Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 12:4
Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s [son,] which should betray him,
4. Then saith, &c.] Rather, But Judas Iscariot, &c. The best authorities omit ‘Simon’s son.’
one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot ] S. Mark says quite indefinitely, ‘some,’ S. Matthew, ‘his disciples.’ Each probably states just what he knew; S. Mark that the remark was made; S. Matthew that it came from the group of disciples; S. John that Judas made it, and why he made it. S. John was perhaps anxious that the unworthy grumbling should be assigned to the right person.
which should betray ] Comp. Joh 6:71.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
4. Judas . . . who should betrayhimFor the reason why this is here mentioned, see on Mr14:11.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then saith one of his disciples,…. Who had no true love for his master, was an hypocrite, and a covetous person:
Judas Iscariot; so called, to distinguish him from another Judas, an apostle; [See comments on Mt 10:4].
Simon’s [son]; this is omitted in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions; [See comments on Joh 13:2];
which should betray him; and so he did; this was pre-determined by God, foretold in prophecy, and foreknown by Christ; and is observed here, to show the temper and character of the man.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Judas Iscariot ( ). See in 14:22. See John 6:71; John 13:1 for like description of Judas save that in 6:71 the father’s name is given in the genitive, and (agreeing with the father), but in 13:1 agrees with , not with . Clearly then both father and son were called “Iscariot” or man of Kerioth in the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:25). Judas is the only one of the twelve not a Galilean.
One of his disciples ( ). Likewise in 6:71, only there is used after as some MSS. have here. This is the shameful fact that clung to the name of Judas.
Which should betray him ( ). John does not say in 6:71 ( ) or here that Judas “was predestined to betray Jesus” as Bernard suggests. He had his own responsibility for his guilt as Jesus said (Mt 26:24). here simply points to the act as future, not as necessary. Note the contrast between Mary and Judas. “Mary in her devotion unconsciously provides for the honour of the dead. Judas in his selfishness unconsciously brings about the death itself” (Westcott).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Simon ‘s son. Omit.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then saith one of his disciples,” (legei de eis ton matheton autou) “Then one of his disciples said,” in complaint against Jesus and Mary.
2) “Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son,” (loudas ho Iskariotes) “Judas, the one who was the son of Iscariot,” the one who was to leave later that evening to go into Jerusalem and strike a deal to betray Jesus, Joh 13:29-30.
3) “Which should betray him,” (ho mellon auton paradidontai) “The one who was about to betray him,” led other of the disciples to “mouth” the same complaint, Mat 26:8; Luk 14:10-11. It was from this supper in Bethany, in the home of Simon the Leper, two days before the Passover that Judas went out, and to the chief priests, to close the bargain to betray Jesus, Joh 13:29-30.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4. One of his disciples, therefore, saith. Next follows the murmuring of Judas, which Matthew (Mat 16:8) attributes to the disciples indiscriminately, and Mark (Mar 14:4) to some of them; but it is customary in Scripture to apply to many, by way of synecdoche, what belongs to one or to a few. Yet I think it is probable, that the murmuring proceeded from Judas alone, and that the rest were induced to give him their assent, as murmurings, by fanning a flame, easily kindle in us a variety of dispositions; and more especially, as we are too prone to form unfavorable judgments, slanders are readily embraced by us. But the credulity which the Spirit of God reproves in the Apostles is a warning to us not to be too easy and credulous in listening to calumnious statements.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot.Comp. Notes on Joh. 6:70-71. St. Matthew tells us that the question was asked by the disciples; St. Mark, that it was asked by certain persons; St. John remembers that it was Judas who spoke, and he remembers that his words were characteristic of the man (Joh. 12:6). He implies by the form in which he relates these words, that he spoke for himself, and that the others did not join in his feeling.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. Should betray him Which was about to betray him.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But Jesus Iscariot, one of his disciples, the one who would betray him, said, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold for 300 denarii, and given to the poor?” He said this, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he held the communal purse he used to take money from it’.
It is natural for a Christian to deplore waste, but here we have a reminder that some things which at first appear wasteful, are rather of great value. Mary’s expression of love would have lost its meaning if the oil had not been valuable. ‘300 denarii’ was almost a year’s wages for the average worker.
Into that fragrant atmosphere came muttered voices of dissension. Mark tells us that Judas was not the only one who murmured. It is clear that Jesus’ teaching on the wise use of possessions had sunk in, but as can often happen, a certain hardness had also crept into the thinking of some of the disciples. Jesus would remind them that a balance needs to be struck. Their hardness contrasted with Mary’s generosity of spirit.
In one sense both were right. The general principle is a wise use of possessions, but there are occasions when an exceptional situation justifies extravagance. (However this does not justify extravagance in general, nor the spending on huge, ornate cathedrals and expensive vestments, as suggested by some. Those who truly give of themselves in the building of such things, because of their love for Christ, do well, but such buildings and accoutrements are usually for man’s glory rather than God’s. The motive for them is often as unlike Mary’s as can be).
John, however, draws out that Judas, the treasurer of the group, was the one who voiced their grievance as they muttered together. He is also aware that Judas was especially guilty, for unlike some of the others, Judas had a deeper motive for his grievance. He wanted a full purse so that he would be able to dip into it more easily without being found out. Possibly John had reason to know something that was not common knowledge, even though the final proof was lacking. John is contrasting the mind of one who loved Jesus with purity and overflowing generosity, and wanted to give Him everything, with the mind of one who had become so consumed with a love of money that it would finally destroy both him and Jesus.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The objection of Judas:
v. 4. Then saith one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray Him,
v. 5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
v. 6. This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
v. 7. Then said Jesus, Let her alone; against the day of My burying hath she kept this.
v. 8. For the poor always ye have with you; but Me ye have not always. When Mary gave the wonderful evidence of her devotion to the Lord, all the disciples were more or less taken aback, Mat 26:8. Their frugal manner of living immediately scented useless extravagance. But there was one in their midst, Judas of Kerioth, the son of Simon, who afterwards betrayed the Lord, that voiced his objections in no uncertain terms. The value of the ointment was three hundred denarii (fifty dollars or somewhat more). Devoid of all sentiment and real feeling as he was, Judas demanded why the ointment had not been sold for this sum, in order that the money might be given to the poor. But his apparent solicitude for the poor people was all sham, intended to mask the real interest which he felt, that of getting the money into his clutches. The poor were nothing to him; to them he did not devote one moment of anxious thought. Judas was a thief. As treasurer of the little band of disciples he carried the wallet for them all, had complete charge of all moneys. Since a system of auditing was hardly to be thought of, Judas could easily abstract small sums from time to time. And here he was obliged to see a splendid opportunity lost. Note: Judas is a warning example for all times. He undoubtedly had been a simple believer in Christ when first he was called to join the little band of disciples. But the temptations connected with the office which was entrusted to him proved too much for his endurance. His love of money, his covetousness, came to the front; he began to steal, and faith fled from his heart. But with faith gone and avarice reigning in the heart, it was an easy matter for the devil to take possession of Judas to such an extent that he betrayed the Savior. Jesus did not wish to expose Judas at this time, and therefore is satisfied with taking Mary’s part and defending her action. He explained that the action of the woman was a part of the preparation for His burial, which was destined soon to take place. Far from censuring her, therefore, they should rather have commended her highly. And so far as the point raised by Judas was concerned: the poor they always had with them. There was always opportunity to do good to these unfortunates that were in destitute circumstances. But the presence of Jesus would soon be removed from them; there was but little time left to give Him special evidences of love and devotion. Thus this apparent extravagance, being occasional only, is fully justified. And the saying of Christ finds its application even today. It is self-evident that a congregation will take care of the poor in its own midst; but after this has been provided for, a little luxury in the interest of beautifying the services of the Lord is by no means displeasing to Him.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son , which should betray him,
Ver. 4. Then said one of his disciples ] St Matthew tells us, that all the disciples said thus. Judas was of so great esteem and authority among them, that what he did they are all said to do. So cunningly he had carried his conspiracy, that they all suspected themselves rather than Judas; every one said, Is it I?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4. ] For Judas , we have . . Matt., , merely, Mark. See note on Mat 26:8 .
is not inserted, nor are any such notices in St. John without significance. It has a pragmatic connexion with the narrative in hand. Only one with thoughts alien from Jesus could have originated such a murmur. And on the other hand, it may well be, as some have supposed, that by the rebuke of the Lord on this occasion, the traitorous scheme of Judas, long hidden in his inmost soul, may have been stimulated to immediate action.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 12:4 . Hence the in Joh 12:4 , ; “one” of His disciples. Matthew (Mat 26:8 ) leaves all the disciples under the reproach, which John transfers to Judas alone. On the designation of Judas see Joh 6:71 . Westcott, however, with a harmonising tendency, says “Judas expressed what others felt”. But this is contradicted by the motive which John ascribes to Judas, Joh 12:6 . . Three hundred denarii would equal a day labourer’s wage for one year.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
of = out of. Greek. ek. App-104.
Judas Iscariot. See note on Joh 6:71.
Simon’s son. These words are omitted by T Tr. WH R here, but found in all the texts in Joh 6:71, Joh 13:2, and John 26. In some places the word Iscariot is made to agree with Simon.
should betray Him = was about to deliver Him up.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4.] For Judas, we have . . Matt.,-, merely, Mark. See note on Mat 26:8.
is not inserted, nor are any such notices in St. John without significance. It has a pragmatic connexion with the narrative in hand. Only one with thoughts alien from Jesus could have originated such a murmur. And on the other hand, it may well be, as some have supposed, that by the rebuke of the Lord on this occasion, the traitorous scheme of Judas, long hidden in his inmost soul, may have been stimulated to immediate action.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 12:4
Joh 12:4
But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples,-Judas was a lover of money, carried the purse kept by Jesus and his apostles, and, as with other men, it required evil surroundings to call the evil disposition into activity. His love of money now caused him to grumble at the wasteful expenditure of Mary.
that should betray him, saith,-When the prospects of Jesus grew darker still, and the evil passions were aroused, this evil spirit led him to betray his Lord.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
one: 1Sa 17:28, 1Sa 17:29, Ecc 4:4
Judas Iscariot: Joh 6:70, Joh 6:71, Joh 13:2, Joh 13:26, Joh 18:2-5, Mat 10:4, Luk 6:16
Reciprocal: 2Ki 4:27 – thrust Mat 26:8 – they Mar 3:19 – Judas Mar 14:4 – there
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
Should betray him is translated, “was about to deliver him up,” by the Englishman’s Greek New Testament. The statement was made to explain the actions of Judas here and elsewhere as they pertained to money.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 12:4. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, he that was about to betray him, saith. After the picture of the highest loving homage to Him whom the Jewish rulers had adjudged to death, the Evangelist gives the contrasted view of an apostle, who, apostle as he was, would shortly be seeking to betray his Lord, and who showed the present workings of his heart by grudging the lavish expression of Marys faith and love.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 4-6. Then one of his disciples, Judas, the son of Simon, the Iscariot, he who was soon to betray him, says: 5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred denarii and the price given to the poor? 6. Now this he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and kept the purse and took what was put therein.
This outbreak of indignation on the part of Judas is occasioned by the mean passion with which the evangelist charges him; but, like his treachery, it has a deeper source than avarice. For a long time (Joh 6:70) there had been in this heart a gloomy discontent with respect to the course followed by Jesus (Joh 6:70-71; comp. with Joh 12:15), and this feeling only waited for a pretext to manifest itself. In the Synoptics, it is the disciples (Matthew), some (Mark), who protest. It seems that on this occasion, as on others, Judas played among his fellowdisciples the part of the leaven which leavens the whole mass. Westcott says: He expressed what the others thought.
There is no doubt more than this: he excited among them a movement of discontent which would not have been awakened without him. We find here again a relation between John and the Synoptics which we have already pointed out in other stories. In the latter, the outlines are effaced: the former alone reproduces the characteristic features, as we might expect from a witness. Judas knows the exact price of the commodity in question, as if he were a tradesman. For the value of the denarius, see on Joh 6:7. The sum indicated was nearly equivalent, in the time of the emperors, to two hundred and sixty francs. It is found as identically the same sum in Mark. We have already remarked several similar coincidences between the two evangelists (Joh 12:3; Joh 6:7; Joh 6:10). Even independently of the subsequent fact of the treachery of Judas, attested by the four evangelists, it would be very rash to ascribe the accusation here formulated by John against Judas to a feeling of personal hatred, as modern criticism has allowed itself to do. The word (properly) denotes literally the case in which musicians kept the mouth-pieces of flutes; whence: box. This purse was probably a small portable cash-box. The property of Jesus and His disciples was mingled with that of the poor (Joh 13:29). This fund was supplied by voluntary gifts (Joh 12:5; Luk 8:1-3). We may see in Joh 20:15 how in the word, the sense of bearing, the only one used, in general, in the New Testament, is easily changed into that of taking away, purloining (de Wette, Meyer).
The simple meaning to bear is not impossible, however, if, with the Alexandrian authorities, we read , having, instead of …., and he had…and ….For by this means all tautology as between this clause and the following disappears. But it is absurd, in any case, to claim that the sense of taking away is excluded because of the article before , as if this article must signify that he took away everything which was placed in the box! It has been asked why Jesus, if He knew Judas, intrusted to him this office so perilous to his morality. We will not say, with Hengstenberg, that Jesus saw fit thus to call forth the manifestation of his sin, as the only means of accomplishing a cure. By such a course of action, Jesus would have put Himself, as it seems to us, in the place of God more completely than was accordant with the reality of His humanity. But is there clear proof that Jesus intervened directly in the choice of Judas as the treasurer of the company? Might not this have been an arrangement which the disciples had made among themselves and in which Jesus had not desired to mingle. Weiss thinks that Jesus had chosen Judas at first because he had a special gift in the financial sphere, and that afterwards He did not wish to interfere with a relation in which He recognized a divine dispensation.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Judas, as well as some other disciples who were present (Mat 26:8; Mar 14:4), objected to what seemed to be an extravagant waste. Three hundred denarii was a full year’s wages for a working man in that culture. Mary would not give to the Lord what cost her nothing (cf. 2Sa 24:24). Real worship always costs the worshipper; it always involves a sacrifice.
"When she came to the feet of Jesus, Mary took the place of a slave. When she undid her hair (something Jewish women did not do in public), she humbled herself and laid her glory at His feet (see 1Co 11:15). Of course, she was misunderstood and criticized; but that is what usually happens when somebody gives his or her best to the Lord." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:339.]