Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 12:2
There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
2 8. The Devotion of Mary
2. they made him a supper ] ‘They’ is indefinite: if we had only this account we should suppose that the supper was in the house of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus; but S. Mark (Mar 14:3) and S. Matthew (Mat 26:6) tell us that it was in the house of Simon the leper, who had possibly been healed by Christ and probably was a friend or relation of Lazarus and his sisters. Martha’s serving (comp. Luk 10:40) in his house is evidence of the latter point (see the notes on the accounts of S. Matthew and S. Mark).
Lazarus was one of them ] This is probably introduced to prove the reality and completeness of his restoration to life: but it also confirms the Synoptic accounts by indicating that Lazarus was a guest rather than a host.
sat at the table ] Literally, reclined, as was the custom.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See this passage explained in the notes at Mat 26:3-16.
Joh 12:2
A supper – At the house of Simon the leper, Mat 26:6.
Lazarus was … – The names of Martha and Lazarus are mentioned because it was not in their own house, but in that of Simon. Lazarus is particularly mentioned, since it was so remarkable that one who had been once dead should be enjoying again the endearments of friendship. This shows, also, that his resurrection was no illusion – that he was really restored to the blessings of life and friendship. Calmet thinks that this was about two months after his resurrection, and it is the last that we hear of him. How long he lived is unknown, nor is it recorded that he made any communication about the world of spirits. It is remarkable that none who have been restored to life from the dead have made any communications respecting that world. See Luk 16:31, and the notes at 2Co 12:4.
Joh 12:4
Which should betray him – Greek, who was to betray him – that is, who would do it.
Joh 12:5
Three hundred pence – About 40,00, or 8 British pounds, 10 shillings (circa 1880s).
And given to the poor – The avails or value of it given to the poor.
Joh 12:6
Had the bag – The word translated bag is compounded of two words, meaning tongue, and to keep or preserve. It was used to denote the bag in which musicians used to keep the tongues or reeds of their pipes when traveling. Hence, it came to mean any bag or purse in which travelers put their money or their most precious articles. The disciples appear to have had such a bag or purse in common, in which they put whatever money they had, and which was designed especially for the poor, Luk 8:3; Joh 13:29; Act 2:44. The keeping of this, it seems, was intrusted to Judas; and it is remarkable that the only one among them who appears to have been naturally avaricious should have received this appointment. It shows us that every man is tried according to his native propensity. This is the object of trial – to bring out mans native character; and every man will find opportunity to do evil according to his native disposition, if he is inclined, to it.
And bare … – The word translated bare means literally to carry as a burden. Then it means to carry away, as in Joh 20:15; If thou hast borne him hence. Hence, it means to carry away as a thief does, and this is evidently its meaning here. It has this sense often in classic writers. Judas was a thief and stole what was put into the bag. The money he desired to be entrusted to him, that he might secretly enrich himself. It is clear, however, that the disciples did not at this time know that this was his character, or they would have remonstrated against him. They learned it afterward. We may learn here:
1.That it is not a new thing for members of the church to be covetous. Judas was so before them.
2.That such members will be those who complain of the great waste in spreading the gospel.
3.That this deadly, mean, and grovelling passion will work all evil in a church. It brought down the curse of God on the children of Israel in the case of Achan Josh. 7, and it betrayed our Lord to death. It has often since brought blighting on the church; and many a time it has betrayed the cause of Christ, and drowned men in destruction and perdition, 1Ti 6:9.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
That this supper was made in Bethany is no question; but at whose house there it is questioned. Some think that it was at the house of Simon the leper. We read indeed of a supper made for our Saviour at his house, both Mat 26:6,7, and Mar 14:3, and that Simon is said to have been of Bethany: only the supper here mentioned is said to have been six days before the passover, and that mentioned by Matthew and Mark seems to have been but two days before, Mat 26:2; Mar 14:1. That which is probably said to solve that difficulty is, the circumstances of the supper, and history about it, seem the very same, both in Matthew, Mark, and John; but it seems in Matthew and Mark to be a little put out of order; they do not say that this supper was two days before the passover, (that indeed had been a contradiction to what John doth here relate), but both Matthew and Mark first tell us, that Christ told his disciples that the passover was to be within two days, and of the counsel taken by the chief priests and elders against Christ, and then relates the story of this supper: John first gives us an account of this supper, which was six days before the passover; so John seems to have related it in its proper time and order.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. Martha servedThis, withwhat is afterwards said of Mary’s way of honoring her Lord, is sotrue to the character in which those two women appear in Lu10:38-42, as to constitute one of the strongest and mostdelightful confirmations of the truth of both narratives. (See alsoon Joh 11:20).
Lazarus . . . sat at thetable“Between the raised Lazarus and the healed leper(Simon, Mr 14:3), the Lordprobably sits as between two trophies of His glory” [STIER].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
There they made him a supper,…. At Bethany, in the house of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary; by whose order, and at whose charge it was prepared for him; and not in the house of Simon the leper, which was four days after this, Mt 26:2.
And Martha served; who was always a busy, active, and stirring woman; and this she did, to testify her love to Christ, and great respect for him; otherwise, as she was a person of substance, she had servants enough to wait at table:
but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him; and ate, and drank, and conversed; by which it appeared, that he was really risen from the dead, and was in a good state of health.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
So they made him a supper there ( ). Here again is not inferential, but merely transitional. This supper is given by Mark (Mr 14:3-9) and Matthew (Mt 26:6-13) just two days (Mr 14:1) before the passover, that is on our Tuesday evening (beginning of Jewish Wednesday), while John mentions (12:2-9) it immediately after the arrival of Jesus in Bethany (12:1). One must decide which date to follow. Mark and Matthew and Luke follow it with the visit of Judas to the Sanhedrin with an offer to betray Jesus as if exasperated by the rebuke by Jesus at the feast. Bernard considers that John “is here more probably accurate.” It all turns on John’s purpose in putting it here. This is the last mention of Jesus in Bethany and he may have mentioned it proleptically for that reason as seems to me quite reasonable. Westcott notes that in chapter 12 John closes his record of the public ministry of the Lord relative to the disciples at this feast (1-11), to the multitude in the triumphal entry (12-19), to the world outside in the visit of the Greeks (20-36a), and with two summary judgements (36b-50). There is no further reason to refer to the feast in the house of another Simon when a sinful woman anointed Jesus (Lu 7:36-50). It is no credit to Luke or to John with Mark and Matthew to have them all making a jumble like that. There were two anointings by two absolutely different women for wholly different purposes. See the discussion on Luke for further details.
And Martha served ( ). Imperfect active of , picturing Martha true to the account of her in Lu 10:40 ( , as here). But this fact does not show that Martha was the wife of this Simon at all. They were friends and neighbours and Martha was following her bent. It is Mark (Mr 14:3) and Matthew (Mt 26:6) who mention the name of the host. It is not Simon the Pharisee (Lu 7:36), but Simon the leper (Mark 14:3; Matt 26:6) in whose house they meet. The name is common enough. The Simon in Luke was sharply critical of Jesus; this one is full of gratitude for what Jesus has done for him.
That sat at meat ( ). “That lay back,” reclined as they did, articular participle (ablative case after ) of the common verb . Perhaps Simon gave the feast partly in honour of Lazarus as well as of Jesus since all were now talking of both (Joh 12:9). It was a gracious occasion. The guests were Jesus, the twelve apostles, and Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1 ) “There they made him a supper,” (epoiesan oun auto deipnon ekei) ”Then they made a supper for him out there,” as a tribute of honor to Him. The “they” who made the supper, tribute meal, banquet, in honor of Jesus, is believed to have been the families of Lazarus and Simon the Leper, in Simon the Leper’s house, Mar 14:3; Mat 26:6.
2) “And Martha served; (kai he Martha diekonei) “And a served, as a waitress,” at the supper, which was her peculiar choice of province, Luk 10:40-41. Jesus came into Bethany six days before the Passover, Joh 12:1, but the banquet at Simon’s residence was not until two days before the Passover, Mat 26:6; Mar 14:1; Mar 14:3; Joh 13:29.
3) “But Lazarus was one of them,” (ho de Lazaros eis hen ek ton) “And Lazarus was one of those,” at the banquet, as perhaps a guest of honor, thankful for his restored life from the dead, as Simon was for his healing and restoration to his family and public social life.
4) “That sat at the table with him.” (anakeimenon sun auto) “Who was reclining with him at the supper,” with Jesus to eat, to sustain his strength, and to fellowship with the Savior who loved him as a human being, a friend, Joh 11:3; and as Jesus ate with His disciples, as a friend, after His resurrection, Luk 24:43.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. There therefore they made him a banquet. Matthew (Mat 26:7) and Mark, (Mar 14:3) say that he then supped at the house of Simon the leper. John does not mention the house, but shows plainly enough, that it was in some other place than the house of Lazarus and Martha that he supped; for he says that Lazarus was one of those who sat at table with him, that is, one who had been invited along with Christ. Nor does it involve any contradiction, that Matthew and Mark relate that the head of Christ was anointed, while John relates that his feet were anointed. The usual practice was the anointing of the head, and on this account Pliny reckons it an instance of excessive luxury, that some anointed the ankles. The three Evangelists agree in this; that Mary did not anoint Christ sparingly, but poured on him a large quantity of ointment. What John speaks, about the feet, amounts to this, that the whole body of Christ, down to the feet, was anointed. There is an amplification in the word feet, which appears more fully from what follows, when he adds, that Mary wiped his feet with her hair
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) There they made him a supper.Comp. Notes on Mat. 26:6 et seq., and Mar. 14:3 et seq., which are clearly accounts of the same supper. Here the details peculiar to St. John, who was an eyewitness, will be noted. St. Matthew gives no indication of the day. St. Mark seems to place it two days before the Passover; but comp. Notes on Mar. 16:1-2. Both the other accounts tell us that the supper was in the house of Simon the leper. St. John docs not define the place more definitely than to say that it was in Bethany; but he alone adds the facts that Martha was still serving, and that Lazarus was present as a guest.
And Martha served.The tense of this verb differs from that of the others in the verse, and implies the continued act of serving, whilst made a feast is the statement of the fact as a whole. (Comp. Luk. 10:40.)
Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.This is a natural touch answering to the impression that the fact made. It is closely connected with the statement of the preceding verse, Lazarus had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. Here was one sitting at meat with them who had lain in the sepulchre four days. The meal is in his case, as afterwards in that of our Lord Himself (Luk. 24:41-43), a physical proof of the Resurrection; and his presence by the side of our Lord calls forth from Mary the anointing, which testifies to her gratitude and love.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
120. SUPPER AND ANOINTING AT BETHANY, Joh 12:2-11 .
See notes on Mat 26:6-16; Mar 14:3-9.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘So there they made him a supper and Martha served, while Lazarus was one of those at the table with him’.
He was welcome here in Bethany, as He always was, and the scene was one of quiet neighbourly activity. It was the calm before the storm. Possibly Jesus stayed here for a few days for Mark tells us that this happened later in that week (Mar 14:1-9). Alternately it may be that Mark is fitting this incident in, outside its chronological framework, with a view to its significance. (Chronology was of secondary importance to the Gospel writers. More important was the need to bring out the significance of the various happenings). As always Martha was very active and John draws our attention to her presence ‘serving’ at the supper, as well as to the presence of Lazarus.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 12:2. There they made him a supper, It was customary for the Jews to entertain their friends in a more noble manner than usual, about six or seven days before the passover; and it was in compliance with this custom, as well as out of a particular respect to Jesus, whom they most highly reverenced and loved, and who had conferred so great a blessing on them, that Lazarus and his sisters made this entertainment. It was no derogation to Martha that she served at table; for it was not usual with the women to sit at table with the men at entertainments of this kind. Besides, it was incumbent upon hera peculiar mark of esteem and reverence, on account of the miracle that he had wrought in favour of her family. The sitting of Lazarus at the table, served to shew the reality of the miracle wrought at his tomb; that it was not a spectre or illusion which then presented itself to their sight; and that Lazarus was not only restored to life, but likewise to perfect health.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
XXII
THE BETHANY SUPPER; THE PASSOVER SUPPER; WASHING THE DISCIPLES’ FEET; PETER AND JUDAS AT THE LAST SUPPER
Harmony, pages 169-177 and Mat 26:1-25
This section is taken from the events from our Lord’s great prophecy to his betrayal by Judas. The principal events in their order are: (1) Jesus predicts and the rulers plot his death; (2) the three great suppers at Bethany, the Passover, and the Lord’s Supper; (3) the farewell discourse of comfort to his disciples; (4) Christ’s great intercessory prayer; (5) Gethsemane.
Their importance consist not only in the signification of the events themselves, but also in the sharp contrasts of character in the light of the presence of Jesus, and their bearing upon the meaning of all the rest of the New Testament. The space devoted to them by the several historians is as follows: Matthew, Mark, and Luke give less than one chapter each; Paul a single paragraph; John four full chapters. Here we note the value of John’s contribution to this matter, with similar instances, and his great silences sometimes where the others speak, and the bearing of the facts on two points: Did he have the other histories before him when he wrote, and what one of the purposes of his writing? John’s large contribution to this matter, with similar instances for example, the early Judean ministry and the discourse on the Bread of Life in Capernaum, and his silences in the main concerning the Galilean ministry, clearly show that he did have before him the other histories when he wrote, and that one of his purposes was to supplement their story.
According to Dr. Broadus these intervening events between the prophecy and the betrayal are but successive steps through which our Lord seeks to prepare both himself and his disciples for his approaching death and their separation. They did prepare Christ himself but not his disciples, who did not understand until after his resurrection, nor indeed, fully, until after the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
The Bethany supper. Bethany, the village, and Jerusalem, the city, are brought in sharp contrast. The Holy City rejects the Lord, and the little village entertains him by a special supper in his honor.
Two persons also are contrasted, viz.: Judas and Mary. This revealing light of places and persons was in Jesus. The revelations of Mary in her anointing were:
(1) Her faith in the Lord’s words about his approaching death, greater than that of any of the apostles. They were surprised; the great event came upon them as a surprise, but later they understood.
(2) It is a revelation of the greatness of her love, selecting the costliest and best of all she had without reservation to be used as an ointment for her Lord a preparation for his burial.
(3) It is a revelation of the far-reaching effect of what she did; as the ointment was diffused throughout the house, the fame of her glorious deed would be diffused throughout the world and to the end of time. Such love, such faith, no man has ever evinced.
This incident reveals Judas as one who had become a disciple for ambitious ends and greed. He, like Mary, is convinced now that Christ will not evade death, and that his ambitious desire of promotion in a worldly government will not be realized. The relation between Mary’s anointing and his bargain to sell his Lord arise from the fact that as he was treasurer of the funds, mainly contributed by the women who followed the Lord, and was a thief accustomed to appropriate to himself from this fund, and as Mary’s gift, in his judgment, should have been put into the treasury and thus increase the amount from which he could steal, he determined to get what he could in another direction. This treasury being about empty, and under such following as that of Mary was not likely to be increased, then he must turn somewhere else for money.
In the same way the light of the Lord’s presence revealed by marvelous contrast all other men or women who for a moment stood in that light. We would know nothing worth considering of Pilate, Caiaphas, and Herod, or the thieves on the cross, except as they stand revealed in the orbit of Christ’s light, in which they appear for a short time. On them that light confers the immortality of infamy; as in the case of others like Mary, it confers the immortality of honor.
The Passover supper. Our Lord’s intense desire to participate in this particular Passover arises from his knowledge of its relation to his own approaching death, he being the true Passover Lamb, the antitype, and because at this Passover supper is to be the great transition to the Supper of the New Covenant. Here the question arises: In the light of this and other passages, did he in fact eat the regular Passover supper? His words, “I will not eat it,” being only a part of a sentence, do not mean that he did not participate in the last Passover supper, but it means that he will not eat it again. That he did partake of this supper the text clearly shows. See the argument in Dr. Robertson’s note at the end of the Harmony. But the clause, “Until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luk 22:16 ; Luk 22:29-30 ), needs explanation. Both the Passover supper and the Lord’s Supper, instituted thereafter, are shadows of substances in the heavens. There will be in the glory world a feasting, not on earthly materials, but on the spiritual food of the kingdom of God.
Our Lord washing the feet of the apostles. When we carefully examine Luk 22:24-30 and John’s account, we find that the disciples, having complied with the ablutions required by the Levitical law preparatory to the Passover, knew that when they got to the place of celebrating, somebody must perform the menial service of washing the feet which had become defiled by the long walk to the place. Hence a controversy arose as to greatness and precedence; each one, on account of what he conceived to be his high position in the kingdom, was unwilling to do the needed service. This washing of feet was connected with the Passover, an Old Testament ordinance, and not with our Lord’s Supper, a New Testament ordinance. A Southern theologian, Rev. John L. Dagg, preached a brief, simple, but very great sermon on this washing of feet, found in the Virginia Baptist Pulpit, an old book now out of print. That sermon gives two classes of scriptures, and analyzes this washing of feet, giving its lessons and showing how it cannot be a New Testament church ordinance, as follows: The two classes of scriptures are: (1) Those which refer to the purifications required before entering the Passover proper, or its attendant seven-day festival of unleavened bread, e.g., Num 9:6-10 ; 2Ch 30:2-4 ; 2Ch 30:17-20 ; Luk 22:14-30 ; Joh 13:1-26 ; Joh 18:28 . (2) Those referring to the ablution of feet, before an ordinary meal and as an act of hospitality, e. g., Gen 18:4 ; Gen 19:2 ; Gen 24:32 ; Gen 43:24 ; Jdg 19:21 ; 1Sa 25:41 ; Luk 7:38-44 ; Joh 12:2-3 ; 1Ti 5:10 , counting, particularly, I Samuel 25-41 with Luk 7:38-44 and 1Ti 5:10 .
The feast of Joh 18:28 is the feast of unleavened bread following the Passover supper. Here we need also to explain Joh 13:31-32 and the new commandment, Joh 13:34 , in the light of 2Jn 1:5 , where it is said to be not new.
(1) The going out of Judas to betray his Lord through the prompting of Satan, Jesus knowing it to be the last step before his person should pass into the hands of his enemies that would result in that expiatory death which would bring about his own glory, used the words, “Now is the Son of man glorified and God is glorified in him.”
(2) When Jesus says in Joh 13:34 , “A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another,” it was indeed new to their apprehension at that time, but when very many years later, John, in his second letter, declares it to be not a new commandment, but one they had from the beginning, he means by the beginning, this declaration in Joh 13:34 . But since that time the Holy Spirit had come, and many years of intervening events in which the disciples had understood and practiced the commandment until it was no longer new, when John wrote his second letter.
Peter and Judas (it the last Passover. These two persons are revealed, in the light of Christ’s presence at this last Passover. Peter, standing in the light of Christ, is shown indeed to be a sincere man and true Christian, but one greatly ignorant and self-confident. He is evidently priding himself upon the special honor conferred upon him at Caesarea Philippi, and has no shadow of doubt about his own future fidelity. In this connection Christ makes a triple prediction, which is a remarkable one. This we find set forth on pages 176-177 of the Harmony. He predicted that Judas would betray him; that every one of them would be offended at him, and that Peter would deny him outright three times. What a remarkable prediction! that with those chosen ones before whom he had displayed all of his miraculous powers and with whom he had been intimately associated so long, and who had received such highly responsible positions and who had been trained by him, to whom he had expounded the principles of the kingdom of God that he would say to them, “All of you shall be offended in me this night.” It was very hard for them to believe that this could take place, and when he went beyond that to predict that Peter would deny him outright, Peter just couldn’t believe it.
In Luk 22:3-32 ; Job 1:6-12 ; Job 2:1-6 ; Joh 10:15 ; Joh 10:28-29 ; 1Jn 5:18 ; Jud 1:9 , are five distinct limitations of Satan’s power toward Christians, with the meritorious ground of the limitations. Looking at Luke’s account, Harmony, page 176 near the bottom: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan asked to have you” “you” being plural, meaning all the apostles “by asking.” To give it literally, “Satan hath obtained you by asking that he might sift you as wheat.” That is one of the greatest texts in the Bible: “Satan hath obtained you apostles by asking that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee,” using a singular pronoun and not a plural, “that thy faith fail not: and when thou art turned, strengthen [or confirm] thy brethren.” Thus is expressed one of the limitations of Satan’s power.
By looking at Job I we find that Satan has to make stated reports to God of all that he does, wherever he goes. I have heard ministers preach on that text “When the sons of God came, Satan appeared among them,” and they seemed to misunderstand altogether the signification of it. Satan did not make any appearance there because he wanted to, but because he had to. Not only good angels, but evil angels, are under the continual control of God, and they have to make stated reports to God. God catechized Satan: “Where have you been?” Satan replies, “Wandering up and down through the earth.” “Did you see my servant, Job?” “Yes.” “Did you consider him?” “Yes, walked all around him. Wanted to get at him.” “What kept you from getting at him?” “You have a hedge built around him, and I couldn’t get to him.” “What is your opinion of him?” “Why, I think if you would let me get at him I would show you there is not as much in him as you think there is.” Let the Christian get that thought deep into the heart, that Satan is compelled to come before God with the holy angels and make his report to God of every place he has been, of every Christian he has inspected and what his thoughts were about that Christian, what he wants to do with that Christian that he has to lay it all before God. That is the first limitation.
Let us take the second limitation: “Simon, Satan hath obtained you by asking.” The second limitation is that he can’t touch a Christian with his little finger without the permission of God. That is very comforting to me. Satan walks all around us, and it is in his mind to do us damage, for he would destroy us if he could, and if he can’t destroy us, he will worry us. So a wolf will prowl around a fold of sheep and want to eat a sheep mighty bad, but before Satan can touch that Christian at all he has to ask permission has to go to Jesus and ask permission.
The third limitation is that when he gets the permission, it is confined to something that is really beneficial to the Christian: “Satan hath obtained you by asking that he may sift you as wheat.” If he had asked that he might burn them like chaff it would not have been granted, but he asked that he might sift them as wheat. It doesn’t hurt wheat to be sifted. The more we separate the pure grain from the chaff the better. So you see that limitation. Satan made that request on this account: He thought God loved Peter and Jesus loved Peter, so that if Jesus sifted him he would not shake him hard. But Satan says, “I have been watching these twelve apostles. You let me shake them up.” And at the first shake-up he sifted Judas out entirely, and Peter got an awful fall. Don’t forget in your own experience, for the comfort of your own heart, that the devil can’t touch you except in the direction of discipline that will really be for your good.
The fourth limitation: Even when he obtains permission to act for God in a lesson of discipline, he can’t take the Christian beyond the High Priest’s intercession: “But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.” “Now I will let Satan take you in hand. You need to be taken in hand by somebody. You have very wrong notions. You think that a man’s salvation depends on his hold on Christ, while it really depends on Christ’s hold on him, and you are sure that if everybody else turns loose, you will stand like a rock till you die.” In other words, Peter says, “I keep myself.” Jesus was willing for Satan, by sifting Peter, to discover to him that if his salvation depended on his hold on Christ, the devil would get him in a minute. It depended on Christ’s hold on Peter. So we have that limitation that Satan is not permitted, even after he obtains permission to worry or tempt a Christian, to take him beyond the intercession of the High Priest; Christ prayed for Peter. We will, in a later discussion, see how he prays for all that believe on him, and all that believe on him through the word of these apostles, and he ever liveth to make intercession for us, and that is the reason we are saved unto the uttermost. He is able to save unto the uttermost because he ever liveth to make intercession.
The last limitation of Satan:
Satan cannot cause a Christian to commit the unpardonable sin. He can’t touch the Christian’s life.
When Satan asked permission to try Job, God consented for him to take away his property and bring temporal death to his children, but not to touch Job’s life. And John (1Jn 5:16 ), in discussing the two kinds of sin the sin which is not unto death and the sin which is unto death says, “When you see a brother sin a sin which is not unto death, if you will pray to God he will forgive him, but there is a sin which is unto death. I do not say that you shall pray for it.” Prayer doesn’t touch that at all. “And whosoever is born of God does not commit sin [unto death], and cannot, because the seed of God remains in him and he cannot sin it, because that wicked one toucheth him not.” Satan never has been able to destroy a Christian. As Paul puts it: “I am persuaded that neither angels, nor principalities, nor powers, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Or, as Jesus says, in talking about his sheep, “My father is greater than all, and none can pluck them out of his hand.” To recapitulate: The first limitation of Satan he must make report statedly to God; second limitation he must ask permission before he touches a Christian; third limitation he can then only do to a Christian what is best for the Christian to have done to him; fourth limitation he cannot take a Christian beyond the intercession of the High Priest; fifth limitation he cannot make the Christian commit the unpardonable sin.
Let us set over against that the revelation of Judas in Joh 12:4-6 ; Luk 22:3-6 ; Mat 26:23 ; Luk 22:48 ; Mat 27:3-5 ; Act 1:16-20 , showing the spiritual status, change of conviction, and trace the workings of his mind in selling and betraying Jesus, his subsequent remorse, despair and suicide, with no limitations of Satan’s power in his case. When we carefully read in the proper order the statements concerning Judas in Joh 12:4-6 , we behold him outwardly a disciple, but inwardly a thief. In the subsequent references to him (Luk 22:3-6 ; Mat 26:23 ; Luk 22:48 ; Mat 27:3-5 ; Act 1:16-20 ), the whole man stands clearly before us. Evidently he expected, when he commenced to follow Christ, that he would be the Messiah according to the Jewish conception a king of the Jews and a conqueror of the world and that there would come to him high position and great wealth as standing close to the Lord, but when subsequent developments made it plain to him that Christ’s kingdom was not to be of this world, and that his enemies were to put him to death, and that neither worldly honors nor wealth would come to his followers, then he determined to sell and betray his Lord. We are indeed surprised at the small price at which he sells his Lord and himself, but our only account for it is that he was under the promptings of Satan, and as Satan, having used a man and wrecked him, leaves him to his own resources, it is quite natural that remorse and despair should come to Judas. If there be something worth having in the spiritual kingdom, he has lost that. He has gained nothing by betraying and selling his Lord, and now in his despair, there being no limitation of Satan’s power over a lost soul, he is goaded to suicide. We cannot account for Judas and leave Satan out.
Arminians apply the doctrine of apostasy to both Judas and Peter. They say that Peter was truly converted and utterly fell away from the grace of God, and after the resurrection was newly converted. They say that Judas was a real Christian and fell from grace, and was finally lost. Though Adam dark, the noted Methodist commentator, contends that Solomon was a Christian and apostatized and was lost, he contends that Judas, after his apostasy, repented and was saved.
Somewhere about 1875 there appeared a poem in the Edin- burgh Review, which gave this philosophy of the betrayal of Judas: It affirms that Judas was a true Christian and did not mean to bring about the death of Christ, but thought that if he would betray Christ into the hands of his enemies that the Lord would at the right time, by the display of his miraculous power, destroy his enemies and establish his earthly kingdom. But when he found that the Lord refused to exercise his miraculous power to avert his death, then he was filled with remorse that he had precipitated this calamity. The poem is a masterly one, but attributes to Judas motives foreign to any revelation of him in the New Testament. The New Testament declares him to be a thief, and that what prompted him to sell the Lord was the waste of the ointment on Jesus that might have been put into the treasury, which he not only disbursed, but from which he abstracted what he would.
It is seen in Luk 22:32 that Peter did establish the brethren. “When once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren.” The word convert in the King James Version, “when thou art converted,” does not mean “when thou art regenerated.” It is used there in its etymological sense. Here is a man going through temptation. He has a wrong notion in his mind. “Now, when thou art turned, establish thy brethren.” He is to establish them on the same point where he has been wrong, and got into trouble by it, and now he is to consider that the other brethren will have the same weakness, and he must, as a teacher, confirm them upon that weak point.
If we turn to 1 Peter we will see how he did establish the brethren on that very point. He thought then he could keep himself that he could hold on to Jesus, while weak-kneed people, weak-handed people, might turn loose, but he would not. Now, Jesus says, “When you are turned from that error, establish your brethren on that very point.” In 1Pe 1 , he says, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in the heavens for you, who, by the power of God are guarded through faith.” How long and unto what? “Unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time.” “You who are kept through the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last day.”
You have learned a great lesson if you will take into your heart all of the thoughts in connection with Peter that we have been discussing here, for every point that you can get clear in your mind that touches the devil, will be very helpful to you.
On page 177 of the Harmony we come to this statement: “And he said unto them, When I sent you forth without purse and wallet and shoes, lacked you anything?” They said, “Nothing.” By reading Mat 10 and Luk 10 you will find that the Lord there ordains that they that preach the gospel should live by the gospel: “The laborer is worthy of his hire.”
You don’t have to furnish out of your own pocket the expenses of your living while you are preaching for Jesus Christ. Ha is to take care of you. You are to live of the gospel.
And now he puts a question, “When I sent you forth without purse and wallet and shoes, lacked you anything?” A great deal is involved in that. Christ promised to take care of them. “I send you out like no set of men were ever sent before on such a mission in the world.” A soldier does not go to war on his own charges. The government takes care of him: “I send you out that way.”
But this commission was temporarily suspended at this Passover: “And he said unto them, but now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet: and he that hath none let him sell his clothes and buy a sword. [He that hath no sword, let him sell his clothes and buy a sword.] For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me. And he was reckoned with the transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfillment. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords, and he said unto them, it is enough” (Luk 22:36-38 ).
Now, I will give you some sound doctrine. Christ had ordained that they who left everything and committed themselves with absolute consecration to his service, that he would take care of them, and he established and ordered that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. Now he comes to a time when he is going to reverse that: “There is just ahead of you and very near to you a separation from me, and as much as you are separated from me, i.e., as long as I lie in the grave dead, you will have to take care of yourselves. If you have a purse, take it, and you will not only have to take care of yourselves, but you will have to defend yourselves. If you haven’t a sword, buy one.” But that suspension was only for the time that he was in the grave.
Peter applied it both too soon and too late. This is a peculiarity of Peter. See my sermon in my first book of sermons called, “From Simon to Cephas.” “Simon” means a hearer, and “Cephas” means established a stone. But Peter here was both too short and too long in getting hold of what Christ meant. He was too short in this, that he used that sword before Christ was separated from him. He cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. He was not to depend on the sword and not to defend himself as long as the Master was with him. As long as Jesus is alive, we don’t use our swords to take care of ourselves. When Jesus is dead, we may. Peter was too short. He commenced too soon and used the sword. Now I will show that be was too long. After Christ rose from the dead, Peter says, “I go a fishing.” In other words, “I go back to my old occupation; I must make a living, and my occupation is fishing, and times are getting hard. I go back to my fishing.” It did not apply then, because Jesus was risen and alive. So he took that too far. He commenced too soon, and he carried, it too far.
Whoever opposes ministerial support, and I mean by ministerial support the support of a man who consecrates himself in faith, who does like Peter said they did, “Lord, we left all to follow thee,” and whoever opposes the ordinance of Jesus Christ, that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel, virtually put themselves under a dead Christ. They virtually say that Jesus has not risen from the dead.
They go under this temporary commission: “He that hath a purse, let him take it, and a wallet, let him take that, and he that hath no sword, let him take his coat and sell it and buy one to defend himself with. Let the preacher do like other people do.” They that take that position virtually deny the resurrection of Christ, and virtually affirm that Jesus Christ is not living. Just as soon as Jesus rose from the dead he said, “Now you can put that sword away, Peter. There was a time when you could defend yourself and make your own living, and that was while I was dead.” But we believe that Christ is now alive. He is risen indeed: “I am he that was dead) but am alive to die no more.”
The man who believes that God has called him to preach ought to burn the bridges behind him.
A deacon got up once, when we were ordaining a preacher and said, “I am leaving it to the presbytery here to ask the things on doctrine, but I have a question to ask: ‘Do you, in seeking this office and submitting to this ordination, burn every bridge between you and the secular life, or do you leave that bridge standing, thinking in your mind that if you don’t make a living you will go back and take up the secular trade?’ ” “Well,” the candidate said, “I will have to study about that.” The deacon replied, “I will have to study about voting for your ordination until you are ready to answer that question.” One of the sharpest sentences I ever made in my life was a declaration that:
No man on earth that God called to preach and who burned absolutely all the bridges behind him and really trusted in Jesus Christ to take care of him, ever failed of being taken care of.
That is a hard saying and a broad one, but it is the truth. And whenever a preacher is disposed to question that, let him remember the words of Jesus Christ, “I sent you out without purse or wallet, or sword. You just took your life into your hands. You went out as sheep among the wolves. Did you lack anything?” You won’t lack anything that is good for you. Sometimes you will get mighty hungry. I don’t say you won’t get hungry. Sometimes you will get cold. I don’t deny that.
But I do affirm before God that whoever puts himself unreservedly upon the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ and keeps himself on that, either God will take care of him, or it is the best for him to die, one or the other. Never any good comes from doubting.
QUESTIONS 1. From what great division is this section taken?
2. What are the principal events in their order?
3. What is their importance?
4. What space devoted to them by the several historians?
5. What value of John’s contribution to this matter?
6. According to Dr. Broadus what successive steps do we find in this group of events?
7. Did they prepare Christ himself but not his disciples for his approaching death?
8. What two places are revealed in sharp contrast by the Bethany supper?
9. What two persons are also contrasted?
10. In whom was this revealing light of places and persons?
11. What revelations of Mary in her anointing?
12. What revelation of Judas and the relation between Mary’s anointing and his bargaining to sell our Lord?
13. Show how the light of our Lord’s presence revealed others also.
14. Explain our Lord’s intense desire to eat this particular Passover (Luk 22:15 ).
15. Explain “I will not eat it” (Luk 22:16 ).
16. Explain “until it be fulfilled, etc.” (Luk 22:16 ; Luk 22:29-30 ).
17. What was the occasion of the foot-washing in Joh 13 ?
18. Was it connected with the Passover or the Lord’s Supper?
19. What sermon on it is commended?
20. What two classes of scriptures cited and what are the lessons?
21. What was the feast of Joh 18:28 ?
22. Explain Joh 13:31-32 ; Joh 13:34 in the light of 2Jn 1:5 .
23. What two persons are revealed in the light of Christ’s presence at this last Passover?
24. Analyze the revelation of Peter.
25. What triple prediction did Christ set forth in this connection, and what makes it a remarkable prediction?
26. Give five distinct limitations of Satan and the scriptures therefore.
27. Correlate and analyze the scriptures on Judas.
28. How do Arminians apply the doctrine of apostasy to both Judas and Peter and what was the reply?
29. What was the explanation of Judas’ betrayal of our Lord, in the Edinburgh Review)
30. What the meaning and application of Luk 22:32 and what the evidence from his letter that Peter did this?
31. What is the law of ministerial support?
32. What was the reason of its temporary suspension at this Passover?
33. How long was the suspension?
34. How and wherein did Peter apply it too soon and too late?
35. What does one who opposes ministerial support virtually say, and what the lesson for the preachers?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
Ver. 2. That sat at table ] Being invited by Simon the leper at whose house this feast was kept, as some will have it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2. ] It is not said who . It was (Matt., Mark) in the house of Simon the leper . From Lazarus being there, and Martha serving, he may have been a near relative of theirs. See notes on Matt.
Lazarus is mentioned throughout the incident, ns forming an clement in the unfolding of the hatred of the Jews which issued in the Lord’s death: notice the climax, from mere connecting mention in Joh 12:1 , then nearer connexion in Joh 12:2 , to his being the cause of the Jews flocking to Bethany in Joh 12:9 , and the joint object with Jesus of the enmity of the chief priests, in Joh 12:10 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 12:2 . . is the indefinite plural: “they made Him” a supper; , originally any meal, came to be used invariably of the evening meal. , “and Martha waited at table,” which was her peculiar province (Luk 10:40 ). . This is mentioned, not to show that Lazarus was still alive and well, but because the feast was not in his house but in that of Simon the leper (Mar 14:3 , Mat 26:6 ). That this was the same feast as that mentioned by the Synoptists is apparent; the only discrepancy of any consequence being that the Synoptists seem to place the feast only two days before the Passover. But they introduce the feast parenthetically to present the immediate motive of Judas’ action, and accordingly disregard strict chronology.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
a supper. The first of the three suppers. It was on Saturday evening, at the close of the Sabbath, on the tenth day of Nisan. See App-157.
Martha. Aramaic. See App-94.
served = was serving. Greek diakoneo. Occurs twenty- two times in the Gospels: thirteen times translated “minister” (Mat 4:11 to Luk 8:3); nine times “serve” (Luk 10:40 to Joh 12:26). Compare Luk 10:40. Same word as in Luk 22:27.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2. ] It is not said who. It was (Matt., Mark) in the house of Simon the leper. From Lazarus being there, and Martha serving, he may have been a near relative of theirs. See notes on Matt.
Lazarus is mentioned throughout the incident, ns forming an clement in the unfolding of the hatred of the Jews which issued in the Lords death: notice the climax, from mere connecting mention in Joh 12:1, then nearer connexion in Joh 12:2,-to his being the cause of the Jews flocking to Bethany in Joh 12:9,-and the joint object with Jesus of the enmity of the chief priests, in Joh 12:10.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 12:2. , they made) the people of Bethany.-, for Him) in His honour.-, a supper) a solemn [festive] one. The banquet, at which Lazarus was present after his being raised to life, may be compared with the heavenly banquet, at which hereafter there shall be present the dead saints, when they shall have risen again.- , Martha) Martha manifested her zealous affection in one way, Mary in another, Joh 12:3, [Martha served; Mary anointed Jesus feet with the costly ointment, etc.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 12:2
Joh 12:2
So they made him a supper there: and Martha served; but Lazarus was one of them that sat at meat with him.-The supper was made on what we would call Saturday evening; but, according to their division of time, the beginning of the first day of the week, Saturday night, after six oclock. It is not said that this supper was served at the house of Lazarus. Mat 26:6-7 says that a feast was made for him at Bethany in the house of Simon the Leper, and that a woman poured on him an alabaster box of ointment. There has been diversity of opinion as to whether there were two occurrences of this kind at Bethany the last week of his life. There is no means of definitely determining this question. There is no incompatibility in the idea that Martha with her talent for serving would serve at a feast at a neighbors house, or that Mary with her tender and earnest devotion should anoint his head, or that Lazarus should be a guest of honor at the table with Jesus who had raised him from the dead.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
they made: Son 4:16, Son 5:1, Luk 5:29, Luk 14:12, Rev 3:20
Martha: Mat 26:6, Mar 14:3, Luk 10:38-42, Luk 12:37, Luk 22:27
Lazarus: Joh 12:9, Joh 12:10, Joh 11:43, Joh 11:44
Reciprocal: Gen 18:8 – stood Gen 19:3 – a feast Mat 11:19 – came Mat 26:7 – came Luk 7:34 – eating Luk 7:37 – an Joh 11:1 – Lazarus
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
According to Mat 26:6, this supper was in the house of “Simon the leper,” who evidently had been healed by Jesus. Made him a supper denotes that Jesus was the honor guest, but his disciples also were present. Martha served, even as she did in her own house on another occasion (Luk 10:38-40). Lazarus was one of them.. The supper was had in honor of Jesus, but Lazarus was given special mention because of the miracle that had been performed upon him.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
[They made him a supper.] If we count the days back from the Passover, and take notice that Christ suffered the next day after the eating of the Passover, which is our Friday; it will appear that this supper was on the evening of the sabbath, that is, the sabbath now going out.
Let us measure the time in this scheme:
Nisan 9. The sabbath. — Six days before the Passover Jesus sups with Lazarus at the going out of the sabbath, when, according to the custom of that country, their suppers were more liberal.
10. Sunday. — Five days before the Passover Jesus goes to Jerusalem, sitting on an ass; and on the evening returns to Bethany, Mar 11:11. On this day the lamb was taken and kept till the Passover, Exodus_12; on which day this Lamb of God presented himself, which was the antitype of that rite.
11. Monday. — Four days before the Passover he goes to Jerusalem again; curseth the unfruitful fig tree, Mat 21:18; Mar 11:12; in the evening he returns again to Bethany, Mar 11:19.
12. Tuesday. — Three days before the Passover he goes again to Jerusalem. His disciples observe how the fig tree was withered, Mar 11:20. In the evening, going back to Bethany, and sitting on the mount of Olives, he foretelleth the destruction of the Temple and city, Matthew_24, and discourses those things which are contained in Matthew_25.
This night he sups with ‘Simon the leper,’ Mat 26:1; etc.; John_13.
13. Wednesday. — This day he passeth away in Bethany. At the coming in of this night the whole nation apply themselves to put away all leaven.
14. Thursday. — He sends two of his disciples to get ready the Passover. He himself enters Jerusalem in the afternoon; in the evening eats the Passover, institutes the eucharist; is taken, and almost all the night had before the courts of judicature.
15. Friday. — Afternoon, he is crucified.
16. Saturday. — He keeps the sabbath in the grave.
17. The Lord’s day. — He riseth again.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 12:2. There therefore they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. Two points only are mentioned by John, that a feast was given in honour of Jesus, and that every member of the family so signally blessed was present. By whom, when, and where, the feast was given, are questions to which he returns no answer. Different conclusions may be drawn from the words of this verse; but they seem most naturally to imply that the entertainment was not given in the house or by the family of Lazarus. It is true that Martha served, yet we may well suppose that, wherever the feast took place, this was an office she would claim; and the insertion of the clause relating to Lazarus is hardly to be accounted for if Jesus were a guest in his house. As to the question of time, Joh 12:12 seems to show that the evening of the feast must have been that following the sabbath rather than the evening with which the sabbath commenced. Between this verse therefore and Joh 12:1 we must interpose the rest of the sabbath. We are now at liberty to turn to the account of the Synoptists. Luke relates nothing (in connection with this period) that is similar to the narrative before us; but the other two Evangelists describe a supper and an anointing which manifestly are identical with what John records here. Some slight differences in detail will be called up as the narrative proceeds: the only serious question is one relating to time. In Mat 26:2 we are brought to a date two days before the Passover, whereas the feast in question is related in later verses (Joh 12:6-13). (Compare also the parallel section in Mark 14) But there is nothing whatever in Matthews account to fix the time of the feast; and both the structure of his gospel and the apparent links of connection in this particular narrative are consistent with the view ordinarily taken, that at Joh 12:6 he goes back to relate an earlier event, which furnished occasion to Judas for furthering the design of the rulers, as recorded in the first verses of the chapter. If then there is no doubt of the identity of the events mentioned by the Synoptists and by John, we learn that the feast was given in the house of Simon the leper, a person of whom we know nothing more.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
In these verses, an account is given of our Saviour’s entertainment at Bethany after he had raised Lazarus. A supper is made for him, at which Martha served, and Lazarus sat with him, but Mary anoints Christ with precious ointment.
Where note, 1. The action which this holy woman performed, she pours a box of precious ointment upon our Saviour’s head, as he sat at meat, according the the custom of the eastern countries at their feasts. I do not find that any of the apostles were at thus much charge and cost to put honour upon our Saviour as this poor woman was.
From whence learn, 1. That where strong love prevails in the heart, nothing is adjudged too dear for Christ, neither will it suffer itself to be out-shined by any examples. The weakest woman that strongly loves her Saviour will vie with the greatest apostle, and piously strive to express the fervour of her affection towards him.
Observe, 2. How this action was resented and reflected upon by murmuring Judas, who valued this ointment at three hundred pence, and grudged the bestowing of it upon Christ. He accused this holy woman of needless prodigality.
Lord! how doth a covetous heart think every thing too good for thee? He that sees a pious action performed, and seeks to lessen or undervalue it, shews himself possessed with a spirit of envy. Judas, his invidious spirit makes him censure an action, which Christ highly approved.
Hence learn, 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 was it for this poor woman, that she had a more righteous judge to pass sentence upon her action than wicked Judas.
Observe, 3. How readily our holy Lord vindicates this poor woman: she says nothing for herself, nor needs she, having such an advocate who gives the reason for her action; she did it for my burial. As kings and great persons were in wont in those eastern countries, at their funerals, to be embalmed with odours and sweet perfumes, so, saith our Saviour, this woman, to declare her faith in me, as her King and Lord, doth with this box of ointment, as it were beforehand, embalm my body for its burial. True faith will put honour upon a crucified, as a glorified Saviour. This holy woman accounts Christ worthy of all honour in his death, believing it would be a sweet smelling sacrifice unto God, and savour of life unto his people.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 2, 3. Therefore they made him a feast there, and Martha served; but Lazarus was one of those who were at table with him. 3. Mary therefore, having taken a pound of ointment of pure nard, which was of great price, anointed the feet of Jesus with it and wiped his feet with her hair; and the whole house was filled with the odor of the ointment.
When did this supper take place? Of course, according to our hypothesis, on Sunday evening, the day of Jesus’ arrival. The subject of , they made, is indefinite; this form answers in Greek to the Frenchon. Hence it already follows that this subject cannot be, as is ordinarily represented: the members of the family of Lazarus. Moreover, this appears from the express mention of the presence of Lazarus and of the activity of service on Martha’s part, all of them circumstances which would be self-evident if the supper had taken place in their own house. As the undetermined subject of the verb can only be the persons named afterwards, it follows that they are, much rather, the people of the place. A part of the inhabitants of Bethany feel the desire of testifying their thankfulness to Him who by a glorious miracle had honored their obscure village. It is this connection of ideas which seems to be expressed by the therefore at the beginning of Joh 12:2, and, immediately afterwards, by this detail: Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. That which, no doubt, very specially impelled them to render to Jesus, at this moment, this public homage, was the hatred to which they saw Him exposed on the part of the rulers. This feast was a courageous response to the edict of the Sanhedrim (Joh 11:57); it was the proscribed one whom they honored.
The text does not tell us in what house the supper took place. Lazarus being there as a guest, not as host (Joh 12:2), it follows that the scene occurred in another house than his own. Thus is the harmony very naturally established with the narrative of Matthew and Mark, who state positively that the supper took place in the house of Simon the leper, a sick man, no doubt, whom Jesus had healed and who has claimed the privilege of receiving him in the name of all. It is inconceivable that this very simple reconciliation should appear to Meyer a mere process of false harmonistics. Weiss himself says: The form of expression used excludes the idea that Lazarus was the one who gave the supper. Every one could not receive Jesus: but every one had desired to contribute, according to his means, to the homage which was rendered to Him: the people of Bethany, by the banquet offered in their name; Martha, by giving her personal service, even in the house of another person; Lazarus, by his presence, which in itself alone glorified the Master more than all that the others could do; finally, Mary, by a royal prodigality, which was alone capable of expressing the sentiment which inspired her.
The general custom among the ancient nations was to anoint with perfume the heads of guests on feast-days. Thou preparedst the table before me; thou anointest my head with oil; my cup overflows, says David to Jehovah, when describing under the figure of a feast which his God gives to him the delights of communion with Him (Psa 23:5). The forgetting of this ceremony is noticed by Jesus (Luk 7:46), as an offensive omission. At Bethany such a mistake was not committed; it was Mary who charged herself with this office, reserving to herself the accomplishment of it in her own way. is the generic term which comprehends all the liquid perfumes, and , nard, the name of the most precious kind. This word, of Sanskrit origin (in Persian nard, in Sanskrit nalada), denotes a plant which grows in India, and of which some less celebrated varieties are found in Syria. The juice was enclosed in flasks of alabaster (nardi ampullae), and it was used not only to anoint the body, but also to perfume wine. (See Riehm, Handworterb .)
We have translated by pure. This word, which is unknown in classic Greek, is not again found in the entire New Testament, except in the corresponding passage in Mark. Among the later Greeks, it serves to designate a person worthy of confidence; thus the one to whom the care of a vessel or a flock is committed. It signifies, therefore, nard on which one can rely, not adulterated. This meaning is the more suitable, since nard was subjected to all sorts of adulterations. Pliny enumerates nine plants by means of which it could be counterfeited, and Tibullus uses the expression nardus pura, which almost gives to our , in Mark and John, the character of a technical epithet. The meaning drinkable (from , ) is much less probable, not only because the natural form would be , or , but especially because the notion of potableness has no relation to the context. The attempt has also been made to derive this word from the name of a Persian city,Pisteira, a name which was sometimes abridged to Pista (comp. Meyer on Mar 14:2). This is a worthless expedient (comp. Hengstenberg and especially Lucke and Wichelhaus). The epithet, , very costly, can only refer to the first of the two substantives (in opposition to Luthardt, Weiss, etc.); for it was not the plant which had been purchased (), but the perfume (). , a pound, answers to the Latin libra, and denotes a weight of twelve ounces; it was an enormous quantity for a perfume of this price. But nothing must be wanting to the homage of Mary, neither the quality nor the quantity.
These flasks of nard hermetically sealed were probably received from the East; to use the contents of them, the neck must be broken; this is what Mary did, according to Mark (Mar 14:3). This act having a somewhat striking character, she must have performed it in the sight of all the guests, consequently over the head of Jesus already seated at the table. His head thus received the first fruits of the perfume (comp. Matt. and Mark: she poured it on his head). Only after this, as no ordinary guest was here in question, and as Mary wished to give to her guest not merely a testimony of love and respect, but a mark of adoration, she joined with the ordinary anointing of the head (which was self evident; comp. Psa 23:5; Luk 7:46) an altogether exceptional homage. As if this precious liquid were only common water, she pours it over His feet, and in such abundance that it was as if she were bathing them with it; so she is obliged to wipe them. For this purpose she uses her own hair. This last fact carries the homage to a climax. It was among the Jews, according to Lightfoot (II., p. 633), a disgrace for a woman to loosen the fillets which bound up her hair and to appear with disheveled hair. Mary bears witness, therefore, by this means that, as no sacrifice is too costly for her purse, so no service is too mean for her person. All that she is belongs to Him, as well as all that shehas. We may understand thus the ground of the repetition, certainly not accidental, of the words ,his feet. To this, the least noble part of His body it is, that she renders this extraordinary homage. Every detail in this narrative breathes adoration, the soul of the act. Perhaps the report of the homage rendered to Jesus by the sinful woman of Galilee had reached Mary. She was unwilling that the friends of Jesus should do less for Him than a stranger.
The identity of this event with that which is related in Mat 26:6-13, and Mar 14:3-9, is indisputable. It is said, no doubt, in the latter passages, that the perfume was poured on the head, in John, on the feet; but, as we have just seen, this slight difference is easily explained. After the anointing in the ordinary form (that of the head), this bathing of the feet with perfume began, which here takes the place of the ordinary bathing of the feet (Luk 7:44). John alone has preserved the recollection of this fact which gives to the scene its unique character. It cannot be supposed that Mary poured on the head of Jesus a whole pound of liquid. As to the place which this story occupies in the two narratives, it constitutes no more serious objection against the identity of the event. For in the Synoptics the place is evidently determined by the moral relation of this act to the fact related immediately afterwards, the treachery of Judas (Matthew vv14-16; Mark vv10, 11).
This association of ideas had determined the uniting of the two facts in the oral tradition, and from this it had passed into the written redaction. John has restored the fact to its own place. The relation of the anointing of Jesus at Bethany with the event related in Luke 7 is entirely different. We have already mentioned the points which do not allow us to identify the two narratives (p. 171). Keim declares that a homage of this kind cannot have occurred twice. But the anointing belonged necessarily, as well as the bathing of the feet, to every meal to which there was an invitation (Luk 7:44). The details in which the two scenes resemble each other are purely accidental. Simon the leper of Bethany, of whom Matthew and Mark speak, has nothing in common withSimon the Pharisee, of whom Luke speaks, except the name. Now, among the small number of persons with whom we are acquainted in the Gospel history taken alone, we can count twelve or thirteen Simons; and can there not have been two men, bearing this so common name, in whose houses these two similar scenes may have taken place? The one lived in Judea, the other in Galilee; the one receives Jesus into his house in the course of His Galilean ministry; the other, a few days before the Passion. The discussion in Galilee has reference to the pardon of sins; in Judea, to the prodigality of Mary. And if the two women wiped the feet of Jesus with their hair, in the case of the one, it is the tears which she gathers up, in that of the other, it is a perfume with which she has embalmed her Master. This difference sufficiently marks the two women and the two scenes. Christian feeling, moreover, will always protest against the identification of Mary of Bethany with a woman of bad morals.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
THE SUPPER AT BETHANY
Mat 26:6-13; Mar 14:3-9; Joh 12:2-8. Then they made for Him a supper there, and Martha served; and Lazarus was one of those sitting along with Him. Matthew and Mark say that this supper was in the house of Simon the leper, at Bethany. I was in that house four months ago. It is still in quite a state of preservation, like so many houses in Palestine, being located in a cave at the base of Mount Olivet, which is utilized in the construction of the edifice, whose walls are adjusted to the dimensions and capacity of the cavern. We know nothing about Simon the leper, but he is believed to be one of the numerous lepers healed and saved by the blessed Benefactor.
Joh 12:3. Then, Mary, taking a pound of ointment of pure spikenard, very valuable, anointed, the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. Then one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, the one about to betray Him, says, Wherefore was not this ointment sold for three hundred denaria, and given to the poor? The English word penny, E. V., is misleading in this passage, as our penny is only one cent. The denarion was a Roman coin, worth fifteen cents in our money. Hence the estimate of this ointment, which is here said to be very valuable, was forty-five dollars. The spikenard, from which this valuable myrrh was manufactured, was not indigenous in Palestine, but in Arabia Felix, where the ointment was made and exported.
He said this, not because there was a care to him concerning the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the purse, and was accustomed to carry the contributions. Why was Judas a thief at that time? Because he had already made up his mind to sell Jesus for money. How was that stealing? Because he had no idea that they could take Him, as he had seen them try it over and over, and never could put their hands on Him. Frequently He suddenly disappeared, passing unseen through the great wall of the temple, and recognized on the other side. Unfortunately for Judas, he held the most dangerous office ever conferred on mortal man i. e., that of treasurer which proved his ruin, because he gradually yielded to the love of money till he finally concluded to sell Jesus for filthy lucre, in that respect being guilty of stealing the fifteen dollars for which he sold Him, as he had no idea that they could take Him; but believing them to be a set of scoundrels, he concluded that he would just as well get their money when he had a chance.
Then Jesus said, Let her alone; she hath kept it unto the day of My burial; for the poor you have always with you, and Me you have not always. In less than two days from that supper, He was in the sepulcher and numbered with the dead. Hence the idea is that this anointing is really for His burial, which is now at hand.
Mar 14:8. She hath done what she could. O what a deep significance in this terse statement! Are you doing what you can for Jesus? If you can not go to Greenland, Ethiopia, or China, you can do some small part in the support and encouragement of those who can go. If you cannot preach like Paul, nor exhort like Apollos, you can go into the slums, pray for the dying, and tell the broken-hearted of Jesus. If you can not be a flaming evangelist, you can be an humble altar-worker. She came beforehand to anoint My body for the burial. Truly I say unto you, that wherever this gospel may be preached in all the world, that which she did shall be told for a memorial of her. Notoriety is a powerful incentive. Actuated by it, men have led armies, besieged cities, and desolated great countries. Erostratus burned down the great Temple of Diana at Ephesus, one of the seven wonders of the world, which was two hundred years in building, as he confessed under the gallows, for sheer notoriety. By this little, simple act of loving appreciation, thus manifested to the Prince of life, Mary immortalized her name, securing a commendatory mention in the pulpit throughout the whole earth, as the gospel moves on, peregrinating every land and brightening every sky.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 2
There; in Bethany, but not at the house of Mary and Martha. It was at the house of Simon the leper, as we learn from Matthew 26:6. Martha came to aid in the service, and Lazarus, whose case had attracted great attention, as stated below, (John 12:9-11,) was an invited guest.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
The dinner (Gr. deipnon) was evidently the evening meal on Saturday. Those who hosted it must have included Martha, Mary, Lazarus, and Simon, the former leper in whose house the meal took place (Mat 26:6; Mar 14:3). John’s reference to Lazarus implies that he was of special interest, undoubtedly because of his recent resurrection. Lazarus had become something of a celebrity (Joh 12:9). He appears to have retreated from the public spotlight following his resurrection but made this uncommon appearance to honor Jesus (cf. Joh 12:9). [Note: Tenney, "John," p. 124.]