Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:6
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
6. Simon the leper ] i. e. he had been a leper. St John, in the parallel passage, says “they made him a supper, and Martha served; but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.” Nothing further is known of Simon. He was evidently a disciple of Jesus and probably a near friend of Lazarus and his sisters.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
6 13. The Feast in the house of Simon the Leper
Mar 14:3-9; Joh 12:1-8
St John’s narrative places this incident on the evening of the Sabbath the last Sabbath spent by Jesus on earth before the triumphal entry. St Matthew has here disregarded the strictly chronological order.
Compare a similar act of devotion on the part of a “woman that was a sinner” (Luk 7:36-39).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mat 26:6-13
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper.
Christ anointed for His burial
Let us endeavour to find out what was the latent virtue in the apparently simple act which won so noble a reward.
I. There can be no doubt that the majority of Christians would express surprise at the high honour promised to Mary for so slight a service, She did not resign wealth. What she did was of no utility. In these days and in this land we have a narrow and prejudiced way of judging of the character and actions of men. There is a national character, our likes and dislikes; we are disposed to try everything by this standard. Our national qualities are industry, prudence, regularity. There is another class of national qualities also-warm affections, enthusiasm, high unearthly devotion-these are contrary to our mental constitution. You find them in excess in warmer climates. Both of these characteristics have their faults and excellences. What is our ideal of a religious character? That a man should be upright, sober; hence our religious temper is not enthusiastic, The conduct of the woman was the result of overpowering love. May not this narrative teach us that God above all things values love to Himself, that one outgoing of the soul to Himself is worth hundreds of acts of duty apathetically rendered.
II. So also did she offer as Illustrious example of implicit faith. She had in view His burial, and did it to that end. A marvellous effort of faith. The apostles were not equal to it, though Christ had told them of His death and resurrection. (R. Woodford, M. A.)
True principles of Christian economy
I. Let us seek to, challenge and correct the worlds charge of waste brought against this and all similar acts of homage to Christ. Waste is useless and prodigal expenditure. Sin is the parent of extravagance. There are notions in the world on the subject of giving to God which we can correct:-
1. Let us mark, in opposition to selfish policy, that as hoarding is not always saving, so neither is expenditure always waste. So the Divine method. The sunshine streams clown from heaven with no stint, yet without waste; because all this vast outcome of goodness returns in richest blessing to its Parent Benefactor. The same principle of generous expenditure forms the life and success of commerce. A man of sordid habits toils with old worn-out machinery, because he dreads expense of repairs, only to find that his inferior goods have fallen out of demand. Again, does the selfish man congratulate himself, when he has refused some urgent opportunity of doing good, that, whatever conscience or the world may say of him, he has at least saved his money? He is mistaken. There is no safe keeping of that which vexes and displeases God. But there is another fallacy of the ungenerous and selfish, suggested by the text, viz., that everything is wasted that is given to Christ. Finally, it is the fallacy of the selfish that, while they will not make sacrifices for Christ, they think they have a right to prevent others; but this will not exempt us from doing our own duty.
II. What the world calls waste, as done to Christ and His cause, the Saviour Himself commends as duty, which secures our truest interest and honour. (J. R. McGavin, D. D.)
The problem of poverty, and how to deal with it
What are the cardinal principles of the problem?
1. The essential claim which this class of mankind has upon the common brotherhood is not one of charity, but is founded in religion. It is not a humane sentiment to be gratified, but a law of Christianity to be obeyed.
2. The poor may be considered in the light of Christs legacy to His Church in all ages. Had there been no poor claiming our sympathy and kindly ministry, what a lack there had been in the training of the Christian graces.
3. We are to perform this high and sacred duty in testimony of our love to Christ, and in gratitude for His love and services in our behalf. (American Homiletic Review.)
The worth of life enhanced by kinder acts, which serve no direct practical purpose
Indeed in many of the sweetest, and purest relationships of life, the half of those deeds of kindness and interest which are wrought, and often wrought at much cost and with labour, are of this sort. They are not absolutely necessary to the wellbeing or existence of those in whose behalf they are done. Probably life could be spent happily enough without the gifts which such deeds bring. But life is not mere subsistence; life is made up of a thousand little slender veins and channels through which affection flows noiselessly and unseen. Life and the inner power of life are made up of infinite little gleams of sympathy, and are not to be measured and weighed like beams of timber by their size. Life is a great and living tree, with countless twigs and foliage which render it fair and attractive. And in all the relationships of life, day by day all persons are conscious that a large portion of their thoughts and time and care is bestowed on what serves no other purpose than merely to express what is within the heart, and seeks for utterance. To what purpose this waste? one might say when one sees how much is thus given and done-not because it is essential to maintain life, but because it is simply the outcome of friendly interest and affection, and because to stifle it would be to prevent the free breathing of a pure and warm heart. (A. Watson, D. D.)
Spiritual emotion not to be suppressed
Is there no religion except what is called the practical? and must everything you say and do and give have a direct religious purpose? May that not be true in the sacred region of religious life, which I have already indicated as true in the daily home-life? May there not be great religious emotions and desires which seek for utterance, and nothing more? May there not be a deep gratitude for spiritual blessings which longs to show itself, and which only wants to express its force towards Him from whom the blessings have come? I am not encouraging a mere sentimental religion, or a religion which has nothing but emotion in it; but I desire to destroy nothing which God has formed, and to suppress no genuine spiritual aspiration. And I wish that all should feel how natural it is, and how true to the religious instincts, that there should be times and seasons when the devout soul finds pleasure and satisfaction in what seems to effect no direct purpose. There are occasions when the very essence of religion consists in words and works of worship and praise. To what purpose this waste of time, or thought, or language? some may ask. And the answer is, that goodness in religion is often what goodness is in the home-life of men; it is goodness, not for what it accomplishes, but for what it expresses of the state of the heart. (A. Watson, D. D.)
The universal memorial
1. This memorial affords an instance of the Saviours foreknowledge, and of His fidelity and power in the accomplishment of His predictions.
2. It reminds us that as we possess this gospel ourselves it is our duty to impart the knowledge of it to others. The text implies that the gospel is for the world.
3. It sanctions and encourages the efforts of Christian females, as well as of others, to serve the cause of Jesus Christ.
4. It teaches us that a desire to supply the temporal necessities of the poor is not to supersede a devout regard to the claims of Christ, and to the welfare of souls.
5. It directs us to serve Christ according to our ability, and intimates that no sacrifices are too costly to be made for Him.
6. It reminds us that Jesus Christ sometimes bestows upon us such peculiar mercies, as demand peculiar and extraordinary expressions of gratitude.
7. It shows that those things are the most agreeable to Christ which are done with a devout regard to His death.
8. It admonishes us that such opportunities as are peculiarly favourable for testifying our regard for Christ, and to the salvation of our souls, if they are neglected never may return. (J. Alexander.)
Mary anointing Christ.
I. Who was this woman? She was a blessed woman, had the favour of Christ in no ordinary way. Blessed in her deed and in the approbation of it. She was Mary of Bethany.
II. The estimate which christ formed of this womans act. It was not elicited by the act itself immediately, but by the estimate formed by others. What determines the moral character of a work? Not the work itself, its amount, but the motive. Love was her motive. The act itself was selfdenying. It was an act of clear preference. There were other objects on which she might have bestowed the ointment. It was a striking act of faith. She did it for His burial. Our Lord marked the deed of the woman not only in the credit He gave her, but in the comfort he imparted. She only wanted His approval. The honour He gave-Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached, etc. Why should not we love Jesus as did this woman? Mary anointed to His burial. To what shall we anoint Him? Let us employ our talents for Him and suffering humanity. (C. Molyneux, B. A.)
A womans memorial
I. Let us observe the woman herself.
1. This act was the impulse of a loving heart.
2. What this woman did was done purely to Christ and for Christ.
3. She did an extraordinary, thing for Christ.
4. Her act was beautifully expressive of her broken heart.
II. Look into the face of her loving Lord.
III. Appeal personally to you. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The originality of service
You and I generally look to see whether the thing our new heart tells us to do has ever been done before; and then, if, like Martha, we love Christ, we still think it will be the proper mode of showing our love to prepare Him a supper, and go and stand and wait at the table. We look for a precedent. We recollect that the Pharisee gave Christ a supper; we remember how many others of the disciples have given Him a dinner; and then we think that is the proper orthodox way, and we will go and do the same. Mr. So-and-so gives ten guineas; I shall give ten guineas. Mrs. So-and-so teaches in the Sunday-school; I shall teach in the Sunday-school. Mr. This or That is in the habit of having prayer with his servants; I shall do likewise. You see, we look to find out whether anybody else has set us an example, and then we get into the habit of doing all these things as a matter of form. But Mary never thought of that; she never asked whether there was anybody else that had ever broken an alabaster box of ointment on that sacred head. No, she goes her way; her heart says, Do it, and she does it. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Jesus Christ deserves to be served after an extraordinary manner
Was there ever a people that had such a leader or such a lover as we have in the person of Christ? And yet, my dear friends, there have been many impostors in the world, who have had disciples more ardently attached to them than some of you are to Christ Jesus. When I read the life of Mohamed, I see men who loved him so, that they would expose their persons to death at any moment for the false prophet, dash into battle almost naked, cut their way through hosts of enemies, and do exploits out of a passionate zeal for him whom they verily believed to be sent of God. And even that modern delusion of Joe Smith lacks not its martyrs. When I read the history of the Mormonite emigrants, and of all the miseries they endured when driven out of the city of Nauvoo; how they had to pass over trackless snows and pathless mountains, and were ready to die under the guns of the United States marauders, and how they suffered for that false prophet, I do stand ashamed of the followers of Christ, that they should permit the followers of an impostor to suffer hardships, and loss of limb and life, and everything else that men count dear, for an impostor, while they themselves show that they do not love their Master, their true and loving Lord half so well, else would they serve Him in an extraordinary manner, as He deserves. When the soldiers of Napoleon performed such unexampled deeds of daring in his day, people ceased to wonder. They said, No wonder that they do that; see what their leader does. When Napoleon, sword in hand, crossed over the bridge of Lodi, and bid them follow, no one wondered that every common soldier was a hero. But it is wonderful, when we consider what the Captain of our salvation hath done for us, that we are content to be such everyday nothings as the most of us are. Ah! if we did but think of His glory, and of what He deserves-if we did but think of His sufferings, and of what He merits at our hands, surely we should do something out of the common; we should break our alabaster box, and pour the pound of ointment on His head again. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Things of highest value have not a marked price
To value only what can be sold is to appreciate least what in nature and man is most glorious, and most capable of affording exquisite and perfect satisfaction. The gold and purple of the sunset, the flushing tenderness of the dawn, the rippling songs of birds, the full-voiced chorus of breaking billows, the pure air fresh with the fragrant breath of wild flowers, the rain pouring its living draught into every arid blade and leaf, are Gods free gifts to men. The innocent joy of childhood, the generous enthusiasm of youth, the strength of wisdom, the serenity of a holy trust in God-in what earthly market can these blessed things of the Spirit be bought or sold? With what coin minted by man can you purchase the tenderness of sympathy, the confidence of friendship, the devotion of love? Only to be won are they by the unselfish blending of your own lives with the lives of others. The things that cannot be bartered, the price of which no merchant quotes, the value of which no figures can express, which no thief can steal, and no moth or rust corrupt, alone term the wealth of the soul. (J. R. S. Harington.)
The Saviours defence of sublime devotion
The action of Mary was deeply symbolical. There may often be more in our actions than we imagine. It may be by loving instinct she almost antedated the death of our Lord. It was the gospel in figure; in Marys offering He saw symbolized the greater offering He was about to make, prompted by a deeper love than hers.
I. The womans sublime devotion.
1. She was completely under the sway of devoted love to Christs person-Unto Me. The prominent feature of Marys character was her power of loving. This caught the eye of Christ, and gained His admiration. Here is an ideal of what a follower of Mine should be. Devotion to the Loras person is the chiefest of Christian virtues. Now in making love the test of excellence Christ differs from all the rest of the world.
2. Her devotion was original and fearless. It was her own way of manifesting her love. It shocked the twelve. Let a person only love and he becomes a genius in manifesting it. Mary was unmindful of criticism.
3. Her devotion was magnificent. She did not think how little she could give.
II. Christs chivalrous championship of this woman Note the resemblances that exist between the action of the woman and our Lords action in a few hours afterwards.
1. There is a resemblance in motive. Love led to both offerings. He died because He loved. He intercedes because He loves. There is a sweet savour in love. In His body there is an alabaster box that contains the ointment, a salve for every wound.
2. There is a resemblance of self-devotion. She could not have given more. Christ gave all that He could. He emptied Himself.
3. In the broken box Christ saw His end. That was the gospel.
4. The magnificence of Christs work. It is plenteous redemption. (A. G. Brown.)
Mediocrity in religion best liked by the world
The general verdict will be, It is very romantic-very sentimental, and quite unnecessary. The world likes a dead level of mediocrity in the things of God. Its perpetual cry is, Now, do be moderate! There are not a few who would like the religious experience of the Church to be something like Norfolk scenery. When I was preaching there some time back a farmer went out with me for a walk, and just as I was inwardly thinking that it was about the most deplorable bit of country I had ever seen-as fiat as a billiard table with here and there a ditch, he suddenly stopped, and said, Now, sir, this is what I call a really fine view. I looked at him with astonishment; but with all simplicity he said, I call this really a fine view; for whichever way you look there is nothing to break it. Now in Kent and many other counties wherever you look there is some big hill or tree that stops the view, but here there is nothing. This is the idea of Christian beauty which many entertain. Its charm lies in there being nothing to attract attention. In fact it has become quite a compliment now to say, Oh, so-and-so is a fine man. He never forgets himself. The man who never forgets himself is not worthy of the name of man. A man who never forgets himself is, to say the least, a miserably selfish mortal. What Christ asks at your hands and mine is-not a love which only sometimes makes me forget myself, but a love which will put self out of court entirely-a love which will raise me out of myself-a love which, in other words, will be superior to all calculation as to consequences. It was so with Mary. She had spent all her little earnings upon her gift. (A. G. Brown.)
Love the great energy in religion
Although this spirit of boundless consecration may often make mistakes, and it does-though it may often run into some strange extravagances, and it does-yet, at the same time, in the end it accomplishes far more than the very wise but very cold spirit. The author to whom I have previously referred makes this remark on the point, and it is very true-One rash but heroic Luther is worth a thousand men of the Erasmus type, unspeakably wise, but passionless and time-serving. The men who leave their mark on the world, and the men who really extend the empire of Christs kingdom, are not generally the men who are very calculating and very professional, but men who, whatever else they may lack, have their hearts surcharged with love. Oh would ye be a real power? Ye must have a love that scorns all meanness. How different does Mary appear from the disciples? She does a noble deed: they criticize it. It does not require love to criticize. Indeed, love will not criticize. Love is too noble a thing to condescend to it, specially when criticism means perpetual fault-finding. If there be good, love delights to take down her harp and praise it to her utmost, but if there is nothing to praise, love prefers to be silent rather than cavil. Only mean spirits find pleasure in finding fault. (A. G. Brown.)
Originality in religion
The Church wants a number of original workers-those who will not merely run in the rut that is already made in the road, but strike out for themselves some new ways of honouring Christ. It has been well remarked that when the stream is low it runs along the channel that is already made; but let there be a downfall of rain, let the river only rise, and it fills up all the channels, and then the banks, not able to restrain the stream, will overflow and run far and wide. The new wine of a passionate love to Christ can never be contained in old bottles. (A. G. Brown.)
Immortality of good deeds
There is nothing, no, nothing, innocent or good, that dies and is forgotten: let us hold that faith, or none. An infant, a prattling child, lying in its cradle, will live again in the better thoughts of those who loved it; and plays its part, through them, in the redeeming actions of the world, though its body be burned to ashes, or drowned in the deepest sea. There is not an angel added to the host of heaven but does its blessed work on earth in those that loved it here. Forgotten!-oh I if the good deeds of human creatures could be traced to their source, how beautiful would even death appear! for how much charity, mercy, and purified affection would be seen to have growth in dusty graves! (C. Dickens.)
Superiority of Christian to humanitarian virtues
The doing good may be a mere humanitarian virtue. It may be the cultivation of a virtue which is to help our kind. It may arise from the feeling of kindred, from sympathy, from compassion. When it has only this origin, it is a virtue worthy of all honour. It tends to make us think better of our race. It shows the nobleness which by nature is implanted in the human heart. It exhibits and testifies to the godlike qualities of the being who was made in the image of his Maker. The world is full of such acts. The book of Golden Deeds in which Charlotte Yonge has embalmed the memory of many an act of humanity, of patience, of self endurance, of bravery, tends to make us think better of humanity, helps to kindle the affections, and inspires us with emulation of imitating those deeds. But the act of Mary has another significancy. There is a quality in it which we put into our acts of mercy, self-sacrifice, and bravery. There is a quality in it which may be the very mark which is to distinguish our act as it distinguished hers; and that quality was the faith and love which were directed to the Saviour of the world. Without it the act was nothing. Without this quality we could not understand the commendation of the Saviour, and why it should be a memorial to all generations. It was the affections going forth to the Saviour; it was the homage which was paid Him as the Redeemer; it was the clinging to Him as the altogether lovely. A distinct act of faith to-day is a witness to the world in favour of Christian redemption. It was the great truth which was then dawning upon the world, that there was a Saviour, the Son of God, who had come to save man. Wherever this gospel was to be preached, wherever it was to be proclaimed that there are good tidings, wherever it was to be made known that there is mercy and life for man, there was this significant act of this woman to be told, because she saw this truth, because she thus proclaimed herself a believer in Him, a disciple of Him. She paid homage to Him in this character and office. (R. B. Fairbairn, D. D.)
The anointing at Bethany
Great love can impose great obligations.
I. The deed.
II. The significance of the deed. One only of those present at this transaction was competent fully to declare its import.
1. It was a useful work. Such is the first inscription. The word translated good means, primarily-fair, goodly, beautiful, as to external form and appearance. This it was, but the language implies more. It was moral excellence that distinguished the miracles and teachings of the Saviour, and the quality pertaining to them He ascribes to this humble performance. More precisely, however, the epithet refers to the effect and influence of the work possessing this quality. This is the ordinary sense of the word, where it is used to characterize the practice of piety among the followers of Christ.
2. It was a great work. She hath done what she could. The deed was co-extensive with her ability. To the eye that looked only upon the outward appearance, it seemed an act which nothing but its wasteful extravagance raised above insignificance. To the eye that searcheth hearts, it was grand, august, important. The value of a deed wrought upon Christ, or for the sake of Christ, though relative to us, is absolute to Him. If it he our best, though it were anothers least, it is great and precious when its perfume ascends to heaven.
3. It was an act of faith in a crucified Saviour.
III. The commemoration of the deed. For the most delicate service that mortal rendered Him on earth, our gracious Redeemer provides the most delicate reward. Upon the immediate disciples of our Lord the accomplishment of this declaration first devolved.
1. How exceedingly precious to Christ is the love of His people!
2. How precious to Christ is the memory of His people!
3. How great the jealousy of Christ for the good fame of His people!
4. How generously Christ estimates the offerings and services of His people! Mary was not so lavish of her ointment as Jesus of His praise. Be very sure that whatever others may do, He will put the best construction upon a work of faith and love wrought for His sake.
5. Learn how Christ would have us cherish the memory of His people. Records of good mens lives are among the meads which God hath most emphatically approved and blessed for the sanctification of believers. (C. W. Baird.)
The woman that anointed Jesus
I. From the words of this text we evidently perceive that our Lord distinctly foresaw the great progress which the gospel would soon make in the world.
II. From the text we learn that reputation for good works is desirable and valuable.
III. Also we learn that some seasons and circumstances may justify uncommon expense.
IV. What this woman now did in anointing the body of Jesus was very commendable.
V. With all His great and transcendent wisdom, Jesus did not disdain what we call the weaker sex; but allowed them to be capable of true and distinguished worth and excellence.
VI. The text gives no encouragement to those honours approaching to idolatry or altogether idolatrous, which some have since given to departed saints, both men and women.
VII. We have, in this history, an instance of the favour of our Lord for virtue.
VIII. This text teaches us to think and judge for ourselves, and to act according to the light of our own judgment and understanding, after having taken due care to be well informed, without paying too great deference to the favourable or the unfavourable sentences of others. (N. Lardner.)
True fame
No one likes to be forgotten. Our Lord was not induced to pronounce this eulogy-
1. By Marys social position.
2. By the intrinsic value of that which was presented to Him.
3. By the opinion of those who were present with Him at the time.
4. The great thing, the one thing to which Jesus looked, was the motive from which the action was performed. What a sublime prophecy that eulogium is! (W. M. Taylor D. D.)
The anointing of the feet of Jesus
Lessons:
1. Mans gifts to God are consecrated by love.
2. Profusion is not necessarily waste.
3. Amid the conflicting duties of life the immediate is best. She hath done what she could-not all that she could, but that which her hand found presently to do.
4. Our Lord not only accepts and commends the act and gift, but recompenses them in a royal manner. (H. M. Jackson.)
Profitable waste
That is profitable waste which-
I. Makes solid, although often unseen, preparation for the future.
II. Sacrifices worldly advantages at the call of God and duty.
III. Spends labour, and parts with possessions, in exchange for spiritual attainment.
IV. Surrenders life for a blessed immortality. (Anon.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 6. In Bethany] For a solution of the difficulties in this verse, about the time of the anointing, see the observations at the end of this chapter.
Simon the LEPER] This was probably no more than a surname, as Simon the CANAANITE, Mt 10:4, and Barsabas JUSTUS, Ac 1:23, and several others. Yet it might have been some person that Christ had healed of this disease. See Mt 11:5.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This piece of history (or one very like it) is recorded by the three other evangelists. Mark hath it with very little difference, Mar 14:3-9. Instead of for much, Mar 14:9, Mark hath a precise sum, three hundred pence, and adds, they murmured against her; and some other little differences he hath in words rather than in sense. In Luke, Luk 7:36-38, we read, One of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisees house, and sat down to meat. This seemeth not to be the same history, though some think it is. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisees house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with ointment. It is plain this Pharisees name was Simon, by Luk 7:40. Luke further addeth a discourse between our Saviour and this Pharisee, Luk 7:39-50, which I shall in its order consider. John relates it, Joh 12:1,2, &c.: Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them which sat at the table with him. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simons son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 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. Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always. Whether all the evangelists relate one and the same or divers stories is the question. Lukes relation seemeth the most different; he saith nothing of this Simon being a leper, and relates this history immediately after things done in Galilee. All the other three agree this passage to have fallen out at Bethany, within two miles of Jerusalem. It is very probable that Matthew, and Mark, and John recite the same story. They agree it to have happened in Bethany, at a supper in Simons house; they agree in the kind of the ointment, and in our Saviours discourse upon the thing. The difference in the time, John mentioning six days before the passover, and Matthew two days, will be cleared by considering, that St. John sets down the precise time when our Saviour came to Bethany, which was six days before the passover; St. Matthew sets down the time when the feast was made, which was two days before the passover; so that our Saviour had been four days in Bethany before he was entertained in the house of Simon, and anointed by Mary for his burial. When Christ came out of Galilee toward Jerusalem, he came (as we heard before) to Bethany, Mar 11:1. There he was entertained at a supper by one Simon, who had formerly been a leper, and probably had been cured by Christ, who therefore in gratitude entertained him, and made him a supper; where (saith John) Martha served, Lazarus sat at meat, whom he had newly raised from the dead, Joh 11:1-57. There comes a woman, John saith her name was Mary, and takes a pound of the ointment of spikenard; Matthew and Mark say it was in an alabaster box. John saith she did anoint his feet, and wiped them with her hair. Matthew and Mark say nothing of her anointing his feet, but of his head only. Though therefore opinions both of ancient and modern divines be very various, some thinking that the evangelists speak but of one anointing, others, that they speak of two, others, that they speak of three; yet it seems most probable that they speak of two, one of which is mentioned by Luke a year before this, the other is mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and John. Whoso deliberately reads over the history in Luke, and compares it with the record of it in the three others, will see reasons enough to conclude that Luke speaketh of another person, and another time, and another place; for certainly Simon the Pharisee and Simon the leper were not the same: besides, we read in Luke that Simon carped at our Saviour for letting such a sinful woman come near him; here is nothing like it in this story. I shall therefore here consider the history as reported by our evangelist, taking in what Mark and John have to make it complete. Matthew and Mark say it was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper. John mentions not the house, but adds that Lazarus was at the same time at supper with our Lord and that Martha waited. It will not from hence follow that our Saviour was at the house of Lazarus, (as some think), for as the other evangelists express another house, so John gives no suspicion of any such thing, but by mentioning the presence of Lazarus and his two sisters there, which might be and one of them wait, though they were at the house of a friend.
There came unto him a woman, ( so say Matthew and Mark; John saith it was Mary, one of the sisters of Lazarus), she having an alabaster box of ointment very precious, poured it on his head as he sat at meat. John saith the ointment was of spikenard, very costly; and that she anointed his feet, and wiped them with her hair; and that the quantity of it was a pound, so as the odour of it did fill the room. She did certainly anoint both his head and his feet. It is certain that in those Eastern countries this was a usual fashion, to entertain their guests at banquets by anointing them with oil, to which the psalmist alludes, Psa 23:5. This woman seemeth to have exceeded the usual compliment of this nature, in the kind of oil she used, the quantity of it, and in her anointing his feet (which she possibly did instead of washing his feet, which was very usual with them); in these things she showed the greatness of her love to this guest.
When his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? Mark adds, they murmured at the woman. They said, This ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. Mark and John say, for three hundred pence. John saith it was Judas Iscariot that spake the words, and gives the reason for it, because he bare the bag, into which the price of the ointment (had it been sold) must have come; and he was a thief, he spake not this out of any regard to the poor, but to himself: it is likely other of the disciples might also think that it was too great a waste upon such a compliment. Our Lord understanding of it, vindicates the woman.
1. He tells them that she had done a good work. Actions not forbidden by the Divine law, nor commanded in it, take up their goodness or badness from their principles and ends; what she had done was done out of a principle of love to Christ, and for his honour and glory, so it was a good work.
2. He tells them that they had the poor with them always, but they should not have him always. A work may be good done at an extraordinary time, and upon an extraordinary occasion, which is not so if brought into ordinary practice. Christ here declares that he had no design to discourage the relief of the poor, but they would have daily occasions to do them good, but he was not long to be with them.
3. He tells them that she had poured this ointment upon him against his burial. That is, if this cost had been spent upon my dead body you would not have blamed her; for those kind of perfumes, both moist and dry, were much used in their embalming dead bodies. I am about to die, I have often told you so; you believe it not; she believeth it, and hath, out of her love to me, but bestowed such a cost upon my dying body, as you would not have blamed had it been bestowed upon my dead body: so she showed her faith in Christs words as well as his person.
Or, if this woman did not do it with any such intention, yet (saith our Saviour) she hath done the thing; I shall suddenly die, and she hath but anointed me aforehand, and is certainly as much excusable as those that spend more about bodies already dead. Finally, he tells them, that wheresoever this gospel should be preached, what she had done should be told to her honour and praise, for a memorial of her. Christ, seeing that her action proceeded from a hearty and burning love to him, accepteth her act as an extraordinary act of kindness to him, and proportions her a reward. Without love, if a man give all his goods to the poor, it signifieth nothing; but if there be love in the heart, it makes the gift acceptable. Love seldom underdoes in an act of kindness, and it cannot overdo where Christ is the true object of it. Men, who know not our hearts, may be ready to blame us for actions which God will highly commend and reward.
The evangelist having thus far digressed from his discourse, (probably to give us an account of the reason of Judass disgust to our Saviour), he now returneth to a discourse about what was done at the council he had told us of, Mat 26:3-5. The fear of an uproar amongst the people seemed to be that alone which made them shy of apprehending him on the feast day.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Now when Jesus was in Bethany,…. Which was about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, Joh 11:18, or about two miles from it. The time of Christ’s death being at hand, he keeps nigh to Jerusalem, where he was to suffer and die, in the room and stead of sinners:
in the house of Simon the leper; so called, to distinguish him from others of the name. This epithet was either a family one, some person of note in it having been a leper; or else he is so named, because he himself had been one, but was now cured; though the reason interpreters give for this, that otherwise he would not have been suffered to live in a town, is not a good one; for lepers, according to the Jewish b canons, were only forbid Jerusalem, and towns and cities that were walled round, and not others, such as the village of Bethany. There were many lepers healed by Christ, which, among other things, was an evidence of his being the Messiah, and a proof of his deity, and this Simon was one of them; whether the same mention is made of in Mt 8:1, is not certain, nor very probable; since that man lived in Galilee, at, or near Capernaum; this at Bethany, near Jerusalem: however, he was one of those lepers that had a sense of his mercy, and was grateful for it, as appears by his entertaining Christ at his house; and may teach us thankfulness to Christ, who has healed all our diseases; and particularly, the spreading leprosy of sin, with which all the powers and faculties of our souls were infected; and which was not in our own power, or any creature’s, to cure, but his blood cleanses from it: and it may be observed, that Christ goes in and dwells with such whom he heals, and with such he is always welcome.
b Misn. Celim, c. 1. sect. 7. Maimon. Beth Hamikdash, c. 3. sect. 8.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Christ Anointed at Bethany. |
| |
6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. 8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? 9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. 10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. 11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. 12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. 13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
In this passage of story, we have,
I. The singular kindness of a good woman to our Lord Jesus in anointing his head, Mat 26:6; Mat 26:7. It was in Bethany, a village hard by Jerusalem, and in the house of Simon the leper. Probably, he was one who had been miraculously cleansed from his leprosy by our Lord Jesus, and he would express his gratitude to Christ by entertaining him; nor did Christ disdain to converse with him, to come in to him, and sup with him. Though he was cleansed, yet he was called Simon the leper. Those who are guilty of scandalous sins, will find that, though the sin be pardoned, the reproach will cleave to them, and will hardly be wiped away. The woman that did this, is supposed to have been Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. And Dr. Lightfoot thinks it was the same that was called Mary Magdalene. She had a box of ointment very precious, which she poured upon the head of Christ as he sat at meat. This, among us, would be a strange sort of compliment. But it was then accounted the highest piece of respect; for the smell was very grateful, and the ointment itself refreshing to the head. David had his head anointed,Psa 23:5; Luk 7:46. Now this may be looked upon,
1. As an act of faith in our Lord Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, the anointed. To signify that she believed in him as God’s anointed, whom he had set king, she anointed him, and made him her king. They shall appoint themselves one head, Hos. i. 11. This is kissing the Son.
2. As an act of love and respect to him. Some think that this was he who loved much at first, and washed Christ’s feet with her tears (Luk 7:38; Luk 7:47); and that she had not left her first love, but was now as affectionate in the devotions of a grown Christian as she was in those of a young beginner. Note, Where there is true love in the heart to Jesus Christ, nothing will be thought too good, no, nor good enough, to bestow upon him.
II. The offence which the disciples took at this. They had indignation (Mat 26:8; Mat 26:9), were vexed to see this ointment thus spent, which they thought might have been better bestowed.
1. See how they expressed their offence at it. They said, To what purpose is this waste? Now this bespeaks,
(1.) Want of tenderness toward this good woman, in interpreting her over-kindness (suppose it was so) to be wastefulness. Charity teaches us to put the best construction upon every thing that it will bear, especially upon the words and actions of those that are zealously affected in doing a good thing, though we may think them not altogether so discreet in it as they might be. It is true, there may be over-doing in well-doing; but thence we must learn to be cautious ourselves, lest we run into extremes, but not to be censorious of others; because that which we may impute to the want of prudence, God may accept as an instance of abundant love. We must not say, Those do too much in religion, that do more than we do, but rather aim to do as much as they.
(2.) Want of respect to their Master. The best we can make of it, is, that they knew their Master was perfectly dead to all the delights of sense; he that was so much grieved for the affliction of Joseph, cared not for being anointed with the chief ointments, Amos vi. 6. And therefore they thought such pleasures ill bestowed upon one who took so little pleasure in them. But supposing that, it did not become them to call it waste, when they perceived that he admitted and accepted it as a token of his friend’s love. Note, We must take heed of thinking any thing waste, which is bestowed upon the Lord Jesus, either by others or by ourselves. We must not think that time waste, that is spent in the service of Christ, or that money waste, which is laid out in any work of piety; for, though it seem to be cast upon the waters, to be thrown down the river, we shall find it again, to advantage, after many days, Eccl. xi. 1.
2. See how they excused their offence at it, and what pretence they made for it; This ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. Note, It is no new thing for bad affections to shelter themselves under specious covers; for people to shift off works of piety under colour of works of charity.
III. The reproof Christ gave to his disciples for the offence at this good woman (Mat 26:10; Mat 26:11); Why trouble ye the woman? Note, It is a great trouble to good people to have their good works censured and misconstrued; and it is a thing that Jesus Christ takes very ill. He here took part with a good, honest, zealous, well-meaning woman, against all his disciples, though they seemed to have so much reason on their side; so heartily does he espouse the cause of the offended little ones, ch. xviii. 10.
Observe his reason; You have the poor always with you. Note,
1. There are some opportunities of doing and getting good which are constant, and which we must give constant attendance to the improvement of. Bibles we have always with us, sabbaths always with us, and so the poor, we have always with us. Note, Those who have a heart to do good, never need complain for want of opportunity. The poor never ceased even out of the land of Israel, Deut. xv. 11. We cannot but see some in this world, who call for our charitable assistance, who are as God’s receivers, some poor members of Christ, to whom he will have kindness shown as to himself.
2. There are other opportunities of doing and getting good, which come but seldom, which are short and uncertain, and require more peculiar diligence in the improvement of them, and which ought to be preferred before the other; “Me ye have not always, therefore use me while ye have me.” Note, (1.) Christ’s constant bodily presence was not to be expected here in this world; it was expedient that he should go away; his real presence in the eucharist is a fond and groundless conceit, and contradicts what he here said, Me ye have not always. (2.) Sometimes special works of piety and devotion should take place of common works of charity. The poor must not rob Christ; we must do good to all, but especially to the household of faith.
IV. Christ’s approbation and commendation of the kindness of this good woman. The more his servants and their services are cavilled at by men, the more he manifests his acceptance of them. He calls it a good work (v. 10), and says more in praise of it than could have been imagined; particularly,
1. That the meaning of it was mystical (v. 12); She did it for my burial. (1.) Some think that she intended it so, and that the woman better understood Christ’s frequent predictions of his death and sufferings than the apostles did; for which they were recompensed with the honour of being the first witnesses of his resurrection. (2.) However, Christ interpreted it so; and he is always willing to make the best, to make the most of his people’s well-meant words and actions. This was as it were the embalming of his body; because the doing of that after his death would be prevented by his resurrection, it was therefore done before; for it was fit that it should be done some time, to show that he was still the Messiah, even when he seemed to be triumphed over by death. The disciples thought the ointment wasted, which was poured upon his head. “But,” saith he, “If so much ointment were poured upon a dead body, according to the custom of your country, you would not grudge it, or think it waste. Now this is, in effect, so; the body she anoints is as good as dead, and her kindness is very seasonable for that purpose; therefore rather than call it waste, put it upon that score.”
2. That the memorial of it should be honourable (v. 13); This shall be told for a memorial. This act of faith and love was so remarkable, that the preachers of Christ crucified, and the inspired writers of the history of his passion, could not choose but take notice of this passage, proclaim the notice of it, and perpetuate the memorial of it. And being once enrolled in these records, it was graven as with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever, and could not possibly be forgotten. None of all the trumpets of fame sound so loud and so long as the everlasting gospel. Note, (1.) The story of the death of Christ, though a tragical one, is gospel, glad-tidings, because he died for us. (2.) The gospel was to be preached in the whole world; not in Judea only, but in every nation, to every creature. Let the disciples take notice of this, for their encouragement, that their sound should go to the ends of the earth. (3.) Though the honour of Christ is principally designed in the gospel, yet the honour of his saints and servants is not altogether overlooked. The memorial of this woman was to be preserved, not by dedicating a church to her, or keeping an annual feast in honour of her, or preserving a piece of her broken box for a sacred relic; but by mentioning her faith and piety in the preaching of the gospel, for example to others, Heb. vi. 12. Hereby honour redounds to Christ himself, who in this world, as well as in that to come, will be glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believe.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
In the house of Simon the leper ( ). Evidently a man who had been healed of his leprosy by Jesus who gave the feast in honour of Jesus. All sorts of fantastic theories have arisen about it. Some even identify this Simon with the one in Lu 7:36ff., but Simon was a very common name and the details are very different. Some hold that it was Martha’s house because she served (Joh 12:2) and that Simon was either the father or husband of Martha, but Martha loved to serve and that proves nothing. Some identify Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman in Lu 7 and even with Mary Magdalene, both gratuitous and groundless propositions. For the proof that Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, and the sinful woman of Lu 7 are all distinct see my Some Minor Characters in the New Testament. John (Joh 12:1) apparently locates the feast six days before the passover, while Mark (Mr 14:3) and Matthew (26:6) seem to place it on the Tuesday evening (Jewish Wednesday) just two days before the passover meal. It is possible that John anticipates the date and notes the feast at Bethany at this time because he does not refer to Bethany again. If not, the order of Mark must be followed. According to the order of Mark and Matthew, this feast took place at the very time that the Sanhedrin was plotting about the death of Jesus (Mr 14:1f.).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
6. And when Jesus was in Bethany. What the Evangelist now relates had happened a little before Christ came to Jerusalem, but is here introduced seasonably, in order to inform us what was the occasion that suddenly drove the priests to make haste. They did not venture to attack Christ by open violence, and to oppress him by stratagem was no easy matter; but now that Judas suggests to them a plan of which they had not thought, the very facility of execution leads them to adopt a different opinion. As to some slight diversity between John’s narrative and that of Matthew and Mark, it is easy to remove the apparent inconsistency, which has led some commentators erroneously to imagine that it is a different narrative. Joh 12:3 expresses the name of the woman who anointed Christ, which is omitted by the other two Evangelists; but he does not mention the person who received Christ as a guest, while Mat 26:6 and Mar 14:3 expressly state that he was then at supper in the house of Simon the leper. As to its being said by John that his feet were anointed, while the other two Evangelists say that she anointed his head, this involves no contradiction. Unquestionably we know that anointments were not poured on the feet; but as it was then poured in greater abundance than usual, John, by way of amplification, informs us that Christ’s very feet were moistened with the oil. Mark too relates, that she broke the alabaster-box, and poured the whole of the ointment on his head; and it agrees very well with this to say that it flowed down to his feet. Let us therefore hold it to be a settled point, that all the three Evangelists relate the same narrative.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
SECTION 63
JESUS IS ANOINTED BY MARY OF BETHANY
(Parallels: Mar. 14:3-9; Joh. 11:55 to Joh. 12:8)
TEXT: 26:613
6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7 there came unto him a woman having an alabaster cruse of exceeding precious ointment, and she poured it upon his head, as he sat at meat. 8 But when the disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? 9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. 10 But Jesus perceiving it said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. 11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. 12 For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a.
If Simon is really a leper, a ceremonially unclean outcast from Jewish society, how could it also be true that he possessed this house in Bethany, in which these guests are free to visit? If he were no longer a leper, why call him that?
b.
If the anointing of Jesus by Mary of Bethany occurred several days earlier, before the Messianic Entry (Joh. 12:1; Joh. 12:12) why then does Matthew delay recounting the event until now? Did he not know when it took place? Or does he have some other reason for registering these facts now out of their normal chronological order?
c.
If you assume that Matthew correctly placed this section here for good and appropriate reasons, what is the relationship between it and this new context in which he inserts it?
d.
How did Mary manage to anoint Jesus head and feet, if He was eating at a table?
e.
How would you feel, if a good friend of yours came up to you at a dinner party and poured an Mat. 11:5 ounce bottle of strong perfume on your head and feet? What would others say? How should you treat this person? What of your dignity? How do you think Jesus answered these questions?
f.
Why do you think Mary chose such expensive ointment for this use?
g.
Why do you think the disciples were so indignant as to considering the anointing of Jesus a waste? What does this reveal about them? Even though John pictures Judas as instigating these complaints because he was greedy (Joh. 12:6), how do you account for the other disciples joining in to reproach Mary? Do you think their principle could ever be justified?
h.
Jesus said, You always have the poor with you. Is He saying, There shall always be the haves and the have-nots? Does He resign Himself to this reality? Then, should we do nothing about the poor?
i.
Do you think Judas would really have used the money from the sale of the perfume in the way he indicated it should? What makes you think so?
j.
If, as Jesus affirmed, Mary anointed His body beforehand for burying, would not the perfume get a bit old, before the crucifixion actually took place? If six days were to pass before the burial, then how could her anointing Him for burial have anything to do with it?
k.
What is there about Marys act that makes it so significant that one can hardly preach the Gospel without mentioning her memorial/ memorable deed? Why did Jesus approve of her act so heartily.
1. Do you think Mary anointed Jesus for the motive He attributed to her, i.e. specifically to prepare [Him] for burial? How could she have known about His approaching death and decide to anoint His body? And how could He know her real reason, without her announcing it publicly?
m.
How is the example of Mary supposed to teach us practically? Are we to go around anointing others? Is her noble deed merely a source of joy to us or are we to be strangely warmed by her love for Jesus, and love Him because she did, or what?
n.
How has Jesus prophecy about Marys memorial been fulfilled? Are you personally helping to fulfill His prediction? If so, how? If not, why not?
PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY
Earlier, six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, the town where Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead, lived. While there, they gave a dinner in His honor in the house of a man known as Simon the leper. Martha waited at the table and Lazarus was one of those at the table with Jesus. As He was reclining at the table, Mary approached Him with a third-liter (about 12 oz.) alabaster flask of very expensive fragrant oil made of genuine nard. She broke open the jar and began pouring it over Jesus head and anointing His feet. Then she wiped His feet with her hair. The fragrance of the perfume filled the house. But there were some disciples, among whom Judas Iscariot (the one who was to betray Him), who, when they saw it, were indignant and grumbled to one another, Why was this perfume wasted this way? Why, this ointment could have been sold for a fortunemore than a years wages,and donated to the poor! and they sternly rebuked her, (Judas said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. Since he had charge of the common purse, he had the habit of pilfering the money put into it.)
But Jesus, noticing this, said to them, You all let her alone! Why are you embarrassing the lady? For she has done a good work to me. Judas, you let her observe it, anticipating the day of my burial. In fact, you will always have the poor people among you, and you can help them any time you want to. But I will not always be around for you to help. She has done what was in her power to do. By pouring this ointment on my body, she has anointed my body ahead of time for its burial. I can assure that what she has done will also be recounted in memory of her wherever in the whole world this Good News is preached!
SUMMARY
In a historical flashback the Gospel traces elements that not unlikely helped to crystallize Judas decision to betray Jesus: Jesus did not permit anyone to criticize Marys anointing as something less than perfectly appropriate under the circumstances. Further, Jesus continued what Judas must have considered to be negative talk about His own death in the not-too-distant future. Not only did Jesus praise Mary and her manifest faith in His testimony to His death and rebuke Judas in the process, but He promised her deed eternal fame as widespread as the Gospel proclamation.
NOTES
THE SETTING
Mat. 26:6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper. Neither Matthew nor Mark affirm exactly when the Lord was in Bethany. Rather, each introduces this episode with a circumstantial principle that derives its temporal value from its connection with the main verb of the sentence, a woman came up. Only John furnishes the precise chronological data: Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany (Joh. 12:1). Therefore, whereas Matthew and Mark had been discussing events two days before the Passover (Mat. 26:3; Mar. 14:1), we conclude that they inserted the anointing in Bethany out of its normal chronological order so as to achieve an extraordinary, logicalor should we say, psychological?connection between the anointing and its consequences. This procedure cannot be charged with contradiction, because neither writer asserts that this event occurred in any time sequence other than that indicated by John. (In fact, even John utilized this same technique in reverse with reference to the same events. [See Joh. 11:2; Joh. 12:1 ff.]) If the Passover came on Thursday night that year (see on Mat. 26:17; cf. Joh. 19:14; Joh. 19:31; Mar. 15:42), then six days before the Passover, dates the anointing in Bethany one evening before the Triumphal Entry. (See Hendriksen, John, II, 171ff. for fuller discussion of the date.)
So, what could have motivated Matthew and Mark to edit their material by inserting this event out of strict chronological order? In the loving anointing by Mary what is the connection they saw which qualifies this sections place appropriately between Jesus prediction of His death (Mat. 26:2) and the Sanhedrins plotting (Mat. 26:3 ff.) on the one hand, and Judas pact with the rulers (Mat. 26:14 ff.) on the other?
1.
Their reason cannot be solely the venom rankling in the breast of Judas that drove him to betray Jesus, if the rebuke he received during the anointing be thought to be the only cause. In fact, neither Matthew nor Mark make this connection. They do not even mention the traitor by name. Only by reading John do we learn that it was Judas who led the complaining and something about his motives. But not even John draws the conclusion that Judas left the supper more decided than ever to betray the Lord. This is simply a conclusion based on a comparison of the three Gospels, none of which verifies our suspicion, even if they do not contradict it.
What took place at Bethany that night may have triggered the betrayal scheme already maturing in Judas mind. Perhaps Jesus rebuke is less a factor than His frank talk of His burial. This defeatism finally convinced the greedy Judas that his dreams of political power and personal wealth were finished, unless some urgent solution were found. In harmony with their own understanding of Jesus betrayal and its causes, Matthew and Mark rightly connect Judas determination with what occurred at this supper, for, say they, Iscariot walked away from this event determined to go to the priests (Mat. 26:14).
2.
Matthew sketches a magnificent contrast between what two of Jesus disciples did about the predictions of His coming death (Mat. 26:2; Mark omits this detail.).
a.
Mary believed Him and anointed Him while she could (Mat. 26:6-13).
b.
Judas believed Him serious about His dark future, and so decided to make his own position as disciple bring him money one way or another by betrayal (Mat. 26:14-16).
(1)
If Jesus defended Himself by miraculous power against the crisis that forced Him to declare His Kingdom, honor His loyal supporters, in the end He would enrich Judas.
(2)
Or, if Jesus chose to die, in which case the hoped-for declaration of the Kingdom must forever die with Him, Judas would have at least the betrayal payment for his trouble.
c.
This contrast is between real belief among quite opposite types of disciple, and how their distinctive moral differences caused each to react. Matthews reader is gently led to reflect on the question: what do I personally think about Jesus of Nazareth?
3.
Matthew and Mark create, thus, a stark contrast between Marys open-hearted love and the burning hatred and base plotting of the priests and Judas.
Simon the leper: nothing more is known of him beyond this supper given Jesus in his house. Because of so many Simons in Israelthere were even two more Simons at this table: Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot!he was distinguished by his former disease, rather than by occupation (Simon the tanner Act. 10:6), by his skin complexion (Act. 13:1, Symeon Niger is Simon Black), by his fathers name (Simon Bar-jonah Mat. 16:17) or by his politics (Simon the Zealot Act. 1:13). To call him Simon the leper reveals an insiders view of small-town life in first-century Palestine that a more formal identification of the man could not have achieved. Had Simon the leper been healed by Jesus? If so, his name is the unembarrassing living memorial to Gods grace to him. Of course, he may have been deceased, his spacious house being now borrowed for this meal.
It is striking that John omits all mention of Simon the leper, directing all attention to Mary, Martha and Lazarus, whereas Matthew and Mark do not consider their names essential to the story. One tentative hypothesis is that, because of the more commodious size of Simons house, the banquet was set there, rather than in that of Lazarus. Naming Lazarus was important for John, since he intended to indicate Jesus greater interest for the festal crowds as well as document how Lazarus resurrection fired Jesus enemies animosity (Joh. 12:9-11).
This incident must not be confused with the anointing of Jesus by a sinful woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luk. 7:36-50). While both episodes are comprised of three identical elements, (1) the anointing by a woman at a meal in the house of a Simon, (2) the criticism of the woman by someone present, and (3) Jesus defense of the woman, based on reading someones thoughts, these incidents are not identical. (Cf. Foster, The Final Week, 25ff.) These motives conclusively distinguish them:
1.
Lukes anointing occurred much earlier in Galilee during Jesus ministry there; this anointing took place in Judea a few days before His death.
2.
The Galilean Pharisee is a rude, ill-bred host, lacking the refinement to offer the usual amenities for his Guests comfort, whereas everything at this supper sings of love for Jesus.
3.
In Galilee the host launched no verbal attack, but merely judged the woman mentally, whereas Judas led other disciples in a verbalized criticism.
4.
The bases of criticism varied: there, the propriety of Jesus permitting a woman to touch Him; here, the propriety of a questionable use of needed funds.
5.
In Galilee Jesus admonished the host; here, His disciples.
6.
While the basic motive of both anointings is love, the Galilean woman did it in gratitude for forgiveness, but here Jesus underlines Marys faith in His revelations: for my burial.
7.
In the Galilean anointing, the sins of the woman are made prominent and forgiven, but here Marys character is only praised for its loving thoughtfulness and her grasp of Jesus teaching, and made a universal example.
1. THE GENEROUS GIVING TO THE GODLY GUEST
SPLENDID SELF-FORGETFULNESS
Mat. 26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster cruse of exceeding precious ointment, and she poured it upon his head, as he sat at meat. Jesus revealed the Father to us as much by His table conversation as by His monumental mountain-top sermons. Many of the most profound things He ever taught were said while He was eating with others. (Cf. Joh. 2:1-11; Mat. 9:9-13; Luk. 7:36-50; Luk. 14:1-24; Mat. 26:20-29; John 13-17; Joh. 21:12-23; Act. 1:4-8 : while He was eating with them.)
There came unto him a woman. But that this woman remained unidentified throughout the narrative of Matthew and Mark may indicate that the main point of this episode is not her friendship to Jesus which would express itself in a lavish love appropriate to this person, but the high importance of her purpose and the faith that prompted it. (See on Mat. 26:12.) That our author suppresses her name may also point to the early date of his writing:
1.
To publish her name while she was still alive would expose this inhabitant of Bethany of Judah to the vindictiveness of those Jerusalem Jews who sought to repress the wildly spreading defections from Judaism to the movement of the Crucified One. John, writing after 70 A.D. could reveal her identity, because her enemies were defeated or dead.
2.
Perhaps Matthew omits her name so as not to embarrass her, protecting her own modesty. Perhaps she was dead when John wrote, so naming her would cause no trouble to her.
The elegantly shaped alabaster cruse Mary brought was carved out of a translucent, usually whitish, fine-grained variety of gypsum stone. The use of such a vessel also points to its value, being the usual type of container for expensive aromatic oils (Pliny, Natural History, 13.3; 36.12; Herodotus 3.20.1). John (Joh. 12:3) noted that this precious vase held one ltra or 327.5 grams (about Mat. 11:5 oz.) of the costly essence. That Matthew called it exceeding precious ointment points to princely oriental luxury, a view externalized by the disciples complaint.
Having an alabaser cruse does not mean she originally purchased this as one of several flasks of ointment to prepare her brother, Lazarus, for burial (Joh. 11:17; Joh. 11:39). This supposition arises out of the disciples complaint that, while the bottle retained its commercial value, she should have sold her possession. But its being merely a left-over contrasts with the spirit of initiative and creative preparation evident in her deed, and raises the question why it was not used on Lazarus originally. Did the sisters buy too much? It is simpler to admit that she simply spent the money for Jesus. Godet (John, II, 206f.) argues that Jesus observations to the Pharisee in Galilee (Luk. 7:44 ff.) imply that the anointing of ones guests head and washing his feet were common services before a meal, and the omission of these amenities constituted a rude oversight. (Cf. Gen. 18:4; Jdg. 19:21; 1Sa. 25:41; Psa. 23:5; Psa. 92:10; Psa. 45:7? Psa. 141:5; Joh. 13:5; 1Ti. 5:10.) Hence, no one present would look askance as she began her task.
She poured it upon his head as he sat at meat. How harmonize this with Johns affirmation that she anointed His feet (Joh. 12:3)? Her doing both would not be difficult, if the guests were lying Roman-style on couches that radiate out from the central table. She simply approached Him, walking between the couches. Next she broke off the top (seal?) of the new long-necked vase to pour out its contents rapidly (Mar. 14:3). Her original purpose was undoubtedly to anoint Jesus head in the ordinary way. But observing that His feet were rough and travel-worn, she gladly poured the same perfume on them too as if her priceless essence were common water. To remove the excess, she used the only towel she had brought, her own hair. Since she came only to anoint His head, presumably she would have needed no towel. That it was against good breeding for a woman to present herself among men with her hair dishevelled does not testify against Marys morals or argue for identification with the sinful woman of Luk. 7:36 ff.
1.
Marys hair may have been neatly bound up when she came in. Then, her need to dry Jesus feet may have caused her to waive a minor scruple and undo her hair to meet the unforeseen need. It is perfectly in character with her carefully planned love offering to be only too glad to do this.
2.
Her humility and irrepressible self-giving know no limit as she renders homage even to the least favored part of His body, drying His feet with her hair, her crown and glory. (Cf. 1Co. 11:15.) The generosity with which she poured so much perfume on His feet testified that no sacrifice was too costly. That she wiped them with her hair proved that no service was too demeaning for her. Any disciple worthy of the name must see that true adoration demands that we lay our honor at Jesus feet in precisely the same way. Lenski (John, 840) preached: The proper place for a disciples head is at the Saviors feet. If John the Baptist considered himself unworthy to unloosen the sandals from Jesus feet, why should not Mary react in a similar way?
2. THE GRACELESS GRUMBLING AT THE GOODNESS OF HER GIFT
Mat. 26:8 But when the disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? They not only saw it; they also smelled the concentrated perfume, for the house was filled with fragrance (Joh. 12:3)! Among Marys critics, the voice of Judas is raised against the useless waste (apleia, destruction, loss). But were it Matthews exclusive purpose to insert this episode in this place to indicate one of Judas motives for betraying Jesus, then why did not Matthew at least name Judas in his account? Why does he inculpate his fellow disciples, when, according to John, Judas was the main agitator?
Here is important evidence of independent eye-witness. John, from his own vantage point at the table, noticed that Judas instigated these remarks, whereas Matthew and Peter (Mark) remembered that others added their assent. While both versions are correct, complementing each other, their own independent testimony is confirmed even by this problem.
Two important considerations justify Matthews procedure:
1.
The disciples meekly followed Judas lead. Perhaps because he had shown the courage to speak frankly despite the festive occasion, he did it directly in Jesus presence, apparently arguing from right-minded principles. Our author does not name Judas, because his point may be that even other disciples are blindly led into this mistaken criticism. So their shamefully unthinking reaction is at least as noteworthy as naming the perpetrator.
2.
The disciples did not follow Jesus lead! This rash, uncharitable criticism was expressed in the presence of Jesus who could have pronounced far more competent judgment in the case and corrected any misdeed in Marys conduct with the infallible certainty of divine judgment. His acquiescence in itself should have been justification enough for them not to join Judas attack.
Judas grumbling had enough truth and logic in it to convince and enflame deep emotion in the other disciples, moving them to indignation at this apparently inexcusable waste. Their attitude was a groan (embrimomai), arising out of their displeasure (Mar. 14:5). Is it not worthy of note when the godly are shaken from their stedfastness by a rogue disciple masquerading as a defender of the weak?
But the disciples who lamented the extravagance must be distinguished as two groups whose motives differed as to sincerity, even if both could make use of the same argument:
1.
Judas anger, says John (Joh. 12:6), was driven by his greed. His rage is not faked, because he was really mad about losing money. Only his public reason is hypocritical. He felt personally cheated by her senseless throwing away good money that could have passed into his own grasp.
2.
The indignation of the others, however, was motivated by their sense of stewardship, perhaps also by their own forced frugality over the last years of traveling with Jesus. (Cf. Mat. 8:19; Joh. 6:12.) Those who have learned to control their own spending, often cannot tolerate to see others practice what the former consider extravagance, even for the most justifiable reasons.
To what purpose is this waste? In Marys deed they could discern only a lavish expenditure typical of conscienceless prodigality, quite uncharacteristic of godly people responsible for every penny God entrusts to them. But is whatever anyone spends for JESUS really squandered or lost? Great faith, judged by the external manifestations it motivates, may seem a waste, something extra or calculable only in terms of loss. But in terms of true stewardship, the objecting of Judas, and others like him, is exposed for the diabolical hypocrisy it was: he considered 300 denarii too much to spend for Jesus luxury, but was willing to accept just under half that amount for Jesus life (30 pieces of silver equals 120 denarii!)
Charity: the plausible argument of a short-sighted utilitarianism
Mat. 26:9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. The disciples could quickly estimate the commercial value of the perfume on the following bases: The size of the container was a Roman pound (Mat. 26:7). The container was alabaster, not ceramic. The aroma was identified to be that of an exquisite, oil-base perfume, nard perhaps? Its aroma filled the house, indicating its strength (Joh. 12:3). The rapid mental calculation of the groups business-minded treasurer, Judas, settled the price at 300 denarii (Mar. 14:5; Joh. 12:5). Figured at a denarius a day, a common day-laborer would have to work almost a year to earn wages enough just to pay for this perfume! So, is not her expensive perfume unquestionably an unjustifiable luxury in contrast to the crying needs of the poor who have no daily bread?!
The value of this perfume may not indicate anything about the affluence or prominence of Lazarus family, because it could be Marys personal sacrifice of her personal funds or life-time savings. By whatever method she earned it, she would have had to save 20 denarii a year for 15 working years to amass this sum by herself, Even if she were independently wealthy, this was still a large sum for her to pour out in one gift.
This ointment . . . sold . . . given to the poor. Judas marshalled the other disciples to criticize what they could not stop. By implication these disciples treat Mary as if she never felt any compassion for the poor. Were not the entire apostolic group and Jesus dependent on others generosity sufficiently to qualify as poor (Mat. 8:20; Mat. 27:55 f.; Luk. 8:2 f.)? Had her family never hosted these very men, meeting their needs? While they were accustomed to practical hospitality, they were shocked by her impractical extravagance. Nevertheless, as they took up Judas insincere position, the disciples understanding of the problem involves alternatives that are not mutually exclusive: either love the poor or anoint Jesus. As Jesus will imply in His answer, one can legitimately dedicate himself to His worship as well as labor sacrificially for the liberation of the needy.
John, however, redimensioned Judas slashing remark: He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief (Joh. 12:6). As treasurer of the Lords group, he received all contributions and was responsible for disbursing cash for purchases and gifts to the poor. (Cf. Joh. 13:28 ff.) But he pilfered funds held in trust. Is Farrar (Life, 496) correct to conclude that Judas formed this argument to blind himself to the baseness of his ruling passion? While certainly a hypocritical pretext, did he present himself as a champion of the poor to conceal even from himself the glaring wrongness of his greed? Lenski (Matthew, 1008) eloquently sketched the treacherousness of Judas insinuations:
He condemns not only Mary but Jesus himself. Judas implies that Jesus is robbing the poor; that he is lavishing upon himself what rightfully belongs to charity; that for his own glorification he allows a waste that is utterly wrong; that his example is harmful to others; and that Judas is the man who knows what is right, proper, charitable, and is not afraid to mention it!
This was the sort of leadership the unthinking disciples were following! Even if they were moved by sincere concern for the poor and intended to pass judgment only on Mary, they unwittingly swung behind an attack on the Lord Himself!
3. HIS GALLANT GRATITUDE FOR HER GLADDENING GRAGIOUSNESS
Mat. 26:10 But Jesus perceiving it said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. Because Judas sweeping innuendo implicates Jesus too, the Lord cannot defend Himself without appearing to condone wastefulness by accepting it. But to the surprise of everybody, He brilliantly defended Mary, while fairly weighing the truth of the disciples position and in full awareness of the poor people all about Him.
Why trouble ye the woman, as if what she has done could somehow be defined sinful? Embarrassed and stunned, Mary alone could not convincingly turn back the accusation of wastefulness. Jesus proceeds to show that she has wrought a good work upon me. Several reasons may have prompted this approach:
1.
IT WAS USEFUL SERVICE TO THE POOR. The Lord gently reveals the disciples gross misconception by explaining that she was using what was in her power to do a good work upon me. Jesus, the poor ex-carpenter from Nazareth, was now without permanent housing and living on the very contributions of which Judas was the common treasurer. (Cf. Luk. 8:12.) Edersheim (Life, II, 360) remarked compellingly:
That He, Who was ever of the poor and with them, Who for our sakes became poor, that through His poverty we might be made rich, should have to plead for a last service of love to Himself, and for Mary, and as against a Judas, seems, indeed, the depth of self-abasement.
Hence He himself was one of the very poor to whom those of greater means should do good. This, says Jesus, she has done, fulfilling the very principle defended by the disciples. Because her purpose was to prepare His body for burial (Mat. 26:12), then her goal and purpose must be judged useful, because specifically related to the exigencies of burial and its relative costs. For the actual burial Nicodemus brought 100 times the weight of Marys perfume (Joh. 19:39). The women procured and brought even more spices (Luk. 23:55 f.; Mar. 16:1). Thus, her supposed extravagance did not literally transcend the boundaries of strict economy or thrift, because burial costs were really that great. Could the disciples consistently criticize as bad stewardship what someone paid for a loved ones embalming, when they themselves would have expressed their love and loyalty to Him in a similar way? So, why should they condemn as useless waste her anticipation of Jesus approaching burial? Because they simply did not believe it would ever happen. This single critical element of unbelief distinguishes the depth of her discipleship from theirs.
2.
IT WAS UNSELFISH. In order to honor this poor Man, she had chosen to do without many luxuries which the money for this perfume would have purchased. Her deed was not merely a good work (rgon agathn) in the classical Pharisean ethic, but a higher, noble deed (rgon kain).
Lavishness is the proper expression of devotion and gratitude. No loving expenditure, however seemingly costly, is censured by our Lord, when it is motivated by unadulterated love for Him. True love does not calculate how little it can get by with, but wants to pour out its resources to the limit. How can we consider ourselves lovers of God and Christ, so long as we consider it perfectly respectable to donate to His cause the minimum amount possible before appearing miserly?
The true worth of a gift must be evaluated by its motivation hidden in the soul of the giver. As in Marys case, only Jesus can discern this with unfailing precision. Ironically, Judas avarice passed for prudent concern for the needy, while Marys generous devotion was judged wasteful. We cannot now anoint His physical body, but we can pour out generous love on His Body, the Church, and care for His poor brethren (Mat. 25:35 ff.; Gal. 6:10).
3.
IT WAS DEVOTION TO CHRIST. She knew that Jesus was no mere poor, itinerate rabbi, but the Christ of God! Can what is done for such a Person out of devotion to God ever be anything but good work?
4.
IT WAS THE INTELLIGENT EXPRESSION OF A FAITH THAT PLANNED. (See on Mat. 26:12.) Prudence and common sense are also Gods gifts to us, lest we neglect other duties to Him and His people by an extravagance at one point that impoverishes others whom we are called to serve. While Marys tender lavishness strikes a responsive chord in our hearts, it must not justify thoughtless excesses on our part that do not show the same intelligent foresight and planning she did. In fact, Jesus praised her intelligent faith in His predictions of His death and her determination to do what was in her power to act on them. It is a serious misreading of His words to see her gift as prompted by an unseeing emotion that reacted unthinkingly on this impulse alone.
5.
THE DECISION WAS RIGHTLY HERS ALONE. Marys was the privilege to dispose of her own property as she deemed right and proper under God, without answering to men. The disciples criticism implied their right of judgment, as if the property were theirs to use in ways they deemed more practical and prudent. But Jesus does not back down, require Mary to undo her deed, or apologize. Rather, He defended her freedom to dispose of her own property in a manner consonant with her discipleship. By pointing to an appropriateness they had not seen heretofore, He informed their ignorance and defended her liberty.
Jesus treatment of the disciples scruple becomes a masterful demonstration of how to deal with opinions today. (Cf. Rom. 14:1 to Rom. 15:7; 1 Corinthians 6-10.) Although they cited an unexceptionable Scriptural principle, neighborly love for the poor, they applied it in such a way as to contravene another principle, the right of private property (Act. 5:4; implied in Deu. 23:23). Further, the disciples had argued against her apparent violation of the rule of utility or expedience. (Cf. 1Co. 6:12; 1Co. 10:23 f.)
Therefore, the dichotomy between the useful and the beautiful can be a false dilemma, because a deed of loving adoration like Marys can be both. How should we apply His dictum? Is extravagance ever right? The lavishness of Christian love is sanctioned not only by Jesus express approval of Marys generosity, but also by His own marvelous example, the fact to which her act pointed, for my burial. Consider His own deliberate waste of love which He was about to pour out on Calvary:
1.
He considered His death absolutely useful, directed to a practical end, but, at the same time, it was the expression of a love that must act lest its heart burst.
2.
Similarly, there is extravagance in lavishing His love on us through His death, because not everyone for whom He died would even appreciate it. He gave a sacrifice sufficient to save the race, fully knowing that few would accept it. His gift is extravagant because none of us could ever deserve it. What others might term wasteful, in our gratitude we call magnificence.
3.
We may confidently transcend the considerations of our usual produce:
a.
By spending lavishly, even emotionally, on Jesus, completely overwhelmed by the lordly generosity of His love.
b.
This means unstinting, unselfish liberality to others. By freely squandering our love on the unthankful, the undeserving and the unlovable, we imitate Jesus Himself.
c.
The kind of self-sacrificing liberality here promoted is that unsparing big-heartedness that gives, even sometimes going beyond what could be considered strictly necessary, and a prodigality that almost demands that it be restrained by those responsible to organize it. (Cf. Exo. 35:4 f; Exo. 36:3-7; Act. 4:32-37; 2Co. 8:1-4; Php. 4:10.)
TO EVERY DUTY ITS TIME AND PLACE
Mat. 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. Granted, this is addressed to the objecting disciples, but is there an allusion to the specific duty of the thieving Judas, who, as treasurer of the common fund, must disburse funds to the poor, but robbed them himself? Jesus statement implies, You can help them any time you want (Mar. 14:7). That Mary has given so generously to me now does not mean she cannot be kind also to the poor on other occasions. Particularly lavish generosity to special friends once in awhile and a consistent, thoughtful meeting of the needs of the poor are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
You have the poor always with you. How carefully and deliberately He avoids rejecting the disciples principle. Rather, He supports them in believing it! His own deeply felt concern for both the spiritual and physical needs of the poor was above question. He had expressed it in formal lessons and in His own practice (Mat. 5:7; Mat. 5:42; Mat. 6:2 ff.; Mat. 19:21; Luk. 6:20 f., Luk. 6:30; Luk. 6:38; Luk. 21:1-4; Joh. 13:29). It was a fundamental theme of His whole ministry (Luk. 4:18; Mat. 11:5). His doctrine embodied all that God had said about His own love for the poor (Deu. 15:11 in context! Psa. 41:1; Pro. 14:20 f., Pro. 14:31; Pro. 19:17; Pro. 29:7; Isa. 58:1-7; Jer. 22:16; Dan. 4:27; Amo. 2:6 f; Amo. 4:1; Amo. 5:11; Amo. 8:4; Amo. 8:6). Jesus attitude encouraged people to believe that God is keenly interested in those who watch over the poor (Mat. 25:34-40). His later New Testament doctrine is no less explicit (Act. 2:44 f; Act. 4:32 f; Act. 11:27-30; Rom. 12:8; Rom. 12:13; Rom. 12:16; Rom. 12:20; 2Co. 8:9; Gal. 2:10; Gal. 6:2; Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:28; 1Ti. 6:18; Heb. 6:10; Heb. 13:1 ff.; Jas. 1:27; Jas. 2:5; Jas. 2:15 f.; Jas. 5:1 ff.; 1Jn. 3:17 f.; 3Jn. 1:5-8). His identification with the poor and concern for them should forever dispel any suspicion of neglect on His part.
Nonetheless, Jesus is an intensely practical realist, fully aware of all human differences that contribute to ones ability to obtain and retain wealth. He is no visionary that dreams of the day when every trace of poverty should be wiped from the earth. He is not guilty of that oversimplification that preaches a communistic economic equality. He knows that all men are not equal. He is perfectly aware of the inequalities of position and opportunity, the fluctuations of health, the many variables in intelligence, ability and personal aggressiveness. So, because He comprehended that these inequalities are often immutable ingredients of the human condition, with these words He committed the care of the poor to His own people. He knew by experience the happiness poor people feel from receiving needed help (Luk. 8:1-3), and the even more special joy of Christians who share it in His name (Act. 20:35).
It has always been the spiritual descendants, not of Judas, but of Mary, who have truly cared for the poor. Where Jesus Christ is lovingly adored, truly believed and obeyed, the poor are best cared for. Really, nothing poured out in honor of Jesus can ever be called a waste. In fact, in a general sense, everything that truly promotes the progress of His Kingdom according to His criteria brings with it a deeper concern for the poor, a more practical interest in the Third-World peoples, a broader grasp of our common, interrelated human brotherhood.
It is against this background that one can understand Jesus tenderly sad observation. But me ye have not always (cf. Mat. 9:15). While normally appropriate to avoid luxury for self so as to be able to assist the poor, Jesus pleads the extraordinariness of the present circumstances as justification for Marys seeming wastefulness. Death makes extraordinary demands that set aside common everyday rules. The moment of His own death was fast approaching. If anyone were to prepare His body for burial while He was still able to appreciate the beauty and nobleness of such love, the time was now or never. Me you have not always: how completely understated! These disciples had only a few days left to show their devotion to Jesus before this privilege would be gone forever. But they were blinded, precisely because they sincerely, however, wrongly believed they would have Him always. Unique opportunities to do good pass away, and must be taken when the situation presents itself, when the impulse, the time, the people and the circumstances are ours. The moment must be seized, lest that chance of a lifetime be mistaken for something that could be done anytime, and be forever and tragically lost. In fact, Marys was the only anointing Jesus received. The other women brought their anointing spices to an empty tomb. The time to do this while Jesus could appreciate it came and went.
4. THE GLORY OF A GENUINE GRASP OF THE GIST OF THE GOSPEL
Mat. 26:12 For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Normally, for burial a great quantity of spices and ointments would be needed (2Ch. 16:14; Joh. 19:39; Luk. 23:56; Mar. 16:1). Nicodemus alone brought 100 Roman pounds worth (= 32.74 kg or 71.9 lb.). Although Mary had literally anointed only Jesus head and feet, He accepted her intention as if she had anointed His entire body.
The fact that Mary did not announce the motive behind her act has been interpreted by some as if she could not have intended such a solemn purpose. Consequently, skeptics assert either than Jesus gratuitously attributed this (false) motive to her, or else the Evangelists simply invented this pious, but false, attribution. How strangely inconsistent or wilfully blind are those critics who are so ready to confuse the anointing in Luk. 7:36-50 with Marys act as two contradictory accounts of the same event, but do not see that Jesus could discern Marys true purpose just as clearly as He read the heart of Simon the Pharisee (Luk. 7:39 f.)!
Others, to avoid this irreverence, suggest alternate explanations:
1.
Jesus spoke only of the effect of the womans act, not her conscious purpose. . . . She meant nothing but to show her love (Bruce, Expositors Greek Testament, 309). This explanation is plausible, since the Semitic idiom often ignores Greek nuances and substitutes purpose for result. (Cf. Blass-Debrunner, 391, 402(5); also Arndt-Gingrich, 378.)
2.
Is it possible that Jesus magnanimously attributed to her a motive she did not dream, but would have embraced, had she thought of it? Is it not true that a goodly amount of our service given out of pure devotion to Christ possesses a value that goes beyond our comprehension?
Only clear testimony of Scripture can prove that Mary did not understand nor consciously intend her deed as Jesus declares it. Argument alone is incapable of establishing the contrary. Only her embarrassed demurring could do this. But the Gospel is silent, leaving only Jesus unequivocal testimony standing. Apparently, Jesus simply read her thoughts, stated them and that settles it.
MARY BELIEVES ME!
In Mary the Lord has found at least one disciple who really understood Him. She had willingly let Him be the Teacher to say whatever He wanted to, even if it contradicted popular philosophy and traditions and even defied her own logic, desires and emotions. In short, her discipleship is real and profound. She believes unquestioningly that Jesus really means what He has been saying all along about His impending death. She could grasp the unmistakable conclusion that Jesus predictions must mean that He would not defend Himself by supernatural means. So she perceived that He is going straight to the cross and that, when His bitter archenemies had Him under their power, she might never be able to approach to prepare His body properly for entombment. Therefore, she planned ahead (she took beforehand, Mar. 14:8 prolabon murisai means that she used foresight. Prematureness has nothing to do with it.) She bought the perfume and kept it for the day of my burial (Joh. 12:7). Now, therefore, seeing the opportunity she ardently desired would come, she made her move decisively. No wonder Jesus thinks her noble act worthy of a Gospel memorial!
Mary, the model of faith that comes by hearing the word of Christ
Mat. 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. This is the only occasion Jesus ever raised a monument to any specific human being. But it is not an eternal memorial to a bottle of perfume, but to a genuine faith that acts intelligently while the opportunity to serve God is ours. It would never occur to a Judas that, were Jesus to remain a dead Messiah nicely embalmed with Marys ointments, this gospel never would be preached in the whole world! Jesus prediction must be dismissed as the illogical vagaries of a dreamer, unless, despite His death and burial, He could rise again and infuse into His followers that courage to preach which only His triumph over death can give. It simply escaped Judas that, in the midst of all this morbid talk about suffering and death, Jesus uttered this stupendous prediction: This gospel shall be preached in the whole world! (Cf. Mat. 24:14; Mar. 13:10.) Even if the betrayer actually heard it, in his unbelief, he discounted Jesus certainty of victory. And yet, Jesus declaration is not simply the prophets foresight. It rings more like the proclamation of a Monarch. Unlike any earthly potentate, this King decrees her glory, while He Himself is under the death sentence. There is a bold irony that gives character to His words:
1.
Christs promise of immortal renown to Mary boldly reveals His own self-awareness, as He consciously stood in the shadow of His own cross. His bold prediction could never be automatically self-fulfilling without resurrection. But this Man was not just another human. McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 224) taught:
His divine foreknowledge is demonstrated by the literal fulfillment of his prediction, and as the knowledge of this incident reaches forward into coming ages and spreads abroad still farther in the earth, the demonstration becomes continually more surprising.
2.
He who presents Himself to Israel for consideration as Messiah is no local Christ, interested exclusively in the narrow concerns of one people. Despite His own self-limited mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mat. 15:24; Mat. 10:6; Mat. 10:23), He always looked beyond these horizons to the regions beyond. (See Special Study, Gentiles, at the conclusion of this volume.)
3.
What is to be preached in the whole world shall include her anointing Him for burial, and He dares call this good news (this gospel)? But burial includes the atoning death of matchless life, hence summarizes His sacrificial suffering for humanity.
4.
If Mary realistically faced the fact of the cross, even more so does Jesus! He has freely walked to Jerusalem to face those who hate Him bitterly. His exhortation to the Apostles on their early mission, Do not fear those who can kill the body, but cannot destroy the soul (Mat. 10:28), is not to be tested in the crucible of Jesus own personal experience.
5.
Whereas, Judas and the others, so far from heralding this deed, would have strangled it aborning, Jesus considers this absurdly wasteful act so characteristic of the spirit of the true Christian that to proclaim His message demands its exemplification by reference to what Mary of Bethany did!
But in what sense(s) must Marys noble act serve as a memorial of her, inciting to its imitation everyone who reflects on it? Perhaps the fact that Jesus did not specify how this is to work was intended to push us to ponder, lest we brush aside its less obvious, but essential significance. In every part of this story what is as obvious as the aroma of her perfume, is her love. But this is not expressly indicated as a model for us. We do not love Jesus just because Mary did. We love Him, alone because of what He means to us personally. Some of the same reasons that drew her to Him draw us too. So, what should her example mean to us?
1.
HER FAITH UNDERSTOOD. By faith she was enabled to share in the fellowship of His sufferings (Php. 3:10). By believing what He predicted, she actually grasped understandingly and shared sympathetically what He was going through. Hence, she points to that sympathy of mind whereby we follow in His steps (1Pe. 2:20-25).
2.
HER FAITH IS A MODEL OF GREAT INITIATIVE DESPITE WEAKNESS. Weak, feeble, really unavailing to avert the imminent tragedy of Jesus death, this disciple did what she could. She showed great initiative by taking creative steps that were unthinkable even to Jesus closest disciples who had deliberately blindfolded themselves to the reality of His impending death. Faith freed her from this prejudice, empowered her to take decisive steps to express her love while there was time, even if what she believed about Jesus future was emotionally crushing. She simply dared to believe Him and took the initiative in harmony with what He said. Faith is envisioning what the Lord says He intends to do in a given situation and doing, in harmony with His Word, what lies in our feeble power, even if our weak efforts seem unavailing. (Remember Luk. 21:1-4!)
3.
HER FAITH WAS BOLD. Her courage braved the potential criticism of others and risked rejection, even by Jesus Himself. After all, she probably did not discuss this move with Him to get His approval beforehand. Sometimes, as in her case, it is utterly impossible for us to defend the rightness of our actions to the satisfaction of everyones doubts. Sometimes our good actions do not speak for themselves, because our true motive remains impossible to prove. Our only consolation lies in our confidence in His love and in believing that our Lord approved our endeavor to do His will. This bold discipleship is what it means to express our real commitments before men (Mat. 10:32).
4.
HER FAITH WAS UNCALCULATING. When she first began, her act was rejected as senseless waste and esteemed by no one present but Jesus. Who could have imagined the undying glory that would surround her uncomplicated, adoring act? Yet, without planning it, she did something simple that was destined to guarantee her immortal fame. This is but a live case that concretely illustrates the high estimate our Lord places on loving service, however humble. (See note on Mat. 25:35-40.)
5.
HER FAITH WAS CREATIVE. Her detractors rebuke revealed their own slavery to traditionally recognized forms and mechanisms of social redemption. Her grasp of Jesus message and spirit permitted her to appreciate her own broad freedom of action. No express command or approved precedent guided her decision. She simply believed His death-predictions and invented an unheard-of, scandalizing way to externalize her loving devotion for Him and her faith in His revelations. And He approved it. Dare we act this way in relation to our worship offered the same Lord who promotes her example? Do we have this same freedom in our faith? (Cf. How to Avoid Becoming a Pharisee, my Vol. III, 375ff.)
These considerations invite us to believe Him implicitly, love Him devotedly and do whatever we can while the opportunity is ours. May our faith drive us to passionate, generous self-giving, not caring how many know what we think about Jesus! In our feeble, fumbling efforts, we too shall not be able to do much for Jesus, but let it be said of our discipleship, They did what they could!
FACT QUESTIONS
1.
Who was Simon the leper? Where was his house? According to John, who else was present at his house?
2.
When, exactly, was Jesus in Bethany for the event described here? Which Gospel writer positively dates this event chronologically? Where? On the basis of what facts can this date be known?
3.
Name the woman who anointed Jesus head and feet.
4.
List the differences between this anointing and the one that is recorded by Luk. 7:36-50.
5.
Of what was the perfume container made? How does this detail add to the cost of the ointment? How much ointment did it hold, according to John?
6.
What kind of ointment was used? On what basis could its value be estimated? According to John, how much was it worth? How much would it be worth today?
7.
Describe the disciples reaction to the anointing: what was their judgment and on what principle was it based?
8.
According to John, who led in the criticism? Reconcile this with the other Gospel statements about who complained.
9.
Show how Jesus used the disciples own argument against them and, at the same time, defended the woman.
10.
In what two ways was this anointing a good work?
11.
What did Jesus mean by You will not always have me?
12.
What motive did Jesus say was in the womans mind when she anointed Him? In what sense was this anointing for that specific purpose?
13.
Where else had Jesus spoken before of the world-wide proclamation of the Gospel? (book and chapter)
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(6) Now when Jesus was in Bethany.The narrative is given out of its proper order on account of its connection (as indicated in St. Johns record) with the act of the Traitor. St. John fixes it (Joh. 12:1) at six days before the Passover, i.e., on the evening that preceded the entry into Jerusalem. It was, therefore, a feast such as Jews were wont to hold at the close of the Sabbath.
In the house of Simon the leper.Of the man so described we know nothing beyond the fact thus mentioned. It is not likely, had he been a leper at the time, that men would have gathered to a feast at his house, and it is natural to infer that our Lord had healed him, but that the name still adhered to him to distinguish him from other Simons. We learn from St. John (Joh. 12:2) that Lazarus was there, and that Martha, true to her character, was busy serving. The Twelve were also there, and probably many others. The incident that follows is narrated by all the Evangelists except St. Luke, who may either not have heard it from his informants, or, if he had heard it, may have passed it over as having already recorded a fact of like character (Luk. 7:37-40).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Tuesday Night.
ANOINTING OF JESUS, AND INDIGNATION OF JUDAS AND THE DISCIPLES, Mat 26:6-16.
6. Simon the leper Who had been cured by the Saviour. He lived at Bethany, and was neighbour, perhaps relative, of the family of Lazarus and Mary. John informs us that at this feast Lazarus was present. So our Lord, probably, sat between the man he had cured of the most terrible of diseases, and the man whom he had raised from the dead. And as Lazarus was present, (Joh 12:1-9,) so his sister Martha served, and Mary was the woman who anointed the Saviour. All this indicates that the friends of Jesus combined to give him a feast at Simon’s house. John and Matthew no doubt relate the same transaction. The manner in which both are blended into one by Mark places this beyond all question.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,’
It would appear probable that Jesus and His disciples had been invited to Simon’s house for a meal. Quite probably Simon had been healed of leprosy by Jesus, and his name may well be mentioned as a reminder that as the Coming One Jesus heals the lepers, as is evidenced here by Simon, the one time leper (Mat 11:5), for Matthew is usually sparing with names. Bethany was also where Mary and Martha, with their brother Lazarus, lived, and Joh 12:3 in fact tells us that the woman who did this was Mary, and that Martha was in fact assisting by serving at table. Simon’s wife would be delighted to have help when feeding such a large party, and it would be typical of Martha to volunteer. Or it may be that Simon was the father of Martha, Mary and Lazarus. But Matthew does not want to take attention away from Jesus, and so he only mentions the former leper. Jesus and His disciples were probably in fact encamped nearby on the Mount of Olives. They had all come together for this meal.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
In The Face Of Their Uncertainty God Arranges For Jesus To Be Anointed For His Burial As His Plan Goes Smoothly Forward (26:6-13).
Meanwhile attention turns back on Jesus and His disciples. They had been invited for a meal at the house of Simon the Leper in Bethany, a village on the lower slopes of the Mount of Olives. And as they were there a woman came into Simon’s house and poured expensive perfumed oil on His head (and on His body – Mat 26:12; Joh 11:2 adds, and also on His feet). For her it was probably an act of love and gratitude, made with a desire to honour Him and pay homage to Him, although possibly also including a recognition that soon He would no longer be with them. But Jesus saw further, and saw it as His Father arranging for Him to be anointed in preparation for His burial. To Him it was a visible assurance that His Father was with Him. The incident is described here by Matthew because it ties it in closely with the Passion narrative, and fits well into Matthew’s pattern, but chronologically it was probably some days earlier as depicted in John’s Gospel. Ancient writings tended to be topical rather than chronological.
Comparison with Luk 7:36-50, which is superficially similar, reveals so many differences that it is quite clear that they are different incidents, although the one may have had unconscious influence on the wording of the other as it passed on in the tradition.
Analysis.
a
b But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “To what purpose is this waste? For this perfumed oil might have been sold for much, and given to the poor” (Mat 26:8-9).
c But Jesus perceiving it said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? for she has wrought a good work on Me. For you have the poor always with you, but Me you do not always have” (Mat 26:10-11).
b “For in that she poured this perfumed oil on My body, she did it to prepare Me for burial” (Mat 26:12).
a “Truly I say to you, Wherever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, what this woman has also done will be spoken of for a memorial of her” (Mat 26:13).
Note that in ‘a’ we have the service that she performed and in the parallel the assurance that it would ever be remembered. In ‘b’ the disciples state what could have been done with the perfumed oil, in the parallel Jesus states what has really been done with it. Centrally in ‘c’ Jesus stresses the good work that she had done on Him.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The anointing in Bethany:
v. 6. Now, when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
v. 7. there came unto Him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on His head as He sat at meat.
v. 8. But when His disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
v. 9. For this ointment might have been sold for much and given to the poor. In order to complete his narrative, Matthew here relates a happening of the previous Saturday, Joh 12:1-8. When Christ came up to Bethany from Jericho, He took dinner with one Simon, otherwise unknown, who had formerly been a leper and had probably been healed by Jesus. According to one tradition, he was the father of Lazarus; according to others, the husband of Martha. While the dinner was in progress, and the guests, after the Oriental fashion, were reclining about the table, Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha, came into the room. In her hand she held an alabaster box of most costly ointment of spikenard, which she proceeded to pour out over the head of Jesus as He reclined at meat. Anointing with oil was the Old Testament method of denoting consecration to the Lord. It was used in the case of kings, priests, and prophets, Lev 8:12; 1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 16:13; 1Ki 19:16. It was also a distinction bestowed upon the guests of honor, Luk 7:46. Mary was not at all saving in her ministrations. She broke off the head of the alabaster flask, just as she had purchased it, and recklessly, lavishly, applied the precious aromatic, so that the whole room was filled with its odor. All of the disciples were taken aback and annoyed, muttering, Why this waste? But one of them, Judas, the treasurer of the apostles, who was a thief, was loudest in his objections. The nard, he indignantly remarks, might have been sold for much, possibly for three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor. But his show of charity only served as a cloak for his covetousness. The money being in his care, it would be an easy matter to obtain some of it for his own uses.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 26:6-7. Now when Jesus was in Bethany Or, Now Jesus being in Bethany. It is not to be thought that Simon was now a leper; for in this case he would not have been suffered to live in a town, nor would the Jews have come to an entertainment at his house; but either he was once a leper, and had been cured by Jesus, or else the name was given to the family, as some considerable person in it had formerly been a leper. The boxes here spoken of were called only alabasters, not because they were all made of alabaster, for there was some glass; but the greatest part of them were of a kind of alabaster called onyx, and made in the shape of a pyramid. It was customary among the ancients to regale their guests at entertainments with perfumes, odours, and chaplets of flowers, in token of respect; odoriferous balsams, gums, &c. were likewise used by the Jews and Egyptians to embalm their dead. Instead of, very precious ointment, some would render the Greek, odoriferous balsam of great price. See Mar 14:3.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 26:6 ff. This anointing , which is also recorded in Mar 14:3 ff. (followed by Matthew), is not the same as that of Luk 7:36 ff., but is so essentially different from it, not only as to the time, place, circumstances, and person, but as to the whole historical and ethical connection and import, that even the peculiar character of the incident is not sufficient to warrant the assumption that each case is but another version of one and the same story (in opposition to Chrysostom, Grotius, Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk . p. 110 ff.; Strauss, Weisse, Hug, Ewald, Bleek, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Schenkel, Keim). This, however, is not a different incident (in opposition to Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Osiander, Lightfoot, Wolf) from that recorded in Joh 12:1 ff. [23] The deviations in John’s account of the affair to the effect that the anointing took place not two, but six days before the feast; that Martha was the entertainer, no mention being made of Simon; that it was not the head, but the feet of Jesus that were anointed; and that the carping about extravagance is specially ascribed to Judas are not to be disposed of by arbitrarily assuming that the accounts of the different evangelists were intended to supplement each other (Ebrard, Wichelhaus, Lange), but are to be taken as justifying the inference that in John alone (not in Matthew and Mark) we have the narrative of an eye-witness. The incident, as given in Matthew and Mark, appears to be an episode taken from a tradition which had lost its freshness and purity, and inserted without exact historical connection, although, on the whole, in its right order, if with less regard to precision as to the time of its occurrence. Hence the loose place it occupies in the pragmatism of the passage, from which one might imagine it removed altogether, without the connection being injured in the slightest degree. The tradition on which the narrative of Matthew and Mark is based had evidently suffered in its purity from getting mixed up with certain disturbing elements from the first version of the story of the anointing in Luk 7 , among which elements we may include the statement that the name of the entertainer was Simon.
[23] On the controversy in which Faber Stapul. has been involved in consequence of his theory that Jesus had been anointed by three different Marys, see Graf in Niedner’s Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol . 1852, I. p. 54 ff. This distinguishing of three Marys (which was also adopted by so early an expositor as Euthymius Zigabenus, and by , to whom Theophylact refers) is, in fact, rather too much at variance with the tradition that the sister of Lazarus is identical with the woman who was a sinner, Luk 7 , and was no other than Mary Magdalene. Yet in none of the three accounts of anointing is this latter to be understood as the Mary referred to.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Mat 26:6 . . ] i.e. having come to Bethany, 2Ti 1:17 ; Joh 6:25 , and frequently in classical writers; comp. on Phi 2:7 . To remove this visit back to a point of time previous to that indicated at Mat 26:2 , with the effect of simply destroying the sequence (Ebrard, Lange), is to do such harmonistic violence to the order observed in Matthew and Mark as the of Mat 26:14 should have been sufficient to avert.
] In a way no less unwarrantable has the person here referred to (a person who had formerly been a leper, and who, after his healing, effected probably by Jesus, had continued to be known by this epithet) been associated with the family of Bethany; he has been supposed to have been the deceased father of this family (Theophylact, Ewald, Gesch. Chr . p. 481), or some other relative or friend (Grotius, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Lange, Bleek), or the owner of the house. Of the person who, according to Matthew and Mark, provided this entertainment, nothing further is known; whereas, according to John, the entertainment was given by the family of which Lazarus was a member; the latter is the correct view, the former is based upon the similar incident recorded in Luk 7 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
SECOND SECTION
THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY
26:616
(Mar 14:3-11; Luk 22:3-6; Joh 12:1-8)
6Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper [four days previous, on Saturday], 7There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat [reclined at table, ] 8But when his [the]21 disciples saw it, they had indignation [were indignant, or displeased, , saying, To what purpose is this waste? 9For this ointment22 might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. 10When Jesus understood it, he [And Jesus knowing it, .] said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. 11For ye have the poor [the poor ye have, always with you; but me ye have not always. 12For in that she hath poured [in pouring, ] this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial 13[for my embalmment, or to prepare for my burial, ]. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done [this also that she hath done, ], be told for a memorial of her. 14Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, 15went unto the chief priests, And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for [promised him]23 thirty pieces16[shekels] of silver.24 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Mat 26:6. Now, when Jesus was in Bethany, or lit.: And Jesus being in B.On the Saturday before [six days before the Passover nee Joh 12:1]. Meyer, indeed, thinks that to remove this abode of Jesus at Bethany before the note of time, Mat 26:2, is a device of the Harmonists, from which the of Mat 26:14 should have deterred them. Certainly that would be true if this were found in Mat 26:6. But the in Mat 26:14 manifestly refers to the previous anointing. A similar retrogression to an earlier event may be found in Mat 14:3; as an anticipation in Mat 27:7, where Meyer himself is obliged to give up the external succession.25
Of Simon the leper.Probably Jesus had healed this Simon of his leprosy. He dwelt in Bethany. It is natural to suppose that he had made Jesus a feast in gratitude. According to a tradition in Nicephor. Hist. Eccl. i .27, he was the father of Lazarus; according to others, he was the husband of Martha, or Martha his widow. All this is very uncertain; but it is not an arbitrary supposition, that he was in some way related to the family of Lazarus.
Mat 26:7. There came to Him a woman.This anointing, which Mark also (Mat 14:3) relates, is not that recorded in Luk 7:36 sqq.; it is so essentially distinguished from the latter in time, place, circumstances, person, as also in its whole historical and ethical connections and bearings, that we are not warranted even by the peculiarity of the event to assume different aspects of one transaction (against Chrysostom, Grotius, Schleiermacher, Strauss, Weisse, Ewald). See Calov. Bibl. Illustr. But it is not different from that which is recorded in Joh 12:1 (against Origen, Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Osiander, Lightfoot, Wolf, etc.). Meyer. Similarly de Wette; who, however, gives some supposed deviations in the two accounts. 1. According to John, the anointing took place six days before the Passover; according to Matthew, two days. This has been set aside. 2. According to Matthew and Mark, the meal was in the house of Simon; according to John, in the house of Lazarus. But the expression, they made Him a feast, is not necessarily to be referred to the family of Lazarus; certainly not to be limited to them. It is possible that all the believers in Bethany gave Him this feast.; and the fact that Lazarus was among the guests to the Lords honor, that Martha waited upon Him, and Mary anointed Him, conclude nothing against the place being Simons house; especially as we know nothing of the near connection between the family of Lazarus and Simon. [Both families may have occupied the same house, especially if they were related, according to the ancient tradition; or, Simon may have been the owner, Lazarus the tenant, of the house.P. S.] 3. According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus was anointed on the head; according to John, on the feet. But according to Mat 26:12, the body of Jesus generally was anointed. The connection shows why John makes prominent the anointing of the feet. 4. In the Synoptists, the disciples express their displeasure; in John, Judas Iscariot. But Matthew, Mat 26:14, intimates that Judas was the instigator of the murmuring, and carried the mass of the disciples with him. And for John, the glance at the traitor was the main point. According to Augustine and others, Judas might have made the remark, and the rest harmlessly consented. Meyer supposes that the original account, as given by John, had been disturbed in the Synoptists through blending it with that of Luke 7; and that hence the name of Simon, the host, was obtained. An arbitrary assumption; since the name of Simon was very common, and the related features might have been repeated very naturally through their inner significance.
A woman.John calls her Mary, the well-known, whose noble character he had drawn before in Matthew 11; see also Luk 10:39.
Having an alabaster-box.More precise statement in Joh 12:3. Anointing with oil was a primitive custom of consecration, Gen 28:18. It was then used for the ritual consecration of priests, Lev 8:12; of kings, 1Sa 10:1; Mat 16:13; occasionally also of prophets, 1Ki 19:16. By anointing was the Old Testament David marked out as the Mashiach, as also his sons; and especially the ideal David, the Saviour, Psa 2:2. But the anointing was interpreted of the fulness of the Spirit, Isa 11:2; Isaiah 61; Heb 1:9, after Psa 45:7-8. The anointing of the head was also a distinction which was conferred upon the guest of honor, Luk 7:46,not only among the Jews, but generally in the East and among the ancients: Plato, De Republ. 3 See Grotius in Matt. p. 501. In connection with the anointing of the head, was the washing of the feet with water. Thus it was an elevation of the custom to the highest point of honor, when the head and the feet were alike anointed with oil. Thus the anointing of the feet in Luke 7 was not simply dictated by the womans prostration and humility: Jesus was on His journey, and the anointing of the feet was therefore primarily mentioned. And in Johns account also, the fact that Jesus came as a traveller to Bethany will account for his giving special prominence to the anointing of the feet. But Matthew leaves this circumstance unnoticed. De Wette: A whole pound of ointment (she had so much, according to John), poured out at once upon the head, would have been improper; probably it was easier for Mary to approach His feet than His head. Friedlieb supposes that the litra (pound) here mentioned, was the ancient and genuine litra of the Sicilian-Greek system, about 7/20 of a Cologne pound. We learn from Mark, Mat 26:3, that she broke the alabaster-flask at the top, in order to pour out the ointment. The ointment of nard was highly esteemed in antiquity as a precious aromatic, and a costly luxury, Plinius, 12:26. It was brought chiefly from Asia Minor in little alabaster flasks; and the best were to be had in Tarsus. Yet the plant grew in Southern India. See Winer, sub Narde. The best was very high in price.
Mat 26:8. They became indignant.According to John, Judas expressed this displeasure; according to Mark, some of them were indignant within themselves; according to Matthew, the body of the disciples. Matthew is wont to generalize; but his words here mean only, that the disciples collectively were led astray by the hypocritical word of Judas: symptoms of murmuring appeared in many.
To what purpose is this waste? , wasting. The active meaning must be held fast. It marks the supposed useless squandering of a costly possession. Meyer, however, takes the sense passively: loss.
Mat 26:9. Sold for much.Pliny says that a pound of this ointment cost more than four hundred denarii. [A denry, or penny in the English Version, is about 15 American cents. See note, p. 352.] Mark mentions that three hundred was the amount specified by the murmuring disciples: about equal to 65 2/3 Prussian dollars [about 45].
And given to the poor.The money realized from the sale of the ointment. John gives the explanation, that Judas had the bag (as manager of the common exchequer), and was a thief in the management of it. The money, he takes for granted, should have gone into his bag. Under the present circumstances, with a mind darkened by desperation as to the cause of Christ, which he had begun now to renounce, he might perhaps have deserted with the bag.
Mat 26:10. But when Jesus saw itThat is, the secret ungracious murmuring; for none durst speak aloud save Judas.
Why trouble ye the woman, ,inflict not upon her any burden or disquietude by confusing her conscience, by disturbing her love, or by disparaging her noble act of sacrifice.
For she hath wrought a good work.Literally, a beautiful work, marking its moral propriety and grace. Meyer: The disciples turned away from the moral quality to the expediency of the question. Rather, they measured moral quality by practical utility, Judas doing so as a mere hypocrite. But Jesus estimated moral quality according to the principle of believing and active love from which the act sprang.
Mat 26:11. Me ye have not always.Not simply a sorrowful litotes, to signify His speedy departure through death; but also intended to impress the unexampled significance of the occasion. Only once in the whole course of history could this particular act of reverence occur, which, humanly speaking, cheered and animated the Lord before His passion. This hour was a fleeting, heavenly opportunity which could never return; while the care of the poor would be a daily duty to humanity down to the end of time. But, at the same time, there is a general reference to the contrast between festal offerings and every day offerings. Only on certain special occasions may Christ be anointed; but we may always do good to the poor.
Mat 26:12. She hath poured out this ointment.She poured it all out, as desirous to offer the last drop. And she thereby expressed an unconscious presentiment which the Lord now interprets.
She did it for My burial [lit.: to prepare Me for burial, to embalm Me.]She hath anointed and embalmed for solemn burial My body, as if it were already a corpse. The Lord gives this significance to the occasion, on account of the prophecy of his death contained in the traitors temper: He would intimate all to Judas, and at the same time humble the disciples. The woman was not, in her act, conscious of all this inducement; but she had some presentiment which made her act as if she thought, We have come to the end; hereafter there will be no need of anointing.
Mat 26:13. This gospel.The tidings of salvation, with special reference to the death of Jesus.
Shall be told for a memorial of her.Promise of a permanent justification and distinction for this eminent woman, which has been in the most glowing manner fulfilled. [Even now, while we write or read these lines, we fulfil the Saviours prophecy. Alford well observes on this, the only case in which our Lord has made such a promise: We cannot but be struck with the majesty of this prophetic announcement: introduced with the peculiar and weighty ,conveying, by implication, the whole mystery of the which should go forth from His death as its source,looking forward to the end of time, when it shall have been preached in the whole world,and specifying the fact that this deed should be recorded wherever it is preached. He sees in this announcement a distinct prophetic recognition of the existence of written gospel records by means of which alone the deed related could be universally proclaimed.P. S.]
Mat 26:14. Then one of the twelve went.Now did the secret of the murmuring of the disciples disclose itself, as if an old sore in the sacred circle had broken open. The woman with her ointment has hastened the healing crisis. As the obduracy of the Jews was developed at the great feasts when Jesus visited them, so the hardening of Judas was completed at the feasts where Jesus was the centre.. Meyer, unsatisfactorily, says: After this meal; but not because he was aggrieved by Jesus saying, which, in its tenderness of sorrow, was not calculated to wound him. The answer of the Lord approved the act of the woman, punished the complaint of Judas, sealed and confirmed the prospect of His death: all this was enough for the exasperated confusion of Judas mind. He now began to dally with the thought of treachery (compare Schillers Wallenstein), when he went over the Mount of Olives (probably the same evening) to Jerusalem, and asked a question of the enemies of Jesus which should clear up matters. But after the paschal supper the thought began to dally with him; for Satan entered into his soul (Joh 13:27). Meyer, de Wette, and Strauss, are unable to see this progress in the development of evil, and hence find here contradictions. Meyer thinks that Luk 22:3 more particularly is in conflict with John upon this point; though Joh 6:70, compared with John 13, has more the semblance of contradiction. But it must be remembered that the expression Satan entered into him, may be used in a larger and in a more limited sense.
Mat 26:15. But they promised [or: secured] to him.Meyer: They weighed out to him, after the old custom. There had been in the land a coined shekel since the time of Simeon (143 B. C.); but weighing seems to have still been customary in the temple treasury. At any rate, we are not authorized to make signify simply: they paid … The explanation of others, they made secure to him., or promised (Theophylact, Grotius, al.), is contradicted by Mat 27:3, where points to the shekels as received already, as also by the prophecy of this fact in Zec 11:12. But Meyer overlooks the fact, that Judas, after the Passover, went again to the high priests, and that then, according to John, the matter was finally decided. They hardly gave him the money before that.
Thirty pieces of silver.Silver shekels. The shekel, , , one of the Hebrew weights from early times, and one that was most in use (like our pound). By the weight of the silver shekel all prices were regulated in commerce and barter, down to the time of coinage in Israel after the exile. Hence the silver shekel was the current medium in all transactions of the sanctuary. The shekel of the sanctuary and the royal shekel were probably somewhat heavier than the common shekel. The half-shekel was the personal tribute to the temple, two Attic drachmas (see Mat 17:24). The value of the shekel has been estimated at about 25 Silbergroschen26 [a little over two English shillings, or 50 American cents]. Consequently 30 shekels amount to 25 [Prussian] dollars [between three and four pounds sterling, or about fifteen American dollars]. Gerlach counts 20, Lisco only 15 [Prussian] dollars. De Wette: About 42 florins.Meyer: Matthew alone specifies the thirty pieces of silver; and the triviality of this gain, as measured by the avarice of Judas, makes it probable that the unknown recompense of treason was fixed by evangelical tradition, according to Zec 11:12. Here Meyer follows de Wette, who often follows in the track of Strauss. As if Satanic avarice and treason had any reasonable tax, or as if any sum of money could more easily explain and justify the betrayal of the person of Jesus! The most improbable sum is here the most probable. Thirty pieces of silver were, according to Exo 21:32, the price of a slave.27 Hence, in Zec 11:12, the price at which the Shepherd of nations is valued, was thirty pieces of silver. The literal fulfilment of this word should not make the round sum suspicious. We should rather assume that the Sanhedrin designedly, and with cunning irony, chose the price of the slave in Exodus 21. If Judas demanded more from them, they would answer that they needed not his help, and that at most they would give him the ancient price of a slave.
Mat 26:16. And from that time he sought opportunity.This does not exclude a later and final decision. He was now the wretched and vascillating watcher of events, making his last act dependent on casual opportunity. Fritzsche: Ut eum tradere posset.
To betray him.General Remarks on the Betrayal of Judas.For the dualistic exaggeration of the moral importance of the man, see Daub: Judas Ischarioth. For the under-valuation of his significance, see Paulus, Goldhorn, Winer, Theile, Hase, etc. According to the latter view, it was his design to excite an insurrection of the people at the feast, and to constrain the tardy Messiah to base His kingdom upon popular power. In that case, the conduct of Judas would, judged by its motive, be rather that of a blinded enthusiast than of a supremely wicked man. Ewald rightly assumes that he had been mistaken in his Master; but the aims and motives which he further attributes to Judas as a consequence (that he felt it his duty to deliver Him to the Sanhedrin,and that he wished to try the experiment and see what would follow next), are not very consistent with each other. The repentance of Judas and his suicide must be taken in connection with his betrayal; and then his state of mind will be determined to have been an ambition, excited by Satan, which sought its ends in the carnal kingdom to be set up by the Messiah, and which, therefore, when Christs determination and that of His enemies concurred to point to His death, was changed into a deep despondency and exasperation against his Master. In this frame of mind, the scene at Bethany presented to him only a wasteful company, in which all things were going to dissolution; and he felt himself personally aggrieved by the Lords rebuke, marking him out as an alien to His circle of disciples. Then he viewed the rulers of the people as invested with power: they had the government of the temple, and guarded its treasurethey had this world with them. It seemed to him worth his trouble to see what was to be gained on their side; thus there was the evening journey, an audience, a questiononly at first, he might think, a question. In the high priests palace, the favor of the great perfectly intoxicated him; so that even the thirty pieces of silver, which the avarice of the priests offered to his avarice, was a tempting bait. At this point he may have thought that Jesus would in the hour of need save Himself by a miracle, and go through the midst of his enemies, as He had done more than once before (Luk 4:30; Joh 10:39); or that he would resort to a political kingdom in the sense of the tempter, Mat 4:9. On the other hand, he may have flattered himself with the prospect of the greatest favors and gains from the Sanhedrin. Under his last exasperation at the paschal supper, the thought of treason became a passionate decision. He saw himself detected and unmasked: the man of hypocrisy was then lost; the treachery was accomplished. But, when Jesus did not save Himself, and the Council no longer cared for the traitor, the thirty pieces of silver lost all their magical glitter for him. On the one hand, the scorn of the world weighed on him as a burden; and, on the other hand, the dark mystery of the death of Jesus, the possible realization of His dread predictions, and the woe of the Master still ringing in his ears. His rancorous dejection was now turned into burning despair. How he still sought to save himself, the narrative of his exit tells us. In our view of his history, such an important character among the Apostles was certainly no weak, contracted, and unawakened man. He was a man of enthusiasm, but led away by appearances; therefore, when the first manifestation of Christ paled, he lost his faith, despaired of Christ, and perished. How he could ever have entered the company of the Apostles, see Com. on Matthew 10. The main motive of his gloomy course we may regard as a combination of covetousness and ambition carried to the verge of madness, and lost in the labyrinths of hypocrisy.28
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. In the midst of the company of disciples at Bethany, we see, represented in a living type, the contrast between Christianity and Antichristianityan exhibition of the manner in which the one wrestles with the other, and the one is brought by the other to its ripe perfection. The lurking treachery of Judas, and the death threatening the Lord, were the dark spirit which raised the soul of the woman to a sublime, solemn, and joyous feeling of self-sacrificing love. And this noble disposition, with the anointing, the odor of which filled the whole house, became the bitterest and most decisive offence to the soul of the traitor. The fundamental characteristics of this reciprocal influence are drawn in 2 Thessalonians 2.
2. For the last time, Judas by his hypocrisy drew a large part of the disciples into the snare of his evil spirit. This circumstance, and the fact that he had the bag, throw some light upon his relations to the disciples generally. He was a man of fleeting enthusiasm, of deceitful appearances, of alluring promises, among the Apostles; his power of demoniacal eloquence misled most of the company, and ensnared them into sympathy. For the sake of the greater number of the Apostles, the Lord was constrained to tolerate this adversary, until he excluded himself by a spiritual judgment and an act of self-reprobation. Hence the moment of his departure was to the Lord one of the highest significance. (See Joh 13:31; Leben Jes, ii. 3. p. 1328.)
3. The justification of festal offerings of love, in opposition to sacrifices for the proper necessities of the poor, is strictly connected with the contrast already pointed out. Judas knew nothing of Christ in the poor, when he took offence at the anointing of Christ. To his glance the world appeared (for the sentiment was assumed) to be sinking into infinite necessity and pauperism, because the ideal of worldly abundance and pleasure had demoniacally enkindled his avarice. Mary, on the contrary, poured out lavishly her store, because in her pure self-denial she let the world go, and found her peace and her blessedness in the kingdom of love and of the Spirit.
4. John looked deeper into the heart of Judas than the other disciples. Nevertheless, the woman went to a significant extent in advance of the disciples in the way of the New Covenant. She is a symbol of the quicker development of the female spiritual life. (Eve, the Virgin Mary.) Its perfect development and consummation, on the other hand, belongs to the man. The believing woman is here justified by the mouth of the Lord.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The house of Bethany a type of the Church: 1. The Church of the Spirit darkened by the Church of hypocrisy; 2. the Church of hypocrisy condemned by the Church of the Spirit.The self-sacrificing woman and the covetous apostle in the company of the disciples.The self-seeking heart in the Church turns balsam into poison: 1. It turns a joyous feast into an hour of temptation; 2. the purest offering of love into an offence; 3. the sacred justification of fidelity into a motive for exasperation; 4. the most gracious warnings against destruction into a doom of death.Even among the Lords own company, the heart that is truly devoted to the Saviour must be prepared for the bitterest trials.Judas the type of a fiendish spirit, which has in all times sent traitors abroad in the Church.How he with a double mind looked always askance: 1. At the goods of this world; 2. at the favor of the great; 3. at the fellowship of the priestly order; 4. at the reward of treachery.The little treasury of the disciples in its significant relation to the future.Covetousness in the garment of hypocrisy.Covetousness and ambition develop and perfect each other.Christ and His poor.The attempt to relieve poverty at the expense of Christ is to increase it.The spirit of love to Christ can alone regulate the use and expenditure of earthly goods.The pious presentiment of a loving heart thinks beyond and above its own clear consciousness. The imperishable remembrance of believers bound up with the eternal praise of the Lord.The gospel makes all its children in two senses immortal.Then went one of the twelve (Mat 26:14); or the fearful fall: 1. An image of the sinners life; and, 2. a warning for every Christian.What will ye give me? (Mat 26:15.) The commercial spirit in its light and its dark side: 1. Abrahams intercession for Sodom; his purchase of a sepulchre; the pearl of great price, etc. 2. The treachery of Judas; Simony in the Church, etc.Christ could be sold only for the price of a slave, thirty pieces of silver: for 1. the highest price would in relation to Him be a mere mockery; 2. the lowest price for which He is surrendered up is enough for perfect treachery.Many of His disciples are looking only for a good opportunity of betraying Him.The beginning of the passion: Christ, like Joseph, sold by His brethren.The apostate Christian a seducer of the enemies of Christ.The dark mixture of sense, of calculation, and insanity in the death-path of the backslider.The house of Bethany and the palace of the high-priest.Christ the everlasting Defender of true Christendom against all the assaults of hypocrisy.
Starke:God often employs weak instruments for the accomplishment of His hidden purposes, who surpass the men in Christ.Canstein: He who heartily loves Christ, will gladly give up all to His service.Quesnel: Riches are of no value, unless they are helpful to Christ and His people.Canstein: Many perform acts out of love to Christ on which the world puts an evil construction.He that touches one who loves Jesus, touches the apple of His eye, Zec 2:8.What is given to Christ is well laid out.An act must be estimated according to its source in the heart.That there shall always be poor, is Gods ordinance; but that there should always be beggars, might be prevented by good human ordinances.Quesnel: In the actions of Gods children there are often secrets which they themselves do not understand..The memory of the just is blessed for ever, Psa 112:3; Psa 112:6.Their name is as ointment poured out, Ecc 7:1.Fellow-Christian, be not disquieted when your own companions, relatives, and dependants, to whom you have done nothing but good, give you an evil return; console yourself with Christ.Hedinger. O cursed avarice, which still sells Christ, religion, fidelity, and faith!How evil are often the uses of gold!Luther: There is no greater enemy to man, after the devil, than a niggard, Pro 15:27.He who sets out in sin will easily go on; for the opportunity to perfection is never wanting.
Gerlach:Love to Christ urged this woman.Her whole heart was thrown into this act.He who loves Jesus does not love a mere man or creature, but the true God, and eternal life.Whoso thus inwardly loves Jesus, seeing Him present, must love Him always, when no longer seen, in His brethren, the poor.No man among you, He says, would blame it, if so much were spent upon My burial and embalming; why do you blame her now, since I shall really die in a few days?
Heubner:The last token of honor which Christ received before His death.The sufferings of His last hour were softened to Him by these proofs of love. And so God often orders it with ourselves.The inwardness and tenderness of which woman is susceptible in her love.It was love to the Saviour of her soul.It was reverential love, set upon the Son of God.Sacrifice is the nature and nourishment of love.In the service and love of Christ all things are dignified and made holy.This anointing had a symbolical meaning. It was the figure of that full stream of love which poured from her heart on Jesus; the type of the inexhaustible streams of love which will proceed from the redeemed upon Jesus throughout eternity.Application of the anointing to the missionary cause.Jesus was manifestly moved deeply in His heart by her act. Of Himself, and the dishonor done to Him, He says nothing. It grieves Him that the woman was so badly treated. To grieve a noble soul in the performance of a glorious act, is a heavy offence.In hurting Christlike souls, we injure Christ Himself. We should always hasten to manifest all love and sympathy toward the living. It is vain to wish them back when they are gone.The final and highest honor done to goodness.Christ assures her of everlasting remembrance in requital of this brief dishonor, and thereby gives her a pledge of her eternal honor in His heavenly kingdom.What Christ determines to keep in lasting credit will be truly immortalized.The command of Joh 11:57 might have occasioned in Judas the thought which he expressed.Pitiable the Satans wages.
Braune:Here a table is spread for Him in the presence of His enemies, and His head is anointed with oil, Psa 23:5.
Footnotes:
[21]Mat 26:8.The for His; being omitted here and Mat 26:45 by the best authorities.
[22]Mat 26:9.A., B., D., L., and other MSS, omit , ointment. [So also Cod. Sinait. which reads simply .]
[23]Mat 26:15[Dr. Lange translates : sie setzten ihm aus, i.e., they appointed or fixed upon that price for him they secured or promised him. So Vulgata, Jerome (in loc.), Theophylact, Luther. E. V., Grotius, Elsner, Fritzsche, Alford, etc. The other translation is: they weighed out to him. So Euthym., Beza, Wahl (appendo, zuwgen, darwgen. Mat 26:15), Bretschneider, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald, Meyer (see quotation in the Exeg. Notes), Robinson, T. J. Conant, Wordsworth, etc. Comp. the Lexica, sub ; Wetstein in loc.; Winer, B. R. W. B., sub Geld; and Valekenner ad Eurip. Fragm. p. 288: Qui lances quato sustinebat examine, cujuscunque rei pondus ad libram stimaturus, dicebatur eximie etiam veteribus, Herodoto ii. p 135, 89, Platoni De Republ. x. p. 602. D… Interpres Jobi xxxvi. 6 . Compare, however, Dr. Langes objection to Meyers explanation in the Exeg. Notes. To this may be added that the of Luke and the of Mark are rather in favor of the first translation.P. S.]
[24]Mat 26:15.[Dr. Lange inserts here shekels of silver. The were probably sacred shekels, which were heavier than the common shekels, and hence paid by weight.P. S.]
[25][Wordsworth: An instance of recapitulation. This incident took place before our Lords betrayal, but St. Matthew introduces it here to mark the contrast between Mary and Judas Iscariot. Judas murmured against her (Joh 12:4), because she had bestowed on our Lord the offering of this precious ointment which might have been sold for 300 pence (Mar 14:5), and he sells his Master for thirty pieces of silver or 60 pence. But in this case Matthew would have expressly mentioned Judas instead of the disciples generally in Mat 26:8.P. S.]
[26][Not: dollars, as the Edinb. transl. has it, which omits the other estimate; for it takes thirty Silbergroschen to equal one Prussian dollar.P. S.]
[27][Joseph was sold by his brothers for twenty pieces of silver, Gen 36:28. Jerome on Mat 26:15 says: Joseph non, ut multi putant, juxta Septuaainta interpretes, viginti aureis venditus est, sed juxta Hebraicam veritatem viginti argenteis; neque enim pretiosior poterat esse servus, quam Dominus. But Jerome did not see, nor any of the fathers, that thirty pieces of silver was the regular price for the life of a slave, which explains this sum in our case as a deliberate insult of the Sanhedrin to our Lord who died the death of a slave and a malefactor, that He might redeem us from the slavery and eternal misery of sin. Origen compares the 30 pieces of silver with the 36 (rather 33) years of the Saviours life. Augustine allegorizes in another way about the number.P. S.]
[28][Comp. Alfords estimate of the character and motives of Judas, in Com. on Mat 26:14-16 (p. 247, 4th ed.) which agrees with that of Neander (Leben Jesu, p. 688) also Ewald, Meyer, Olshausen, and Ebrard.P. S.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
“Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, (7) There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. (8) But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? (9) For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. (10) When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. (11) For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. (12) For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. (13) Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.”
Some have thought, that this woman, is the same that is spoken of in Luk 7:37 . And others have thought, that it was Mary, the sister of Lazarus. Joh 12:3 . But I am too intent, at present, to make any enquiry here, Who it was it is the person of Jesus, who alone demands our attention, while following him in those solemn moments. Reader! mark what your Redeemer saith; the pouring this ointment on his body, was in token of his burial. Yes! it was to this death of Jesus, everything referred. The moment the Son of God became incarnate, and openly came forward as the Head and Surety of his Church, the curse pronounced fall, seized on man’s seized on him as the Sponsor.
Reader! I hope you have not forgotten the awful contents of it. The ground was first cursed for man’s sake. The nature of man was doomed to sorrow and labor, in consequence thereof. In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. And death, was to close the scene. Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Gen 3:17-19 . Hence therefore, the whole of this awful sentence attached itself to Christ, when he freely offered himself the redeemer of his Church and people. And what I beg the Reader particularly to notice, and indeed, to us so highly concerned in the blessedness of redemption by Christ, becomes more important than any other view of the subject, is, that the curse in all its aggravated circumstances lighting upon Christ, was wholly, in that he stood forth at the call of his Father, as our surety. The Son of God taking our nature, would not have subjected him to this curse, had he not volunteered to be our surety. Great indeed was the grace, in the Son of God to become man. But this might have been done, and the same infinitely glorious person he would have been, as he now is, had he never undertaken our redemption. But when he stood up at the call of God our surety, he became responsible, while we who were the principals in the debt were made free; Christ our surety took the whole upon himself, and the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa 53:6 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 87
Prayer
Almighty God, thine is a holy mountain, and the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. May we approach thee in a spirit of humility and great expectation, inspired by the hope which thou thyself hast justified, that if we come to thee in the right way, with the right prayer, thou wilt grant unto us gracious replies. We come by the way of the Cross, we come by the way of Calvary we know no other road; it is strait, and yet it is broad: we renounce ourselves and accept the Saviour, we put away our own ability, which is utter weakness, and run with eager delight and thankfulness to the almighty strength of Christ.
We come with our. accustomed prayer and our accustomed song, yet is our experience new, for thy mercy is always surprising, and thy compassion a continual revelation. Enlarge our prayer, enlarge our praise, and receive, we humbly pray thee, in the name of the Mediator, what we now utter in thy hearing as the supreme desire of our hearts. Thou hast done great things for us, whereof we are glad, but not glad with sufficiency of joy, for verily our gladness would have purified us, and our very joy would have disputed all dominions but thine own. Yet we are glad of thy tender grace and loving patience and eternal training of our wayward souls often to ourselves hopeless and only hopeful to thine infinite compassion.
Thou hast arranged our life, thou hast directed it according to thy wisdom: we are here and not there, because the bounds of our habitation are fixed. We are this and not that, because the Lord hath so said. The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, and he who fixed the sea in its basin hath also fixed the waters of our life in their small channels. We think we are free, and behold we are bound: we stretch out ourselves as if we had stature and height enough, in order to fill all things, and behold the firmament is still above us: it is the bound of its height, and beyond it we cannot move. Thou hast tethered us with invisible chains, thou hast fastened us down to centres, and given us the delusion of liberty, whilst we have been all the while the bondsmen of thy wisdom and love.
We bless thee for this mode of training us; thou dost lure us by wondrous love along the widening way of life, thou dost promise us that which immediately appeals to our senses, and lo, thou dost train the senses themselves to contemn the blessing, and look for something grander still. Train us, thou loving God; make of us what thou wilt thy will alone is good, ours is broken and insufficient to meet the whole necessity strong only in points, and strong only with violence and not with the serenity of complete power. Enable us therefore lovingly to fall into the movement of thy will, and to ask for no other composure or rest but to be at one with the purpose of God.
Thou dost make us old day by day, and subtly dost thou withdraw our strength from us, until we know that our weakness is complete. Thou dost not smite us always with the great blow of thy thunder, but thou takest away our days with invisible hands and with silent movement, and we know it not until the sum which is taken is larger than the sum that remains. Others die in their full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet, but whether in this way or in that, thou wilt surely withdraw us from the scene which we were not consulted about entering, and thou wilt work out thy purpose on the other side as thou hast done all along without word or will of ours. Oh that we might rest in thy goodness, that we might be taught by the very bitterness of our experience, that we might see how frail we are, and turn our very frailty into a sign or prayer for greater strength.
Today make us glad in thine house: fill every window with light, come in upon us by every opening, and make our whole heart glad with great joy and thrilling rapture, and while the fire burns may we speak with our lips. Let the day be made memorable because of the large baptism of the Holy Ghost: let all the people praise thee, O God, yea, let all the people praise thee; thou who dost open dumb mouths and unloose silent tongues, come to us and cause us who have been too long speechless and songless in this house, to utter our prayer and our praise with a new and glad strength.
We pray for our loved ones who are not with us. The number is incomplete, the vacancy is a lesson to our anxious hearts do thou go after those who have left us for a while: with all Sabbatic comforts make them glad, on the high road, in the wilderness, on the sea wheresoever they are, let the light of thy Heaven be a Sabbatic glory. We pray for the sick, the weary, the sad, the dying; for the whole side and aspect of humanity, viewing which our hearts sink within us in hopelessness and fear because of our entire weakness and inability to meet the urgent pain. Lord, gather us to thine heart, give us to feel the presence of the everlasting arms, the arms that can crush the universe, but will not hurt a little child. Amen.
Mat 26:6-13
No Waste In Love
In this incident we see Jesus Christ indebted to others. It seems to be a humble position: he is in another man’s house, for he has no house of his own at times he had not where to lay his head. The writers of his story are never ashamed to say so, they do not want any adventitious glory, they do not care to build up a grand exterior: though they claim great things for their Master, they never claimed a house for him: they always found him the guest of others. He receives too the ointment from the woman who poured it upon his head. He had no ointment of his own. If any such token of love or care was to be bestowed upon him, it must be not of his own finding, it must be the expression of other hearts, and at the expense of other hands.
The contrast between this scene and others which have passed before us is so vivid as to be startling. We have seen him in the narrative raising the dead, opening the eyes of the blind, quieting the storm on the sea, and now he is indebted to another man for his dinner, and to a kind and loving woman for bestowing upon him a token of personal love and regard. He touched the extreme poles extremely poor, infinitely rich: weaker than a bruised reed, strong with the almightiness of God.
How singular the imagination which conceived such a life, how violent in its action, how utterly improbable in its conceptions: how irrational to suppose that the world would receive a story apparently on the very surface of it so self-contradictory and self-stultifying! Yet truth is stranger than fiction. All these rapid alternations and self-contradictions take place in every deep and great life. If you do not realise within you something answering to the same marvellous rapidity, violence, and collision, blame the narrowness of your own experience rather than doubt what may appear miraculous to a hope that was never a great flame and to a faith that was more than half mere reason and cold factual understanding.
How meekly he receives what is given to him. He realises his poverty. There is nothing of pretence about him: he never takes a thing as if it were not given. He stoops down to bless the giver, to name the donor, so to enlarge the gift and the giving that there can be no mistake about his own poverty in the matter. With no sleight of hand does he take the offerings that are presented: frankly, with all the honesty of a true love, he puts out his hand, receives what is offered, kisses it, places it in his heart, and writes the donor’s name in heaven.
And yet consider what it was that he received. Let us look a little into what was actually given to him. What was it in this case? He sat at meat in the house of Simon the leper: he was eating his daily bread, partaking of friendly hospitality. What else was given to him? A box of spikenard, very precious, such as, probably, only the comparatively rich could hold in their possession. These were the things that were given. They were poor things, and he was the greater for accepting them in their meanness. Who ever gave him a thought? Who ever enriched him with an idea? Who ever startled him into gratitude by a revelation of truth which had not come within his own horizon? who ever pointed out to him, as the result of a more powerful telescope than his own, some planet in deeper plunges of the sky than he had ever penetrated? He takes your bread, your ointment, and shelters himself under the roof of our house: at that end he is one with us, just as human as we are: tired, he asks to sit down; thirsty, he says, “Give me to drink;” without food hour by hour, he is glad to take a meal at any man’s table, though he be publican and sinner, and much murmured at and about by those who look upon outsides only. And yet, whilst he is guest, he is host: no man can claim any table that he sits at: he fills the place, he leaves more bread than he began with, the feast multiplies under his look. He blesses the house, and it is never poor any more. The last lingering ghost that hid itself in some out-of-the-way corner vanishes, and heaven’s cloudless light fills the place as if it had become a chosen temple.
These are the things that prove him to my heart to be…
GOD. Again and again we have seen that he is no grammatical deity, dependent for his primacy and sovereignty upon some cunning adaptation of ancient verbs and irregular conjugations, but a regal God, a palpable deity, a friendly God so near that I can touch him and speak to him, so far that my eye cannot carry its vision to the infinite distance. He is all things: he comes in and sits down to dinner like a common carpenter, his clothes very coarse and mean and much wayworn, and his look haggard, and his eyes dim with watching that nobody could keep up with. Then we call him Nazarene and peasant, Galilean and strange character, partially maniac, evidently gone out of his head, past the thin veil which separates genius from insanity, and we look and wonder and are filled with a piteous amazement that such a Man should run such a course of wildness. Whilst we are wondering, he gives us one look which we can never forget, he utters a word as familiar as our mother’s name, but with such tonic force as makes it music, revelation, light!
So I find him indebted to others, and yet not indebted, for he always gives the very things which he was receiving. This is the way of the Lord: we will come to know presently, if we keep long companionship, and close heart-intercourse with him, that we ourselves are not our own. Simon the leper thought the bread he was giving belonged to himself. Not a crumb of it! Mary thought she had purchased the ointment or had otherwise secured the spikenard, so that she had a right of property in it. Only in an intermediate sense. The ointment was Christ’s before it was hers she only held it for him. She could not account for what she did. Inspiration has no explanation: it touches the soul and moves the hand like unsuspected presences, and we cannot tell how we did it: we only know that the deed was done. Oh, cold, cold hearts are they that can tell why they do things and set down their reasons in numerical order, and justify themselves upon affidavits, and before magisterial benches. Be mine the life whose reason is swallowed up in higher reason which I have come to know by the mysterious name of inspiration. See him there then, debtor yet no debtor, a receiver and yet a giver, receiving from the hand only, but never having the light that burned in him increased by a single ray from any spark that ever issued from another brain. Set down in your common day books all that was given to him: any coarse paper will do on which to enter the record, any clumsy pencil will do to write the vulgar words. The pencil will never be required to write thought, idea, suggestion, flash from heaven; revelation from unexpected and impenetrated sanctuaries. It is up there that he is Lord!
But when his disciples saw it they had indignation, and said, “To what purpose is this waste?” In John we learn that it was Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that began the objection and inquired into this matter of what was called waste. Said he, “Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?” The man who said that condemned himself. He knew the pence value of the ointment, and any man who knows the pence value of anything that takes place in the church is a bad man. There is no pence value to the higher life: you jumble unrelated languages. The very question is a condemnation: it was not the question of an economist, it was the inquiry of a thief. Do not believe in schedules and tables and comparative statistics in the church. Any man who gets up tables and comparative statistics in the church is either a bad man or a mistaken one: he is always a hinderer of true progress. There should be no comparative statistics in the church. What have we to do whether the pews are full or empty, or the treasury exhausted or overflowing? Nothing. We have to preach the word, declare the testimony, read the writing, decipher the inscription on the cross and on the sky, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear, and as to comparing this year with ten years ago, let those do so who live in dust, but not those who are here for a night and will be gone tomorrow like the morning dew. Iscariot cannot do anything in the church, but debase and injure it.
Jesus Christ was often misunderstood by others. When indeed was he ever understood? Now and then it seemed as if he was just going to be understood, and then his great heart rocked within him and went out after the understanding man as one might go after a friend long expected and at length come. Sometimes a stranger surprised him by great faith, and he instantly went over the boundary line separating Jew and Gentile, and took hold of him, and with all the pathos and unreserve of an ancient and indestructible masonry shook him by the hand and heart, and claimed him by right of affinity.
It must come to that in the last building of the church. We cannot be built upon words and phrases. In the last issue the church will be a church of affinity, sympathy, love, friendship, brotherhood, a commonwealth men understanding men who never saw one another before, but by look and touch and tone and gesture feeling that brothers of a commonwealth have met.
A man is not necessarily a Christian because he is a disciple, nor is a man necessarily at one with Christ because his name is Judas Iscariot. A bad disposition misunderstands everything. Do not suppose that the bad disposition understands Christ alone; whatever it looks at it desecrates. When a bad man looks at a flower, he sends a chill to its little heart: when a Judas kisses your child, he blackens its soul. Do not go to the bad man for poetry, or for high and bright interpretation of life and nature. The bad man cannot give you what you seek for. Wherever he is, all the holy spirits vanish and leave him in the vacancy of solitude. And yet the bad man can use nice words: he talks about the poor. The poor he would sell his mother’s bones to enrich himself! The poor he would tear the gas lamps from their sockets in the church and sell them, if he could do it secretly, if he could do it and not be found out! Yet he talks about the poor, makes a mouthful of the word, says it unctuously, as if he cared for the poor. He can care for nothing that is wise, beautiful, tender, and truly necessitous. The disease is vital, the disorder is fundamental: he is bad in the inner fibres, and every look he gives is a blasphemy. He comes into the church, and he says, looking at anything which he may call by the name of ornament, “Why was this waste made? Why was not this sold, and given to the poor, my clients?” He misunderstands all beauty, as if the beautiful were not a gift to the poor. Why, sometimes the poor see more in a picture than the rich can see. To put up a beautiful building of any kind in a town is to give something to the poor.
What are the poor? Mere eaters and drinkers, gormandisers, people gathered around a trough to eat and drink? Have they not eyes, imaginations, sensibilities, divinity of nature that can be touched by the appeals of beauty and music and heroism and nobleness? Simon the leper could give a dinner, but he who gives an idea gives a continual feast. He who shows a beautiful picture, and gets a man to look right into it and through it, is actually giving to the poor. We misunderstand the poor when we suppose that they can only eat and drink, and that to give to them means to give them something in their hands or something they can gnaw with their teeth. It is a base idea, it is a total misconception of the whole case, it must not have any place in Christ’s church. Build the most beautiful churches you can and you sustain labour, you keep men at work in an honest way; and fill the places with the poor. Every picture may be a hint, every tint of beauty may thrill the soul with a new hope, and every sound of the organ may answer something already in the soul, but silent. Abolish all narrow views, and do not suppose that the poor are only so many machines for the consumption of food and drink. Better to learn in Christ’s school than in Iscariot’s.
You cannot have any great life without sentiment. Life is not all cold logic; the flowers are the lovelier for the dews that tremble upon them, and you look so much younger and nobler when the tears of real pity are in your eyes you are not unmanned, you are more than manned. The bad spirit cannot understand lavish generosity, spiritual suggestiveness, or religious sentiment. Only the beautiful soul can understand the beautiful act. Jesus Christ understood the woman and told her what it meant, though she did not know it. We do not know the meaning of our best acts: I am so afraid that we yield ourselves to those wooden teachers who would always keep us just between two assignable points, who would put down all madness whereas it is by madness, mistakenly so called, that the world gets on an inch farther on its slow course now and then.
Jesus now becomes the Giver. Making his voice heard amid the tumult, he tells the disciples what the woman has done. She gave the ointment, he gave the explanation, and in that explanation we have revelation. Our deeds mean more than we sometimes mean them to mean, says Christ. “This is done in view of my burial.” That was a new idea; the woman did not intend to suggest death and burial when she came with that ointment. “Ah but,” says Christ, “this is like a flower laid upon my dead breast, that is like a finger gently pressing my dead eyelids, this is like an odour of heaven rising from the grave I shall presently occupy.” He gives our actions such great meanings oh, such verge, margin, and amplitude of significance! he makes us ashamed of our very prayers because they are to him so much more than they are to us. He interprets them at the other end, and seems to stretch them across the sky, whereas we did but mutter them in helplessness and inarticulate necessity. When Christ makes so much of the deed, we wish we had made more of it ourselves, and made it worthier his love.
Jesus Christ thus befriended others. To receive graciously is to benefit the giver. There is a way of denying a gift that hurts the heart that suggested it. There is also a way of receiving a flower from a little child that makes the child long for next summer to come around in a great sudden hurry that it may gather all the flowers in the field for you. Jesus took the spikenard, with the infinite grace which is one of the charmful qualities of his nature, took it as if he had a claim upon it, and yet as if he had no claim at all but the claim of poverty and need. “The poor,” said he, “I will give you opportunity enough for attending to the poor: the poor ye have always with you, me ye have not always.” Seize the fleeting chance, do good to the man who is going next: he may start before you do the great deed. Have some eye to the reality of things, and where there is a man that you can only see today, for he will be gone tomorrow, do good to him, and let the ten thousand who are not going tomorrow wait for their natural opportunity.
Tender was the speech, and extorted from him by the woman’s tenderness. “She,” said he, “is right: she knows and yet does not know that I am going to be buried soon: she knows by a feeling, an instinct, a strange and anonymous impulse that something is going to happen. Thank God for those women-prophets amongst us, and men-prophets, who cannot tell what is going to take place, but know very well that there is something in the air, and that work along that apocalyptic line.
There is a good deal that is modern in this ancient instance. Many people care for the poor multitudinously, they care for a great nameless quantity called the poor, they often mention them over their smoking soup, they sometimes refer to them with most touching sympathy as they are gulping down their last champagne. They have a warm side for the poor, understanding by that term something immeasurable and far away. They would take the shadow into their own houses if there were less of it, but being so vast they let it alone. These people are great in epitaphs. I have sometimes ventured to say that if the dead could rise at night in darkness, and had to return to their several graves in the morning, they would never be able to get back again to their right places if they had nothing to guide them but their epitaphs. They would be so surprised at their own grandeur they would not dare to get in again. Men cannot live on epitaphs, and the poor are not much obliged to us for drinking their health in a bacchanalian toast. Better throw a bone without any flesh upon it to the hungriest dog that ever lived, than talk about all the hungry dogs and give them no bone. Church of the living God, you can be mighty amongst the poor: foiled for the moment in wordy argument, you can set up a plea for Christianity in the hearts of the poor that the poor can understand and apply.
The word waste was used in connection with this offering. “Why to what purpose was this waste?” The word that is rendered waste in the English tongue may be rendered perdition. At the last Christ said, concerning this same opposing and querulous Judas Iscariot, “I have lost none but the son of waste, the son of perdition. He accused the poor woman of having done a perditional act. A man can only speak on the level of his own nature: I have lost him: it was not the ointment that was wasted, but himself that was waste.”
Ay, so it shall be in the judgment. Nothing shall be lost that can be kept, and what is lost shall be the son of perdition.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
Ver. 6. Now when Jesus was in Bethany ] This history of a thing acted before Christ came to Jerusalem, comes in here somewhat out of place: to show the ground and occasion of Judas’ treason, which was discontent at the loss of such a prize, and our Saviour’s sharping him up for showing his dislike.
In the house of Simon the leper ] A leper he had been, but was now healed, and haply by Christ: whom therefore he entertaineth in way of thankfulness, as Matthew also did.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
6 13. ] THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY. Mar 14:3-9 . Joh 12:1-8 . On Luk 7:36-50 , see note there. This history of the anointing of our Lord is here inserted out of its place . It occurred six days before the Passover , Joh 12:1 . It perhaps can hardly be said that in its position here , it accounts in any degree for the subsequent application of Judas to the Sanhedrim ( Mat 26:14-16 ), since his name is not even mentioned in it: but I can hardly doubt that it originally was placed where it here stands by those who were aware of its connexion with that application. The paragraphs in the beginning of this chapter come in regular sequence, thus: Jesus announces his approaching Passion: the chief priests, &c. meet and plot His capture, but not during the feast: but when Jesus was in Bethany , &c. occasion was given for an offer to be made to them, which led to its being effected, after all, during the feast. On the rebuke given to Judas at this time having led to his putting into effect his intention of betraying our Lord, see note on Joh 12:4 . The trace of what I believe to have been the original reason of the anointing being inserted in this place, is still further lost in Mark, who instead of . . has . just as if the narrative were continued, and at the end instead of our . has . as if there were no connexion between the two. It certainly cannot be said of St. Matthew (De Wette, Neander, Stier) that he relates the anointing as taking place two days before the Passover : of St. Mark it may be said.
It may be observed that St. Luke relates nothing of our Lord’s visits to Bethany.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
6. . ] Not at this time a leper, or he could not be at his house receiving guests. It is at least possible , that he may have been healed by our Lord. Who he was, is wholly uncertain. From Martha serving ( Joh 12:2 ), it would appear as if she were at home in the house ( Luk 10:38 sqq.); and that Lazarus was one need not necessarily imply that he was a guest properly so called. He had been probably (see Joh 12:9 ) absent with Jesus at Ephraim, and on this account and naturally for other reasons would be an object of interest, and one of the .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:6-13 . Anointing in Bethany (Mar 14:3-9 , cf. Joh 12:1-11 ). Six days before Passover in John; no time fixed in Mt. and Mk. Certainly within Passion week. The thing chiefly to be noted is the setting of this pathetic scene, between priestly plotting and false discipleship. “Hatred and baseness on either hand and true love in the midst” ( Training of the Twelve ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 26:6 . , etc.: indicates the scene, in Bethany, and in the house of Simon known as the leper (the one spoken of in Mat 8:2 ?). The host of Luk 7:36 ff. was a Simon. On the other hand, the host of Joh 12:1 f., or at least a prominent guest, was Lazarus, brother of Martha and Mary. This and other points of resemblance and difference raise the question: do all the four evangelists tell the same story in different ways? On this question endless diversity of opinion has prevailed. The probability is that there were two anointings, the one reported with variations by Mt., Mk., and John, the other by Lk.; and that the two got somewhat mixed in the tradition, so that the precise details of each cannot now be ascertained. Happily the ethical or religious import of the two beautiful stories is clear.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 26:6-13
6Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, 7a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. 8But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, “Why this waste? 9For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.” 10But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me. 11For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me. 12For when she poured this perfume on My body, she did it to prepare Me for burial. 13Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.”
Mat 26:6 “the home of Simon the leper” Mary and Martha served the meal (cf. Joh 12:1 ff.), but it was not at their home (cf. Mar 14:3). It is possible they were somehow related, all being from the same small village, Bethany. Simon was apparently (although not recorded) healed by Jesus earlier.
Mat 26:7 “a woman” Joh 12:3 says it was Mary, the sister of Lazarus. This account is not to be confused with the prostitute of Luk 7:37-39.
“alabaster vial of very costly perfume” This was a white/yellow stone vase from Egypt. The contents were made from an aromatic Indian herb called “nard” or “spikenard” (cf. Son 1:12; Son 4:13-14; Mar 14:3; Joh 12:3). It was very expensive and may have been Mary’s wedding dowry.
“poured it on His head” Joh 12:3 says that she put the nard on His “feet.” Since this vial contained 12 ounces, or one Roman pound, there was enough to cover His whole body. Once the vial was opened it could not be resealed.
Mat 26:8 “the disciples were indignant” Joh 12:4 says it was Judas Iscariot who was upset.
Mat 26:9 “for a high price” This high price was three hundred denarii (cf. Joh 12:5). A denarius was the daily wage of a soldier or laborer. The implication is that Judas was thinking of the needs of the poor. However, he probably wanted some of the money for himself (cf. Joh 12:6).
Mat 26:10 “she has done a good deed to Me” The noun “deed” and the verb are from the same root. It intensifies the statement or was an idiom (cf. Joh 3:21; Joh 6:28; Joh 9:4; Act 13:41; 1Co 16:10).
Mat 26:11 “For you always have the poor with you” This was not a callous statement toward poverty, but a recognition of the uniqueness of Jesus’ presence.
Mat 26:12 “to prepare Me for burial” Mary was a disciple; maybe she understood more than the Apostles! This perfume was used to anoint the body of the dead before burial (cf. Joh 19:40).
Mat 26:13 “in the whole world” Jesus assumed His gospel (Matthew uses the term for Jesus’ actions in Mat 4:23; Mat 9:35; and Jesus uses the term in Mat 24:14; Mat 26:13) would be preached everywhere (cf. Mat 24:9; Mat 24:14; Mat 24:32; Mat 28:19-20). This fulfills the OT universal predictions (especially Isaiah, i.e., Isa 2:1-4; Isa 42:6; Isa 49:6; Isa 51:4-5; Isa 56:7)!
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
was = came to be, as in Mat 26:20. Greek. ginomai.
Bethany. Note this return to Bethany from Jerusalem after His first entry in Mat 21:1-11, &c., and before His triumphal entry in Mar 11:1-10. Luk 19:29-38, and Joh 12:12-19. See App-156.
Simon. Showing this to be a second anointing, later than that of Joh 12:2-8. See App-158.
the leper. Figure of speech Ampliatio (App-6). So called after his healing, as Matthew was still called “the tax-gatherer”. See note on Exo 4:6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
6-13.] THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY. Mar 14:3-9. Joh 12:1-8. On Luk 7:36-50, see note there. This history of the anointing of our Lord is here inserted out of its place. It occurred six days before the Passover, Joh 12:1. It perhaps can hardly be said that in its position here, it accounts in any degree for the subsequent application of Judas to the Sanhedrim (Mat 26:14-16), since his name is not even mentioned in it: but I can hardly doubt that it originally was placed where it here stands by those who were aware of its connexion with that application. The paragraphs in the beginning of this chapter come in regular sequence, thus: Jesus announces his approaching Passion: the chief priests, &c. meet and plot His capture, but not during the feast: but when Jesus was in Bethany, &c. occasion was given for an offer to be made to them, which led to its being effected, after all, during the feast. On the rebuke given to Judas at this time having led to his putting into effect his intention of betraying our Lord, see note on Joh 12:4. The trace of what I believe to have been the original reason of the anointing being inserted in this place, is still further lost in Mark, who instead of . . has . just as if the narrative were continued, and at the end instead of our . has . as if there were no connexion between the two. It certainly cannot be said of St. Matthew (De Wette, Neander, Stier) that he relates the anointing as taking place two days before the Passover: of St. Mark it may be said.
It may be observed that St. Luke relates nothing of our Lords visits to Bethany.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
6, 7. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
This is not the woman who anointed Christs feet with ointment, but another of the holy women who ministered to him. I believe this was Mary, the sister of Lazarus, who came to Jesus, having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
8, 9. But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
When you do the best you can do, from the purest motives, and your Lord accepts your service, do not expect that your brethren will approve all your actions. If you do, you will be greatly disappointed. There was never a more beautiful proof of love to Christ than this anointing at Bethany, yet the disciples found fault with it. As they could not object to the thing itself, they objected that there might have been another thing done that would have been better. There is a great deal of that kind of wisdom in the world which can always teach you how you might have done a thing better, but if you wait until you learn that wisdom, you will never do anything for your Lord. If this devoted and enthusiastic woman had waited for the advice of these prudent people, she would neither have sold the ointment, nor poured it out. She did well to take council with her own loving heart, and then to pour the precious oil upon that dear head which was so soon to be crowned with thorns. She thus showed that there was at least one heart in the world that thought nothing was too good for her Lord, and that the best of the best ought to be given to him. May she have many imitators in every age until Jesus comes again!
10. When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman?
She had been very happy in the act, probably it was the happiest hour in all her life when she gave this costly gift to the Lord she loved so well. But a cloud passed over her bright face as the whispered complaints reached her ear. She was evidently a tender-hearted soul, so the Saviour said to the disciples, Why trouble ye the woman?
10. For she hath wrought a good work upon me.
We cannot do what this woman did; but we can perform good works upon others for Christs sake; and he will accept them as though they were done unto himself.
11-13. For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
She probably did not know all that her action meant when she anointed her Lord for his burial. We often do much more than we think we do. The consequences of the simplest action done for Christ may be much greater than we suppose. This woman is preparing Christs body for his approaching burial. Little dreams she that it is so, but so it is. Go thou my sister, and do what God bids thee; and it shall be seen that thou hast done far more than thou knowest. Obey the holy impulse within thy spirit, my brother; and thou mayest do ten thousand times more than thou hast ever imagined to be possible. This womans outburst of affection, this simple-hearted act of love to Christ himself, is one of those things which are to live as long as the gospel lives. The aroma of this loving deed is to abide as long as the world itself endures.
14, 15. Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?
Out of twelve apostles, one was a Judas Iscariot. Marvel not, therefore, if, among thy friends and kinsfolk, thou hast one who turns against thee, and betrays thee to thine enemies.
15. And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
The price of a slave, thus they were fulfilling the ancient prophecy: So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
16. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
The traitor sold his Master for thirty pieces of dirty silver; yet many have sold Jesus for a less price than Judas received: a smile or a sneer has been sufficient to induce them to betray their Lord.
17, 18. Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
How truly royal was Jesus of Nazareth even in his humility! He had only to send two of his disciples into the city to such a man, and the guest chamber, furnished and prepared, was at once placed at his disposal. He did not take the room by arbitrary force, as an earthly monarch might have done; but he obtained it by the diviner compulsion of almighty love. Jesus knew something about this man that you and I do not know, so he said to his disciples: Just go and say to him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. Was he not himself a disciple? I cannot say but this I do know, that the Lord Jesus has a certain number who are willing to help his cause, even though as yet they hardly call themselves his disciples. I should think, however, that after this man had once had the Master and his disciples in his house, there must have been a blessing left behind, and he would want to become one of that goodly company. It is well, dear friend, that thou art willing to have the prayer-meeting in thy house, it is well that thou wilt stand up on the side of truth, even if thou hast no share in it as yet, for maybe, and I hope the maybe will become a certainty, thou wilt yet be one of Christs disciples.
19. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
They went to this man, delivered Christs message, and he showed them a large upper room, furnished and prepared. If Christs disciples always loyally did as Jesus appointed them, they would always speed well on his errands. There are many more people in the world ready to yield to Christ than some of us think. The person sitting or standing by your side is quite unknown to you, but, if you will speak to him about the Saviour, he will probably respond to your word. At any rate, try him, and see if it be not so. Whether standing or sitting, there must be someone here not yet a disciple, who only needs for you to speak a kind word, and the deciding work will be done.
20, 21. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
One of you and his eyes would glance round the table as he said it, one of you shall betray me.
22. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him Lord, is it I?
No one said, Lord, is it Judas? Perhaps no one of the eleven thought that Judas was base enough to betray the Lord who had given him an honourable place among his apostles. It is certainly a mark of grace that every one of the apostles put to their Lord the question, Is it I?
23, 24. And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
We learn from our Lords words that divine decrees do not deprive a sinful action of its guilt: The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! The criminality of Judas was just as great as though there had been no determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God even as it was with those to whom Peter spoke so boldly on the day of Pentecost, when he charged them with the murder of Jesus.
20. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
What a chill that answer must have cast over the little band around the table, especially when Judas rose, and started off, to carry out his dreadful purpose of staining his soul with the blood of his Lord!
26-29. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom.
Thus Jesus took the great Nazarite vow never to drink of the fruit of the vine till he should drink it new with His disciples in His Fathers kingdom. O Lord, thou hast pledged us in this cup, and thou wilt return before long, and then what festivals we will hold with thee, what joy we shall have in thee for ever and ever!
30. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives.
Was it not truly brave of our dear Lord to sing under such circumstances? He was going forth to his last dread conflict, to Gethsemane, and Gabbatha, and Golgotha; yet he went with a song on His lips. The door opens, they go downstairs, they are in the open-air, that night of the full moon, and they wend their way to the Mount of Olives. Then came that desperate struggle in which the great Captain of our salvation wrestled even to a bloody sweat, and prevailed.
This exposition consisted of readings from Psalms 147, And Mat 26:6-30.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
The King Anointed for his Burial
Mat 26:6-7. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
“We do not know who Simon the leper was, nor whether this woman was Mary, the sister of Lazarus, though I believe she was the one who came to Jesus, having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. The beauty of this woman’s act consisted in this, that it was all for Christ. All who were in the house could perceive and enjoy the perfume of the precious ointment; but the anointing was for Jesus only.
Mat 26:8-9. But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
When you do the best you can do, from the purest motives, and your Lord accepts your service, do not expect that your brethren will approve all your actions. If you do, you will be greatly disappointed. There was never a more beautiful proof of love to Christ than this anointing at Bethany; yet the disciples found fault with it: They had indignation, saying, “To what purpose is this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.” According to John’s account, it was Judas who asked, “Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? “The same evangelist gives the reason for the traitor’s question, “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.” The complaint having been started by Judas, others of the disciples joined in it. If this devoted and enthusiastic woman had waited for the advice of these prudent people, she would neither have sold the ointment, nor poured it out. She did well to take counsel with her own loving heart, and then to pour the precious nard upon that dear head which was so soon to be crowned with thorns. She thus showed that there was, at least, one heart in the world that thought nothing was too good for her Lord, and that the best of the best ought to bo given to him. May she have many imitators in every age until Jesus comes again!
Mat 26:10. When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
She had been very happy in the act; probably it was the happiest hour in all her life when she gave this costly gift to the Lord she loved so well. But a cloud passed over her bright face as the whispered complaints reached her ear. Jesus perceived that the murmuring of the disciples troubled the woman, so he rebuked them, and commended her: “Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.’ She did something we cannot do, for Christ is not now here in person, to be anointed by those who love him as this woman did. We can perform good works upon others for his sake; and he will accept them as though they were done unto himself.
Mat 26:11. For ye have the poor always you; but me ye have not always.
Our Lord always cared for the poor; he was himself poor, he was the poor people’s Preacher, he fed the hungry poor, and healed the sick poor. He would always have his people show their love to him by caring for the poor; but he had reached the one occasion in his life when it was seemly that something should be done specially for himself, and this woman, by the intuition of love, did that very thing. Oh, that we might all love Christ as intensely as she did!
Mat 26:12-13. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
She probably did not know all that her action meant when she anointed her Lord for his burial. The consequences of the simplest action done for Christ may be much greater than we think. Go thou, my sister, and do what God bids thee; and it shall be seen that thou hast done far more than thou knowest. Obey the holy impulse within thy spirit, my brother; and thou mayest do ten thousand times more than thou hast ever imagined to be possible.
This woman’s outburst of affection, this simple-hearted act of love to Christ himself, is one of those things which are to live as long as the gospel lives. The aroma of this loving deed is to abide as long as the world itself endures.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom
in Bethany: Mat 21:17, Mar 11:12, Joh 11:1, Joh 11:2, Joh 12:1
Simon: Mar 14:3
Reciprocal: Mat 8:2 – a leper Luk 5:12 – full Luk 7:36 – one Joh 12:2 – Martha Joh 12:3 – took
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE DISCIPLESHIP OF LOVE
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto Him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on His head.
Mat 26:6-7
This incident of the anointing by Mary represents the type of discipleship which shows supreme love to Christ.
I. The discipleship of love sacrifices its best for Christ.
(a) Marys alabaster cruse of exceeding precious ointment was the best thing in her possession. The bargaining faculty of Judas saw in it above three hundred pence=10 12s. 6d.
(b) But she poured infinitely more than this. It was the symbol and expression of love and communion (Psalms 133). Wealth is in the heart rather than in the alabaster cruse.
(c) Noble love seeks out an object worthy of itself. Christ was to Mary that one thing needful (St. Luk 10:41).
II. It has its reward in His commendation.
(a) Why trouble ye the woman? The conduct of the disciples was uncivil towards the Lord Himself.
(b) She hath wrought a good work upon Me. A work of love to Christ is a good work in the highest sense.
(c) For ye have the poor always with you; but Me ye have not always. The highest form of love to our neighbour comes through love to Christ.
(d) She did it for My burial. Great expense was by custom allowed in funeral rites (cf. 2Ch 16:14; St. Luk 23:56).
Deeds of Christian love have deeper meaning than love comprehends. Jesus comprehends the deepest meaning. In due time He will reveal it.
III. There is an immortality in goodness.
(a) Marys was an everlasting deed. It is a memorial of her, i.e. to bring to mind her amiable and devout character.
(b) Only God can guarantee the immortality of any action. Here there is a prophecy which proves the divinity of Christ.
(c) Note here a tacit intimation that Christ intended that a written record of His life should accompany the preaching of His religion.
(d) The memorial of this good deed is more widespread as it is more enduring than the fame of the deeds of the Csars.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
26:6
The writer now goes back a few days to relate some incidents that happened while Jesus was in Bethany. In chapter 21:17 is the account of his going out to that village nearby where he lodged over night. In John’s account (Joh 12:1-2) we are told that when he was there a supper was made in his honor, which our present verse says was in the house of Simon the leper. The law of Moses required a leper to dwell apart from society (Lev 13:46), hence we should conclude that Simon had been miraculously cured by the Lord, and he was designated “the leper” to distinguish him from several other men with the same name.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper.
[Now when Jesus was in Bethany, etc.] That this supper in Bethany was the same with that mentioned John_13, I dare venture to affirm; however that be taken by very many for the paschal supper. Let us examine the matter a little home:
I. This supper was before the Passover; so was that: that this was, none need doubt; no more may they of the other, if we consider these things:
1. It is said by John in express words, before the feast of the Passover; Mat 26:1, Passover; indeed, not seldom signifies the lamb itself; sometimes the very time of eating the lamb; sometimes the sacrifice of the day following, as Joh 18:28. But the feast of the Passover; alway signifies the whole seven days’ paschal feast, both in the language of the Scripture and of the Talmudists: a Jew would laugh at one that should interpret it otherways.
2. When Christ said to Judas going out, “What thou doest, do quickly,” some thought he meant this, “Buy those things that we have need of against the feast,” at the twenty-ninth verse. For what feast; I pray? For the paschal supper? That, according to the interpreters which we here oppose, was just past. For the remaining part of the feast of that solemnity? Alas, how unseasonable! Where were those things, I pray, then to be bought, if this were the very night on which they had just eaten the lamb? The night of a feast day was festival: where were there any such markets to be found then? It was an unusual thing indeed, and unheard of, to rise from the paschal supper to go to market: a market on a festival-night was unusual and unheard of. It would argue some negligence, and a little good husbandry, if those things that were necessary for the feast were not yet provided; but that they must be to run, now late at night, to buy those things they knew not where, they knew not how. It is certainly very harsh, and contrary to reason, to understand these things thus, when, from the first verse, the sense is very plain, before the feast of the Passover. The Passover was not yet come, but was near at hand: the disciples, therefore, thought that our Saviour had given order to Judas to provide all those things that were necessary to the paschal solemnity against it came.
3. Observe that also of Luk 22:3; etc.: “Satan entered into Judas, and he went his way, and communed with the chief priests,” etc. And after, in the seventh verse, “Then came the day of unleavened bread.” Hence I inquire, Is the method of Luke direct or no? If not, let there be some reason given of the transposition; if it be direct, then it is plain that the devil entered into Judas before the Passover: but he entered into him at that supper in Joh 13:27; therefore that supper was before the Passover. For,
4. Let them who take that supper in John_13 for the paschal supper, tell me how this is possible, that Judas after the paschal supper (at which they do not deny that he was present with the rest of the disciples) could make his agreement with the priests, and get his blades together ready to apprehend our Saviour, and assemble all the council, Mat 26:57. The evangelists say that he made an agreement with the chief priests, Mat 26:14; and with the captains; Luk 22:4; and “with all the council,” Mar 14:10-11. But now, which way was it possible that he could bargain with all these in so small a space as there was between the going out of Judas from supper and the betraying of our Lord in the garden? What! Were these all together at supper that night? This is a matter to be laughed at rather than credited. Did he visit all these from door to door? And this is as little to be thought, since he had scarce time to discourse with any one of them. Every one supped this night at home, the master of a family with his family. It would be ridiculous to suppose that these chief priests supped together, while, in the mean time, their families sat down at home without their head. It is required by the law that every master of a family should be with his family that night, instructing them, and performing sacred rites with and for them. These were, therefore, to be sought from house to house by Judas, if that were the first time of his treating with them about this matter: and let reason answer whether that little time he had were sufficient for this? We affirm, therefore, with the authority of the evangelists, that that supper, John_13, was before the Passover; at which, Satan entering into Judas, he bargained with the priests before the Passover, he appointed the time and place of his betraying our Saviour, and all things were by them made ready for this wicked deed before the Passover came. Observe the method and order of the story in the evangelists, Mat 26:14-17; Mar 14:10-12; “Then went Judas to the priests, and said, ‘What will ye give me,’ etc. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him. Now, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came,” etc. When was it that Judas came to the priests to treat about betraying Christ? Surely before the first day of unleavened bread. Luke also, whom we quoted before, proceeds in the very same method: “From that time (say they), he sought for an opportunity to betray him.” If then first he went to and agreed with the priests when he rose up from the paschal supper, as many suppose, he did not then seek for an opportunity, but had found one. The manner of speaking used by the evangelists most plainly intimates some space of deliberation, not sudden execution.
5. Let those words of John be considered, Joh 14:31, Arise, let us go hence; and compared with the words, Joh 18:1, “When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron.” Do not these speak of two plainly different departures? Did not Christ rise up and depart when he said, “Arise, let us go hence?” Those words are brought in by the evangelist without any end or design, if we are not to understand by them that Christ immediately changed his place: and certainly this change of place is different from that which followed the paschal supper, Joh 18:1.
6. In that thirteenth chapter of John John_13 there is not the least mention nor syllable of the paschal supper. There is, indeed, plain mention of a supper before the feast of the Passover; that is, before the festival day; but of a paschal supper there is not one syllable. I profess seriously, I cannot wonder enough how interpreters could apply that chapter to the paschal supper, when there is not only no mention at all in it of the paschal supper, but the evangelist hath also pronounced, in most express words, and than which nothing can be more plain, that that supper of which he speaks was not on the feast of the Passover, but before the feast.
7. If those things which we meet with, John_13, of the sop given to Judas, etc. Were acted in the paschal supper, then how, I pray, was it possible for the disciples to mistake the meaning of those words, “What thou doest, do quickly?” In the paschal supper he said, “He that dips with me in the dish is he”; and the hand of Judas, as some think, was at that very moment in the dish. To Judas asking, “Is it I?” he plainly answered, “Thou hast said”: and besides, he gave him a sop for a token, as they say who maintain that opinion: then with what reason, or with what ignorance, after so clear a discovery of the thing and person, could the disciples imagine that Christ said, “Buy quickly those things that are necessary, or give something to the poor?”
8. And to what poor; I pray? It was unseasonable, truly, late at night, to go to seek for poor people here and there, who were now dispersed all about in several families eating the passover: for the poorest Israelite was obliged to that duty as well as the richest. They who supposed that Christ commanded him to give something to the poor, could not but understand it of a thing that was presently to be done. For it had been ridiculous to conceive, that Christ sent him so hastily away form supper to give something to the poor tomorrow. But, if it be granted that the matter was transacted at Bethany, and that two days before the Passover, which we assert, then it is neither necessary you should suppose that supper to have been so late at night; nor were poor people, then and there, to be far sought for, since so great a multitude of men followed Christ everywhere.
II. This supper was at Bethany, two days before the Passover: the same we conclude of that supper, John_13, both as to the place and time; and that, partly, by the carrying on of the story to that time, partly, by observing the sequel of that supper. Six days before the Passover Christ sups at Bethany, Joh 12:1.
The next day (five days before the Passover) he came to Jerusalem riding on an ass, Joh 12:12; and in the evening he returned to Bethany, Mat 21:17; Mar 11:11.
The day following (four days before the Passover) he went to Jerusalem, Mar 11:11; Mat 11:15; etc.; and at evening he returned the same way to Bethany, Mar 11:19.
The day after (three days before the Passover), he goes again to Jerusalem, Mar 11:27. In the evening, he went out to the mount of Olives, Mat 24:1; Mat 24:3; Mar 13:1; Mar 13:3; Luk 21:37. Now where did he sup this night? At Bethany. For so Matthew and Mark, “After two days was the Passover,” etc. “Now when Jesus was in Bethany.” And from this time forward there is no account either of his supping or going to Jerusalem till the evening of the Passover.
From that supper both the evangelists begin their story of Judas’ contriving to betray our Lord; Mat 26:14; Mar 14:10; and very fitly; for at that supper the devil had entered into him, and hurried him forward to accomplish his villainy.
We therefore thus draw up the series of the history out of the holy writers: Before the feast of the Passover (Joh 13:1), namely, two days (Mat 26:2; Mat 26:6), as Jesus was supping in Bethany, a woman anoints his head: and some of the disciples murmur at it. Our Saviour himself becomes both her advocate and encomiast. Before supper was done Christ riseth from the table, and washeth his disciples’ feet; and, sitting down again, acquaints them with the betrayer. John asking privately about him, he privately also gives him a token by a sop, and gives a sop to Judas. With this the devil entered into him, and now he grows ripe for his wickedness: “The devil had before put it into his heart to betray him,” Mat 26:2; now he is impatient till he hath done it. He riseth up immediately after he had the sop, and goes out. As he was going out, Jesus said to him, “What thou doest, do quickly”: which some understood of buying necessaries for the feast, that was now two days off. It was natural and easy for them to suppose, that he, out of his diligence (having the purse, and the care of providing things that were necessary), was now gone to Jerusalem, though it were night, there being a great deal to be done, to get all things ready against the feast. He goes away; comes to Jerusalem; and the next day treats with the priests about betraying our Lord, and concludes a bargain with them. They were afraid for themselves, lest they should be either hindered by the people, or suffer some violence from them on the feast day. He frees them from this fear, provided they would let him have soldiers and company ready at the time appointed. Our Saviour lodges at Bethany that night, and spends the next day and the night after there too: and, being now ready to take his leave of his disciples, he teaches, instructs, and comforts them at large. Judas, having craftily laid the design of his treachery, and set his nets in readiness, returns, as is probable, to Bethany; and is supposed by the disciples, who were ignorant of the matter, to have performed his office exceeding diligently, in providing necessaries for the approaching feast. On the day itself of the Passover, Jesus removes from Bethany with his disciples: “Arise (saith he), let us go hence,” Joh 14:31; and comes to Jerusalem.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 26:6. Now when Jesus was in Bethany. On Saturday evening, see note above.
In the house of Simon the leper. Probably already healed by Jesus, since otherwise he would have been unclean. He must not be confounded with the Pharisee called Simon, at whose house in Galilee a similar anointing had taken place long before (Luk 7:36-50). The two occurrences are clearly distinguished in many ways. One tradition makes this Simon the father of Lazarus; another the husband of Martha, who served on this occasion. Both families may have occupied the same house; or Simon may have been the owner, and Lazarus his tenant.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
This woman, St. John says, was Mary, the sister of Lazarus, who, to show her love to Christ, and put honour upon him, took a precious box of ointment, and poured it upon our Saviour’s head, according to the custom of the eastern country, who used so to do at their feasts and banquets; to which David alludes, Psa 23:5.
Learn hence, 1. That where true love to Christ prevails in the heart, nothing is adjudged too dear for Christ. This box of ointment murmuring Judas valued at three hundred pence which, reckoning the Roman penny at seven pence halfpenny, makes of our money nine pounds seven shillings and sixpence. Love (we see) spares for no cost but where the esteem of Christ is high, the affection will be strong.
Note, 2. That where strong love prevails towards Jesus Christ, will piously strive with the greatest apostle to express the fervour of her love unto him. I do not find any of the apostles at so much cost to put honour upon Christ, as this poor woman was at. Love knows no bounds, no measures.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 26:6-13. When Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper That is, who had been a leper, but, as seems highly probable, had been healed by Jesus. At least, it is not to be thought that he was now a leper, for in that case he would not have been suffered to live in a town, nor would any Jew have come to an entertainment in his house. There came a woman Probably Mary, the sister of Lazarus, for it is highly probable, as Dr. Doddridge has shown, that the anointing of Jesus here mentioned, is the same with that recorded Joh 12:1. Having an alabaster box, &c. Being deeply affected with the many instances that Christ had given her and her sister Martha of his love, and especially by his late mercy in recovering her dear brother Lazarus from the grave, she was therefore solicitous to give some uncommon token of her gratitude to so excellent a person. She brake the box, says Mark, and poured the precious ointment, or rich balsam, on his head. See note on Joh 12:3. When the disciples saw it, they had indignation Several of them were angry, though none so much so as Judas, saying, To what purpose is this waste? Such a quantity of this rich balsam poured out to so little purpose. For this ointment might have been sold for much The disciples being sensible that their Master was not delighted with luxuries of any kind, were grieved, and murmured against the woman, says Mark, for throwing away so much money idly, as they imagined. But they expressed themselves so as to cast a tacit reflection on Jesus himself. Jesus said, Why trouble ye the woman? Why do ye grieve and distress the good woman, of whose piety and friendship we have had so long an experience? For she hath wrought a good work upon me Hath given a great proof of her faith, gratitude, and love; and therefore deserves to be commended rather than to be blamed. For with respect to what has been now suggested, in favour of the poor, ye have them always with you By the wise and gracious providence of God, it does, and always will happen, that objects needing your compassion and charity shall always be with you, that you may always have opportunities of relieving their wants, and so of laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven. But me ye have not always I am soon to leave you, and to be placed beyond the reach of your kindness. In that she hath poured this ointment on my body On my feet as well as my head; see Joh 12:4. She did it for my burial As it were, for the embalming of my body. Indeed this was not her design; but our Lord puts this construction upon it, to confirm thereby what he had before said to his disciples concerning his approaching death. Verily, wheresoever this gospel That is, this part of the gospel history; shall be preached, this that this woman hath done shall be told, &c. To make them further sensible of their folly in blaming her for this expression of her love to him, he assured them that however much she might be condemned by them, she should be highly celebrated for this action through the world, and live in the memory of all ages.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
P A R T S E V E N T H.
LAST WEEK OF OUR LORD’S MINISTRY, THE
FOURTH PASSOVER, THE CRUCIFIXION.
CIV.
JESUS ARRIVES AND IS FEASTED AT BETHANY.
(From Friday afternoon till Saturday Night, March 31 and April 1, A. D. 30.)
dJOHN XI. 55-57; XII. 1-11; aMATT. XXVI. 6-13; bMARK XIV. 3-9.
d55 Now the passover of the Jews was at hand: and many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the passover, to purify themselves. [These Jews went up before the Passover that they might have time to purify themselves from ceremonial uncleanness before the feast. They were expected to purify before any important event ( Exo 19:10, Exo 19:11), and did so before the passover ( 2Ch 30:13-20), for those who were ceremonially unclean were excluded from it– Joh 18:28.] 56 They sought therefore for Jesus, and spake one with another, as they stood in the temple, What think ye? That he will not come to the feast? 57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given commandment, that, if any man knew where he was, he should show it, that they might take him. [The decree of the Sanhedrin ordering the arrest of Jesus led the people to question as to whether he would dare to approach the city. But this mention of it and the stir and question which it created have a dark significance. It shows that the Jews generally were forewarned of the evil purpose of the Sanhedrin, and the dangers which surrounded Jesus. They were not taken unawares when their rulers told them to raise the cry “Crucify him!” And they raised it after they had due notice and time [568] for deliberation.] d1 Jesus therefore six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead. [The word “therefore” refers to the decree and consequent dangers just mentioned. Because his “hour” had come, Jesus went to face these dangers. We are told that he came to the house of Lazarus and that he kept near Lazarus because these facts emphasized the great miracle which roused the hatred of the Jews, and caused them more earnestly to seek the death of Christ. Jesus appears to have arrived in Bethany Friday afternoon, March 31, A.D. 30. It is likely that he spent the Sabbath day at that place, and that the supper mentioned below was given him after sunset on Saturday, which, according to Jewish reckoning, would be the beginning of Sunday. This supper is mentioned later by Matthew and Mark, but without any note of time to show that it belongs specifically where they put it. But John does give us a note of time. The Joh 12:12 shows that it was the night before the triumphal entry, and therefore we follow the chronology of John.] 2 So a6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, dthey made him a supper there: ain the house of Simon the leper, dand Martha served; but Lazarus was one of them that sat at meat with him. [Who Simon the leper was is not known. It is not unlikely that he was one whom Jesus had healed, and that he united with the household of Lazarus in a joint effort to show gratitude unto the Lord for his goodness to this group of his friends.] b3 And while he was [there] as he sat at meat, there came aunto him a woman {d3 Mary} ahaving an alabaster cruse of exceeding precious ointment, bof pure nard very costly; d3 Mary therefore took a pound [a litra, a Greek weight containing nearly twelve ounces avoirdupois] of ointment of pure nard, very precious [Nard was a liquid perfume distilled from some odorous plant or plants and mingled with oil. It was sealed in flasks or alabaster boxes and imported from the far East], band she brake the cruse, and poured it over {aupon} bhis head. aas he sat at meat. dand anointed [569] the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair [The cruse seems to have been a long-necked flask sealed with wax so tightly as to necessitate it being broken to extract the nard. These flasks were tasteful and costly objects such as women delight to possess. Many of them were so delicate that Pliny compares them to closed rosebuds, and the same writer, speaking of nard, reckons it as an instance of excessive luxury to anoint the feet or ankles with it]: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. [Thus the liberality of Mary contributed to the pleasure of all the guests. The odor of a good deed is generally diffusive.] 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, that should betray him, saith, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred shillings, and given to the poor? 6 Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put therein. a8 But when the disciples saw it, they {bthere were some that} had indignation among themselves, asaying, To what purpose is this waste? bTo what purpose hath this waste of the ointment been made? 5 For this ointment might have been sold afor much, bfor above three hundred shillings, and given to the poor. And they murmured against her. [It seems very likely that this murmuring was started by Judas Iscariot, for the murmurers fall in with his notions that the price of the ointment should be deposited in the poor fund. It is a singular thing that Jesus permitted a thief to occupy the office of treasurer. It is probable that Judas was honest when he was called to serve, but that same management and spirit of economy which made him fit for the place ruined him when he got it. Thus our strong points are often our weakest. The price of the pound of nard would be about fifty-one dollars of our money, but the purchasing power of money was then nearly ten times as great as it is now. The price here named agrees almost exactly with the figures at which Pliny rates the most costly nard.] a10 But Jesus perceiving it, dtherefore said, aunto them, bLet her [570] alone; aWhy trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. dSuffer her to keep it against the day of my burying. a12 For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. b8 She hath done what she could; hath anointed my body beforehand for the burying. [The expression “Suffer,” etc., used by John, is taken by some as implying that all the ointment was not poured out, and that some of the apostles were endeavoring to persuade Mary to keep and sell what was left, and that Jesus ordered it kept to finish the embalming of his body which Mary had already begun. But there is nothing in the language to require such an interpretation. Jesus meant, “Let her use it rightly,” using the word “keep” as in the expression, “keep the feast;” i. e., observe the ceremony. The words of Jesus about the ointment taken as a whole may be construed thus: “The sorrows of my coming passion oppress me ( Mat 26:38), and Mary, conscious of that sorrow, wishes to cheer me with the evidence of love and gratitude. She sympathizes with me as I approach the shadow of death, and anoints me beforehand for the burial. You do not begrudge what is given to the dead. You do not censure as extravagant what is spent for the embalming of a dear one. You yourselves would be ready enough to anoint me in this same manner after I am dead. So do not censure her because in the fullness of her sympathy she has anticipated the coming catastrophe and has anointed me beforehand.”] d8 For the poor ye have always with you [ Deu 15:11]; band whensoever ye will ye can do them good: but me ye have not always. [There would be plenty of opportunities in which to do good to the poor, but the time for conferring a personal benefit upon Christ in the flesh was now limited to seven days. Thereafter gifts could only be given to Christ by bestowing them upon the poor.] 9 And verily I say unto you, Wheresoever the {athis} gospel shall be preached in {bthroughout} the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. [Jesus here makes [571] prominent the different estimates which God and man place upon the same acts. That which the disciples had censured as a waste and that which they had regarded as worthy of rebuke was in his sight an action fit to be kept in everlasting remembrance as a model for the conduct of future generations throughout the whole earth, and he accordingly decreed that it be so kept in mind.] d9 The common people therefore of the Jews learned that he was there [in Simon’s house]: and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead, 10 But the chief priests took counsel that they might put Lazarus also to death; 11 because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away [withdrew from the party headed by the Jewish rulers], and believed on Jesus. [The presence of the resurrected man and the Christ who had resurrected him both at one table greatly excited the curiosity of the multitudes who had come up to Jerusalem to attend the passover. When word of this supper spread among the people it was natural that they should slip out to Bethany to see the sight, and it was equally natural that seeing it they should believe in Jesus. This deflection of the common people gave a keener venom to the hatred of the rulers.]
[FFG 568-572]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
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
Mat 26:6-13. The Anointing of Jesus (Mar 13:3-9*)Mt. follows Mk. very closely, though abbreviating somewhat, e.g. in Mat 26:7; Mat 26:9; Mat 26:11. It is the Fourth Gospel that assigns the anointing to Mary of Bethany and the remonstrance to Judas. In Mk. it is some, in Mt. the disciples, who grumblethus there is a gradual defining of the culprit. In Mt. Jesus does not hear the murmuring, but perceives it.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 6
Bethany; a small village near Jerusalem, where Lazarus resided,–The leper; that is, so designated,– probably one whom our Savior had cured of leprosy.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
26:6 {3} Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
(3) By this sudden work of a sinful woman, Christ helps the guests to understand about his death and burial which was near: the gracious result of which will bring life to all sinners who flee unto him. But Judas takes an occasion here to accomplish his wicked purpose and plan.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus’ anointing for burial 26:6-13 (cf. Mar 14:3-9; Joh 12:1-8)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
This event evidently happened on the previous Saturday evening (Joh 12:1). [Note: Hoehner, Chronological Aspects . . ., p. 91.] The reference to two days before the Passover in Mat 26:2 dates the plot to seize Jesus, not the anointing in Simon’s house. [Note: M’Neile, p. 373; Hendricksen, p. 898; Taylor, p. 527.] Apparently Jesus spent the evening of that Saturday in the home of Simon, a healed leper, with His disciples and other guests. John recorded that Lazarus was there, his sister Martha helped with the serving, and their sister Mary was the woman who broke the vial and anointed Jesus’ head (and feet, Joh 12:2-3). Perhaps Matthew did not mention them by name to keep Jesus central in his story. John also recorded that the pound of perfume cost 300 denarii, about one year’s wages for a workingman (Joh 12:3; Joh 12:5). Matthew and Mark just said it was very expensive. The perfume was nard that probably came from India. [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 526.]