is, in actual value, for the yearly wage of a working man, and for the food therefore which would have maintained a poor mans household for a whole year. (Comp. Note on Joh. 6:7.) St. Mark adds, and they were angry at her. (Comp. Note on Joh. 11:33.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Given to the poor Covetousness and irreverence are here covered under the cloak of benevolence. The poor are, indeed, as the Scriptures abundantly teach, a prominent object of Christian duty. Yet poverty is no merit, but is very often the due penalty of idleness and unthrift. The due expenditures of art and taste are right, as tending to civilize and elevate mankind; the wealth laid out in awakening the sentiment of worship is still more right, as contributing to spiritualize the heart of man.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joh 12:5. Sold for three hundred pence, The Roman penny, which is here spoken of, was equal to seven-pence half-penny of our money; three hundred of these pence therefore amounted to about nine pounds, seven shillings, and six-pence sterling. From the value of the ointment it would appear, that Lazarus and his sisters were persons of a better station than ordinary, (see on Ch. Joh 11:1.) otherwise they could not have afforded so costly a present, nor would Jesus probably have accepted it at their hands.Besides,this conjecture is confirmed by the kind of company which came from the city to comfort the two sisters on the death of their brother. The evangelist calls them the Jews, a word which he commonly makes use of to denote the principal inhabitants of Jerusalem. The action of Mary, and the office which Martha sustained at this feast, are by no means inconsistent with their supposed station; for they must think that they could not put sufficient honour on one whom they esteemed so highly, and to whom they were so much indebted. If the station of Lazarus was, as we suppose, better than common, the miracle of his resurrection must for that reason have been the more illustrious.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 12:5-6 . ] Mar 14:5 sets forth the climax in the tradition by . The mention of the price itself (about 120 Rhenish guldens, or about 10) is certainly original, not the indefinite of Mat 26:9 .
] without the article: to poor people .
. . . . . . .] gives historical definiteness to the general . He had the chest, the cash-box (see as regards . 2Ch 24:8 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 98 f.), in his keeping, and bore away that which was thrown into it, i.e . he purloined it. This closer definition of the sense of , auferre (Joh 20:15 ; Mat 7:17 ; Polyb. i. 48. 2, et al .), is yielded by the context . See Krebs, Obss . p. 153. So Origen, Codd. of the It. Nonnus, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide, Kypke, Krebs, and several others, including Maier, Grimm; comp. Lange. [105] The article does not signify that he had taken away all the deposits (objection of Lcke and several others), but refers to the individual cases which we are to suppose, in which deposits were removed by him. The explanation portabat (Vulgate, Luther, Beza, and many others, including Lcke, De Wette, B. Crusius, Luthardt, Ebrard, Wichelhaus, Baeumlein, Godet, Hengstenberg, Ewald; Tholuck doubtful) yields a meaning which is quite tautological, and a matter of course. The were gifts of friends and adherents of Jesus for the purchase of the necessities of life and for charitable uses. Comp. Luk 8:3 ; Joh 13:29 . That the disciples had acquired earnings by the labour of their hands, and had deposited such earnings in the bag, nay, that even Jesus Himself had done so (Mar 6:3 ), of this there exists no trace during the period of His ministry.
The question, why Jesus had not taken away the custody of the chest from the dishonest disciple (which indeed, according to Schenkel, he probably did not hold), is not answered by saying that He would remove every pretext for treason from him (Ammonius, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others), or that He did not desire violently to interfere with the development of his sins (Hengstenberg); for neither would harmonize with the educative love of the Lord. Just as little, again, is it explained by suggesting that Judas carried on his thefts unobserved , until perhaps shortly before the death of Jesus (Lcke), which would be incompatible with the higher knowledge of the Lord, Joh 2:25 ; comp. Joh 6:64 ; Joh 6:71 . The question stands rather in the closest connection with another how Jesus could adopt Judas at all as a disciple; and here we must go back solely to a divine destination , Act 1:16 ; Act 2:23 . Comp. the note after Joh 6:70-71 . That the custody of the chest had been entrusted to Judas only by agreement of the disciples among one another (Godet), is an assumption which quite arbitrarily evades the point, while it would by no means have excluded the competency of Jesus to interfere.
[105] Who, however, explains: he laid hold of . But denotes to lay hold of only in the sense of (Suidas). See Reisig, ad Soph. O. C. 1101; Ellendt, Lex Soph. I. p. 299. And also in this sense only in the tragic poets.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
Ver. 5. Sold for three hundred pence ] He, the thief, had quickly computed and cast it up. Pliny tells us that a pound of ordinary ointment might be had for ten pence; but the best was worth three hundred and ten pence. So that Judas was much about the good, as they say. And Mary spared for no cost; as neither did Justinian in his rich communion table, offered up by him in the temple of Sophia in Constantinople, that had in it, saith the author, all the riches of land and sea. Cedren. Hist.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5. . . ] Common (with the slight difference of the insertion of ) to our narrative and Mark. The sum is about 9 l . 16 s . of our money (Friedlieb, p. 31 ).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
not. Greek. ou. App-105.
three hundred pence = about See App-51.
poor. See App-127.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
5. . .] Common (with the slight difference of the insertion of ) to our narrative and Mark. The sum is about 9l. 16s. of our money (Friedlieb, p. 31).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 12:5. , for three hundred denarii [pence]) Fifty or sixty florins.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 12:5
Joh 12:5
Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred shillings, and given to the poor?-Evil desires in men often clothe themselves under pretense of good. It is possible that Judas persuaded himself that he cared for the poor; but John, after seeing the full manifestation of his course, saw that he did not. It was selfish greed. [Judas, through his selfish motive, gives us an insight as to the worth of the ointment used by Mary in anointing Jesus. It was worth, according to his statement, around three hundred dollars. He was so narrow and covetous that he could see nothing in the gift but a waste.” He cared nothing for the poor. His plea was only a greedy pretext. It is a well-known fact to close observers that those who love Jesus most will do most for the poor.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
was: Exo 5:8, Exo 5:17, Amo 8:5, Mal 1:10-13, Mat 26:8, Mar 14:4, Luk 6:41
three hundred: Joh 6:7, Mat 20:2, *marg. Mar 14:5
and given: Mat 26:9, Luk 12:33, Luk 18:22
Reciprocal: Exo 25:37 – give Jos 7:11 – dissembled 2Ki 5:20 – my master Ezr 4:14 – and it was Psa 94:18 – My foot Joh 1:28 – Bethabara Joh 13:29 – that 1Ti 3:3 – not covetous
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
Three hundred pence. Weights and measures, as well as money values, changed from time to time and in different places. But in any way it is estimated, the value Judas placed on this ointment was great, which agrees with the statement of John (verse 3) that it was very costly.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 12:5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor? Care for the poor is the mask which the murmuring protest of Judas wears. Thus sin, that it may the better extinguish the virtue by which at the moment it is offended, is wont to pay reverence to some other virtue,some virtue which may be thought of without trouble, because it is not really present and in question. But the Evangelist in recording the words strips off the mask.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
12:5 {1} Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
(1) A horrible example in Judas of a mind blinded with covetousness, and yet pretending godliness.