Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 14:4
And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
4. And there were some ] The murmuring began with Judas Iscariot (Joh 12:4), and his spirit of murmuring infected some of the others, simple Galileans, little accustomed to such luxury.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
4. And there were some that hadindignation within themselves and saidMatthew says (Mt26:8), “But when His disciples saw it, they had indignation,saying,” c. The spokesman, however, was none of the true-heartedElevenas we learn from John (Joh12:4): “Then saith one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot,Simon’s son, which should betray Him.” Doubtless the thoughtstirred first in his breast, and issued from his base lips and someof the rest, ignorant of his true character and feelings, and carriedaway by his plausible speech, might for the moment feel some chagrinat the apparent waste.
Why was this waste of theointment made?
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And there were some that had indignation within themselves,…. The Syriac version reads, “some of the disciples”: agreeably to
Mt 26:8, particularly Judas, and others might be incensed by his means:
and said, why was this waste of the ointment made?
[See comments on Mt 26:8].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
To what purpose, etc. See on Mt 26:8.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And there were some,” (esan de tines) “Then there were certain ones;- Mark doesn’t say who, but Matthew says “the disciples” and John specifically identified ” Judas Iscariot,” who carried the money bag, Mat 26:8; Joh 12:4; Joh 12:6.
2) “That had indignation within themselves,” (aganaktountes pros heautous) “Who boiled or brewed with inner indignation” From the above references it appears that Judas led the loud complaint against Mary and against Jesus for accepting this expensive honor.
3) “And said,” (eis ti) “Just why,” give one good, logical reason, Mat 26:8; But God’s thoughts are higher, of a higher order, than man’s thoughts, Isa 55:8-9.
4) “Why was this waste of the ointment made?” (he apoleia aute tou murou gegonen) “Why has this waste of ointment, (myrrh) occurred?” In whose judgement and wisdom was it wasted? This is a specific example that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, or compared with the wisdom of God. 1Co 1:25; 1Co 3:19.
Expensive or costly gifts from men express a crucifixion of their unselfishness and a sincere adoration of and faith in God, which is well accepted of Him, 2Sa 24:24.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(4) There were some that had indignation.Note St. Marks limitation of the murmurers to some, as an intermediate stage between St. Matthews the disciples and St. Johns naming Judas.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘But there were some who were indignant among themselves, saying, “To what purpose has this waste of the ointment been made. For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they muttered against her.’
The principle of the complaint was sound enough. It indicated concern for the poor, which was considered very important by the Jews, and Jesus reply, having Deu 15:11 in mind, indicates His recognition of the fact. But what was missing was the spirit of mercy and compassion. Without realising it they were taking on the same hard spirit as the Pharisees. Instead of rejoicing at the woman’s love for Jesus, and joining in with it, they saw only the ‘waste’. This incident must not, however, be used to justify general extravagance. This was a one off action on a unique person in special circumstances by a particular kind of woman (Martha loved Jesus but she would have thought twice about this). But it is a reminder that motive is more important than deed.
We note that the detractors did not directly say anything to Jesus. They muttered between themselves. Possibly they realised that He might not agree with them. John suggests that the muttering was started by Judas who saw the money disappearing, as it were, from the common purse, into which he occasionally personally dipped (Joh 12:6). But others became equally involved in the muttering as well. They did not mind suffering hardship for Jesus, but this waste seemed too much
‘Three hundred denarii.’ Ten months wages for a working man. A considerable sum.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mar 14:4. Ointment Perfume.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
Ver. 4. See Trapp on “ Mat 26:8 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4, 5. ] See notes on Matt. The . . is common to our narrative and that of John.
does not govern . .: the genitive is one of price .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mar 14:4 . , certain persons; who, not indicated; Mt. says the disciples, John singles out Judas. : these words omitted in Mt. Observe the repetition in Mar 14:5 , ( [127] [128] [129] , etc.). Mt. simply has (so here in T.R.). Mt. more elegant in style, but Mk. truer to life = “To what purpose this waste of the myrrh? For this myrrh might, etc.” the style of men speaking under emotion.
[127] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[128] Codex Ephraemi
[129] Codex Regius–eighth century, represents an ancient text, and is often in agreement with and B.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
some. At the first anointing it was only one, Judas (Joh 12:4). .
within. Greek. pros. App-104. Not the same word as in Mar 14:58.
was . . . made = is come to. pass.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4, 5. ] See notes on Matt. The . . is common to our narrative and that of John.
does not govern . .: the genitive is one of price.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
there: Ecc 4:4, Mat 26:8, Mat 26:9, Joh 12:4, Joh 12:5
Why: Ecc 5:4-8, Mal 1:12, Mal 1:13
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
MARYS ACT JUDGED
There were some that had indignation. Jesus said, Let her alone.
Mar 14:4; Mar 14:6
I. By man.John is our informant as to the origin of the indignation. It sprang up in the base heart of Judas. The motives of Mary and of Judas were as opposite as the poles. Marys love and tenderness would become all the more tender because of the hatred of Judas, and Judas would become all the more intense in his bitterness when he saw the evident devotion of Mary. The presence of Jesus brought forth the grateful affection of Mary and the loathsome selfishness of Judas. The secret of Judass indignation was covetousness. The secret of the disciples indignation was but that species of superficiality which follows the crowd, right or wrong. The lesson, therefore, for us is twofold
(a) Take heed and beware of covetousness. There is nothing that will sooner afflict the heart with spiritual rottenness than this; nothing that will more quickly and irretrievably destroy all that is good in the tissue of our characters than the rust and moth of covetous and selfish desires.
(b) Judge not one against another. The habit of grumbling and complaining is fatal to true peace of mind, and destructive of all real spirituality.
II. By our Lord.Our Lords judgment of Marys act is deliberately and rebukingly expressed. Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on Me.
(a) The interference of Judas and the disciples was unwarranted. The charge of Judas had been that this was a specimen of useless waste. Such a suggestion had never occurred to the heart of Marythat an expression of affection, and love, and gratitude in a world where these flowers so seldom bloom could by any possibility be waste. The thought troubled her. The inner trouble flew to the face and expressed itself in the anxious eye and downcast look. But the Lord would not have this wretched meddlesomeness. How easily do we pronounce judgment on others! How soon may we find a flaw in the most perfect work of others piety! But Jesus always takes His people under His supreme and sufficient protection.
(b) Their opinion of Marys act was erroneous. They thought it was waste; in reality it was a good work. They thought it was waste, but He expressed His approval of this mode of applying her substance. They thought it waste; He declares that (unknown to her) it had a peculiar fitness to the occasion. They thought it waste; He said it was an act which should be worldwide in its influence.
Illustration
Continuity and diffusion mark all we do. It is not given us to say whether the word once spoken, or the act once performed, shall pass beyond its immediate object. We cannot help it. A blow struck at one end of a beam will vibrate to the other. A circle formed in the middle of a lake will ripple outwards towards the shore. No force once liberated is ever lost. It never subsides, so to speak, into its former self, but works on, by transmission or conversion, with unceasing and unresting activity. It is so with mens words and deeds. When once spoken or done they are beyond recall, and largely beyond arrest. They continue in effective operation after we have forgotten them. They are perpetually enlarging their sphere of influence, and working out their characteristic results, when all trace of them has disappeared from human vision. Hence eternity alone can give a just and complete account of their actual power and effect. The thought is stupendously solemn, and ought to be solemnly laid to heart. It is one to inspire us with gladdening hope, or else to fill us with terrible dismay. It is one, too, to bring home to us, with special application and stimulating emphasis, the great practical question of the Apostle: What manner of persons ought ye to be, in all holy conversation and godliness?
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Chapter 2.
Judas’ Criticism
“And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?-Mar 14:4.
The Contagion of Evil.
“A man is tried by his praise” (Pro 27:21). His character is revealed by his admirations. It would be equally true to say, “A man is known by his blames”; by the things he dislikes and censures. These too reveal his character; and Judas’ character stands revealed to us-sharp-cut and clear-in the criticisms he passed upon Mary. It is from John’s account (Joh 12:4-5) that we know Judas to have been the chief critic of Mary’s act. Indeed, from John’s account we might gather that the grumbling was confined to Judas. But there is really no contradiction between John and Mark. What happened, I imagine, was this. The grumbling began with Judas: his was the evil heart that Mary’s deed filled with malice and rage. Then his plausible excuse of care for the poor stirred other disciples with some sort of indignation against the lavishness and extravagance of the deed. If this be so, the “indignation” of the others was all the result of Judas’ evil influence upon them. And here I find an illustration of a solemn truth. There is contagion in evil. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. It is in the power of one bad man to corrupt the company in which he is placed. Put one suspicious, evil-minded, censorious person in the midst of a knot of average men and women, he can infect all of them with his own censorious and suspicious spirit. The presence of one faultfinder is often enough to disturb the harmony of a Church. There is a natural tendency in us all to be suspicious and fault-finding. This is one convincing evidence of original sin that our bias is to put the worst construction on things. We are always ready to think and believe the worst. And one evil man acting on that natural tendency of ours may work endless mischief.
Flee the Censorious Spirit.
One word of homely counsel: eschew the grumbling spirit. Do not be a faultfinder. Ask for the love that hopeth all things and believeth all things. Do not harbour suspicions, and, as you love your soul, do not insinuate your suspicions into the minds of others. Here is a word that ought for ever to silence every ugly insinuation, every evil suspicion, every sinister interpretation before it finds expression by our lips. “It must needs be that offences come, but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh (Mat 18:7).
The Motive of Judas.
In the case of Judas, not only was the criticism essentially false but it sprang from a bad motive. “This ointment,” he said, “might have been sold for three hundred shillings and given to the poor.” Now that sounds, at first hearing, a kindly and thoughtful thing to say. It is not known that Judas had himself been conspicuous in his concern for the poor up to this point. Possibly, when a beggar made an appeal to him, he tightened his purse-strings. But all of a sudden, when he saw the ointment poured over Christ’s head and feet, he was seized with a tremendous sympathy for the poor. “Think of all the poor people the money that ointment cost would have helped!” he said, fuming with indignation. And the other disciples-good, kindly men-were deceived by it, and began to grumble against Mary’s devoted act.
Selfishness.
The concern of Judas for the poor was a deceit and a sham. That was not the real reason why Judas was angry with Mary. The real reason was too ugly to be mentioned. But John tells us the naked truth. “Now this he said,” remarks John, with a sort of burning contempt in his speech, “not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and” (I quote the Twentieth Century New Testament translation) “being in charge of the purse, used to take what was put in it.” There you get the ugly root from which Judas’ indignation sprang. It was not the poor he was thinking about, but himself. If only those three hundred shillings had been put into the common purse of which he had charge, some of them would have stuck to his own fingers. It is not the concern of the philanthropist you have here, but the rage of a disappointed thief, parading itself as the concern of a philanthropist. In truth, there are actions men do, the real motives of which, they dare not confess to the world; they scarcely dare confess them to themselves. So they try to dress vice up in the cloak of virtue so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. They seek to cover the real meanness and baseness of their acts by making a parade of generous motives. Demetrius raised a riot against the Apostle Paul in Ephesus. His real reason was that the Christian preaching had interfered with business: his profits were decreasing: his craft was in danger. But in the public square Demetrius says not a word about his trade. You would never have thought that such a mercenary consideration had ever crossed his mind. In public, Demetrius is only moved by a great concern for the honour of religion-and so he and his fellow-craftsmen for three hours together cried, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” The cry of “religion in danger” was far more respectable than the cry of “diminishing profits.”
Examine your Motives.
It will do us good to analyse frankly and honestly the motives that lie behind our actions. Let us get right down to the naked facts. However plausible may be the excuses we may advance to the world, if the real reasons for any proposed action are base and mean, leave it alone! For it is not what the world thinks of any action, but what God thinks, that really matters. And the Lord knoweth the heart! In the last resort the character of an act will be appraised not by its assigned, but by its real motive. “How kind,” some of the bystanders, I have no doubt, said about Judas. But all this indignation of his went down in the great account books as the malice and spite of an evil and sinful heart.
Christ and the Poor.
Again, doubt any criticism that sets Christ and the poor, religion and philanthropy, in antagonism one with another. The whole point of Judas’ criticism is this-that if Mary had done less for Christ she might have been able to do more for the poor. The criticism was as false as false could be. I wonder which of these two did most for the poor, Judas the critic or Mary the criticised. No man ever did less for the poor because he did more for Christ. No man ever neglected philanthropy because he was too much taken up with religion. As a matter of fact, Christ will not allow any friend or disciple of His to forget the poor. He Himself “came to preach good tidings to the poor.” He was the friend of publicans and sinners. He went about healing the sick and doing good. Philanthropy is a necessary result of religion. If a man really loves Christ he must also serve and help the poor.
An Assumed Antagonism.
And yet Judas’ criticism is repeated in these days of ours. In some respects it represents the temper of the day. For instance, people object to the missionary cause, they object to spend money on extending the kingdom of Christ, on the ground there is so much poverty and need at home. “What waste!” they say about our missionary subscription lists. “Think what that money would do at home!” “Less for Christ; more for the poor”-that is their cry. But it does not appear that those who speak of missionary work as “waste” are the leaders in philanthropic effort at home. My own experience is that those who give of their substance to spread Christ’s kingdom abroad are just the people who minister most generously to the poor and needy at home. Or take another illustration, social reform is in these days being set in some sort of opposition to religion. We give, it is said, too much of our time and money to puny religious purposes and too little to the amelioration of human conditions. But does any one imagine that if we spent less upon religion the cause of social betterment would be advanced? Take the churches of this town with which I am most familiar-they represent the money we have spent on the cause of Jesus Christ. Has it been “waste,” as far as the social well-being of Bournemouth is concerned? Would it have been better that all the money had been given to the poor and no churches had been built at all? Would the poor of Bournemouth be better off if all that has been expended on church and chapel building had been set aside for them, and Bournemouth were today a churchless town? The question answers itself.
Religion the Mother of Philanthropy.
There is nothing so shallow and so utterly and wholly false as the opinion so popular today, that if only we spent less on religion we should spend more on philanthropy. Again I ask, are the people who spend nothing on religion the people who spend most on philanthropy? Is it secularism that builds hospitals and orphanages and homes? Is it atheism that is foremost in caring for the little child? Look around over those great charitable institutions that are the glory of our land. The answer is there. Let us, as Carlyle used to say, clear our minds of cant and face the facts frankly. The universal testimony of history and experience is that religion is the mother of philanthropy, that from the philanthropic point of view no money is ever wasted that is spent on Christ. The Church has been all down the centuries the best friend of the poor-you only damage the cause of the poor themselves when you exalt philanthropy at the expense of religion. “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord,” says the wise man (Pro 19:17). And that is beautifully true. The Lord reckons every act of kindness done to the poor as done to Himself. But I could alter that proverb and make it read like this, “He that lendeth to the Lord hath pity on the poor,” and it would be every whit as true. All that we do for Christ comes back in blessing upon men. The more we do for our Lord, the more we are moved to do for our brother also. No! what we spend on Christ is not waste. In the interests of the poor themselves, it is the best of all investments. Mary is always a better friend to the poor than Judas. The man who loves God is always the man who loves and serves his brother.
The Son of Waste.
Judas, when laying the charge of “waste” against Mary, was accusing her of a fault of which he himself was guilty. “What waste!” Judas said, when Mary lavished her love upon the Lord. But it was not waste; it was wisdom. Mary’s love was laying up for her treasure in heaven and making her rich to all eternity. The “waste,” the real “waste” was on the part of Judas himself. “Not one of them perished,” said Jesus, speaking of His disciples, “but the son of perdition” (Joh 17:12). Or as it might be translated, “Not one of them is lost save the son of loss.” The “Son of Loss” or the “Son of Waste”-no other name fitted this man who seemed the very incarnation of worldly wisdom. The “Son of Loss!” What had he lost? What had he wasted? Opportunity, light, grace, character. He had lived for three years in closest fellowship with Jesus, the Incarnate goodness and truth. Yet all the splendid opportunities of those years were thrown away upon Judas. His opportunities of knowing the truth, of growing in grace, of winning heaven-he wasted them all. This man Judas-like Peter and James and John-might have had his name graven on the foundation of the new Jerusalem. Instead of that, this was his end-“He went away and hanged himself” (Mat 27:5). He was a “Son of Loss.”
Loss and Gain.
Men make the same mistake still. Men allow their hearts to become absorbed with the love of the things of this life as Judas did. They regard devotion and worship and Christian zeal as “waste.” They are practical men, and they sweat and strain after the more tangible rewards which this world offers! Men talk of them as rich. But are they really rich? There is nothing we need more than to revise our notion of loss and gain. A young lady of brilliant intellectual achievements went out to China as a missionary and died within the twelve months. “What waste!” Was it waste? “He that saveth his life shall lose it.” On the other hand I read of men who were rich and increased with goods and in need of nothing. What wisely ordered lives! Were they? I read of a rich man who said to his soul, “Soul, thou hast much goods… eat, drink, be merry.” He had made the best of life. But the Lord said, “Thou foolish one” (Luk 12:19-20). He was not rich at all. He was “a son of loss.” How can we sum up our lives? In terms of loss or gain? Are we laying hold of the good part, which shall never be taken away from us, or are we sons of waste? The only abiding wealth is the wealth of the soul. “Thou foolish one,” said Christ of the rich man who thought of everything but his soul. And he added, “So is he that… is not rich toward God” (Luk 12:21).
Fuente: The Gospel According to St. Mark: A Devotional Commentary
4
The word some has specific reference to Judas (Joh 12:4).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mar 14:4. There were some. Matthew: His disciples; John: one of His disciples, Judas, etc. The best authorities omit the words, and said. Judas alone spoke out; the feeling was general, though no doubt instigated by him. See on Joh 12:6.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
14:4 {2} And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
(2) Rash judgments are made void before God.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Apparently Judas Iscariot voiced the disciples’ violent objection (Gr. embrimaomai, cf. Mar 10:14) to Mary’s act of loving sacrifice (Mat 26:8; Joh 12:4-5). Customarily Jews gave gifts to the poor the evening of Passover. [Note: Wessel, p. 756.] Mary’s gift to Jesus was worth a year’s wages. The disciples could see no reason for this "waste" because they did not understand that Jesus’ death was imminent. Their concern for the poor contrasts with her concern for Jesus.