While he was at Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster jar of ointment of pure nard—very costly. She broke the jar, and poured it over his head. But there were some who were indignant among themselves, saying, “Why has this ointment been wasted? For this might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor.” So they grumbled against her.
But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want to, you can do them good; but you will not always have me. She has done what she could. She has anointed my body beforehand for the burying. Most certainly I tell you, wherever this Good News may be preached throughout the whole world, that which this woman has done will also be spoken of for a memorial of her.”
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 7, 8 Rash judgments are frustrated before God.
Rash judgments are frustrated before God.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv3–9 3 And being in Bethany in the house of…
3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
Ver. 3. Of spikenard very precious] Or pure, right, sincere, αδολον, not sophisticate, or adulterate; so Theophylact interprets it. But Scultetus saith it was spikenard of Opis, a town not far from Babylon, whence the most precious odours and ointments were transported into other parts (πιστικης, melius better δπιστικης).
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On v3 See Poole on "Mat 26:6", and following verses to…
See Poole on "Mat 26:6", and following verses to Mat 26:13, where this piece of history is fully considered, with the differing circumstances related by our evangelist and by St. John.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On v3 Several particulars are observable in this piece of history:…
Several particulars are observable in this piece of history: as, first, the action which this holy woman performed; she pours a box of precious ointment upon our Saviour’s head as he sat at meat, according to the custom of the eastern countries at their feasts. Murmuring Judas valued this ointment at three hundred pence, which makes, of our money, nine pounds seven shillings and a sixpence halfpenny. I do not find that any of the apostles were at thus much cost and charge to put honour upon our Saviour, as this poor woman was.
Learn hence, That where strong love prevails in the heart towards Christ, nothing is adjudged too dear for him, neither will it suffer itself to be outshined by any examples; the weakest woman that strongly loves her Saviour, will piously strive with the greatest apostle to expresss the fervour of her affection towards him.
Read full note →
Observe, 2. How this action was resented and reflected upon by Judas, and some other disciples whom he influenced; They had indignation within themselves, and said, To what purpose is this waste?
O! how doth a covetous heart think everything too good for Christ! Happy was it for this poor woman, that she had a more righteous Judge to pass sentence upon her actions than murmuring Judas.
Observe, 3. How readily our holy Lord vindicates this good woman; she says nothing for herself, nor need she, having so good an advocate.
First he rebukes Judas, Let her alone, why trouble ye the woman?
Next he justifies the action, She hath wrought a good work, because it flowed from a principle of love to Christ.
And lastly, he gives the reason of her action, She did it for my burial. As kings and great persons were wont in those eastern countries, at their funerals, to be enbalmed with odours and sweet perfumes, so, says our Saviour, this woman, to declare her faith in me as her king and Lord, both with this box of ointment, as it were beforehand, embalm my body for its burial.
True faith puts honour upon a crucified, as well as a glorified , Saviour. This holy woman accounts Christ worthy of all honour in his death believing it would be a sweet-smelling sacrifice unto God, and the saviour of life unto his people.
Observe, 4. Our Saviour doth not only justify and defend the action of this poor woman, but magnifies and extols it; declaring that she should be rewarded for it with an honourable memorial in all ages of the church: Whensoever this gospel is preached, this shall be spoken of as a memorial of her.
Note hence, The care which Christ takes to have the good deeds of his children not buried in the dust with them, but had in everlasting remembrance. Though sin causes men to rot above the ground, and stink alive, and when they are dead, leaves an ignominy upon their graves; yet will the actions of the just smell sweet and blossom in the dust.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv3–9 And being in Bethany,.... A place about two miles…
And being in Bethany,.... A place about two miles from Jerusalem, whither he retired after he had took his leave of the temple, and had predicted its destruction; a place he often went to, and from, the last week of his life; having some dear friends, and familiar acquaintance there, as Lazarus, and his two sisters, Martha and Mary, and the person next mentioned:
in the house of Simon the leper; so called because he had been one, and to distinguish him from Simon the Pharisee, and Simon Peter the apostle, and others; See Gill on Mat 26:6;
Read full note →
as he sat at meat there came a woman; generally thought to be Mary Magdalene, or Mary the sister of Lazarus:
having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard; or "pure nard", unmixed and genuine; or liquid nard, which was drinkable, and so easy to be poured out; or Pistic nard, called so, either from "Pista", the name of a place from whence it was brought, or from "Pistaca", which, with the Rabbins, signifies "maste"; of which, among other things, this ointment was made. Moreover, ointment of nard was made both of the leaves of nard, and called foliate nard, and of the spikes of it, and called, as here, spikenard. Now ointment made of nard was, as Pliny says (w), the principal among ointments. The Syriac is, by him, said to be the best; this here is said to be
very precious, costly, and valuable:
and she brake the box. The Syriac and Ethiopic versions render it, "she opened it"; and the Persic version, "she opened the head", or "top of the bottle", or "vial":
and poured it on his head; on the head of Christ, as the same version presses it; See Gill on Mat 26:7.
(w) Nat. Hist. l. 12. c. 12.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv3–4 Matt. xxvi, 6.
Matt. xxvi, 6.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv3, 5, 8, 9 Verse 3. Alabaster box] Among critics and learned men…
Verse 3. Alabaster box] Among critics and learned men there are various conjectures concerning the alabaster mentioned by the evangelists: some think it means a glass phial; others, that it signifies a small vessel without a handle, from α negative and λαβη, a handle; and others imagine that it merely signifies a perfume or essence bottle. There are several species of the soft calcareous stone called alabaster, which are enumerated and described in different chemical works.
Spikenard] Or nard. An Indian plant, whose root is very small and slender. It puts forth a long and small stalk, and has several ears or spikes even with the ground, which has given it the name of spikenard: the taste is bitter, acrid, and aromatic, and the smell agreeable. CALMET.
Read full note →
Very precious] Or rather, unadulterated: this I think is the proper meaning of πιστικης. Theophylact gives this interpretation of the passage: "Unadulterated hard, and prepared with fidelity." Some think that πιστικη is a contraction of the Latin spicatae, and that it signifies the spicated nard, or what we commonly call the spikenard. But Dr. Lightfoot gives a different interpretation. πιστικη he supposes to come from the Syriac פיסתקא pistike, which signifies the acorn: he would therefore have it to signify an aromatic confection of nard, maste, or myrobalane. See his Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations; and see Scheuchzer's Physica Sacra.
She brake the box] Rather, she broke the seal. This is the best translation I can give of the place; and I give it for these reasons:
1. That it is not likely that a box exceedingly precious in itself should be broken to get out its contents.
2. That the broken pieces would be very inconvenient if not injurious to the head of our Lord, and to the hands of the woman.
3. That it would not be easy effectually to separate the oil from the broken pieces. And,
4. That it was a custom in the eastern countries to seal the bottles with wax that held the perfumes; so that to come at their contents no more was necessary than to break the seal, which this woman appears to have done; and when the seal was thus broken, she had no more to do than to pour out the liquid ointment, which she could not have done had she broken the bottle.
The bottles which contain the [Hindu] gul i attyr, or attyr of roses, which come from the east, are sealed in this manner. See a number of proofs relative to this point in HARMER'S Observations, vol. iv. 469. Pouring sweet-scented oil on the head is common in Bengal. At the close of the festival of the goddess Doorga, the Hindoos worship the unmarried daughters of Brahmins: and, among other ceremonies, pour sweet-scented oil on their heads. WARD'S Customs.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv3, 4, 7 Of precious[1] spikenard. This was a perfume extracted and…
Of precious[1] spikenard. This was a perfume extracted and distilled from the leaves, tops, or stalks, of the plant or herb called nard. It was the custom of the eastern people to pour such precious perfumes on their own heads, or on the heads of their guests whom they had a mind to honour. (Witham) --- this happened six days previous to the pasch. The woman here mentioned was Mary, sister of Lazarus. (John xii. 3.)
===============================
Read full note →
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
Unguenti nardi spicati pretiosi, Greek: murou nardou pistikes polutelous. Both here in St. Mark, and also in St. John, Chap. xii. 3. we read Greek: pistikes, which by the Greek agees with nard, and not with ointment. The interpreters are much divided about the signification of the word Greek: pistikes: some late writers would needs have Greek: pistides to come from Greek: pio or pino, and to signify liquid, but this does not seem well grounded. Others, with St. Augustine, would have Greek: pistikes to be taken from the name of some country or place from whence this precious nard was brought. The most common opinion seems that of St. Hierom [St. Jerome], with whom agree Theophylactus, and Euthymius, that Greek: pistika, derived from Greek: pistis, signifies true and genuine nard, and so of the greatest price and value.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On v3 3. Spikenard — Nard, according to Dr. Royle, is…
3. Spikenard — Nard, according to Dr. Royle, is the botanic Nardostachys Jatamansi, an odorous plant derived from the mountains of India near the sources of the Ganges. The nard perfume was a compound of all the most valued perfumes of antiquity, among which were the malabatharum, costus amomum, myrrha, and balsam. Very precious — The three hundred pence was about forty-five dollars; thrice the price for which Judas sold his Lord.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv3, 4, 5, 8, 9 3–9. The Feast in Simon’s House. The Anointing by…
3–9. The Feast in Simon’s House. The Anointing by Mary
3. And being in Bethany] Meanwhile circumstances had occurred which in their result presented to the Jewish authorities a mode of apprehending Him which they had never anticipated. To relate these the Evangelist goes back to the evening before the Triumphal Entry, and places us in the house of
Read full note →
Simon the leper] He had, we may believe, been a leper, and possibly had been restored by our Lord Himself. He was probably a near friend or relation of Lazarus. Some suppose he was his brother, others that he was the husband of Mary.
as he sat at meat] We learn from St John that the sisters had made Him a feast, at which Martha served, while Lazarus reclined at the table as one of the guests (Joh_12:2).
there came a woman] This was Mary the sister of Lazarus, full of grateful love to Him, who had poured back joy into her once desolated home.
having an alabaster box] “hauynge a box of precious oynement spikanard,” Wyclif. At Alabastron in Egypt there was a manufactory of small vases for holding perfumes, which were made from a stone found in the neighbouring mountains. The Greeks gave to these vases the name of the city from which they came, calling them alabastrons. This name was eventually extended to the stone of which they were formed; and at length the term alabaster was applied without distinction to all perfume vessels, of whatever materials they consisted.
of ointment of spikenard] Or, as in margin, of pure (= genuine) nard or liquid nard. Pure or genuine seems to yield the best meaning, as opposed to the pseudo-nardus, for the spikenard was often adulterated. Pliny, Nat. Hist. xii. 26. It was drawn from an Indian plant, brought down in considerable quantities into the plains of India from such mountains as Shalma, Kedar Kanta, and others, at the foot of which flow the Ganges and Jumna rivers.
very precious] It was the costliest anointing oil of antiquity, and was sold throughout the Roman Empire, where it fetched a price that put it beyond any but the wealthy. Mary had bought a vase or flask of it containing 12 ounces (Joh_12:3). Of the costliness of the ointment we may form some idea by remembering that it was among the gifts sent by Cambyses to the Ethiopians (Herod. iii. 20), and that Horace promises Virgil a whole cadus (= 36 quarts nearly) of wine, for a small onyx box of spikenard (Carm. iv. xii. 16, 17),
“Nardo vina merebere;
“Nardi parvus onyx eliciet cadum.”
brake the box] i. e. she broke the narrow neck of the small flask, and poured the perfume first on the head, and then on the feet of Jesus, drying them with the hair of her head. She did not wish to keep or hold back anything. She offered up all, gave away all, and her “all” was a tribute worthy of a king. “To anoint the feet of the greatest monarch was long unknown; and in all the pomps and greatnesses of the Roman prodigality, it was not used till Otho taught it to Nero.” Jeremy Taylor’s Life of Christ, iii. 13.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv3–7 (3-9) And being in Bethany.—See Notes on Mat_26:6-13.
(3-9) And being in Bethany.—See Notes on Mat_26:6-13.
Ointment of spikenard.—The Greek word so translated is, as the various renderings in the margin show, of doubtful import. It is used by St. John (Joh_12:3) in his account of the same facts.
Read full note →
She brake the box.—As in the “breaking through” the roof in Mar_2:4, the vivid touch that brings the manner of the act distinctly before our eyes is found in St. Mark only. The Greek word implies not so much the breaking of the neck of the costly jar or flask, but the crushing it in its entirety with both her hands.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv3–9 And while he was in Bethany, in the house…
And while he was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster cruse (alabastron) literally, an alabaster; as we say, "a glass," of a vessel made of glassof ointment of spikenard very costly (murou nardou pistikhv polutelouv); and she brake the cruse, and poured it over his head. This anointing of our Lord appears to have taken place on the Saturday before Palm Sunday. (see Joh_12:1) The anointing mentioned by St. Luke (Luk_7:36) evidently has reference to some previous occasion. The narrative here and in St. Matthew and St. John would lead us to the conclusion that this was a feast given by Simon perhaps in grateful acknowledgment of the miracle which had been wrought upon Lazarus. He is called "Simon the leper," probably because he had been a leper, and had been healed by Christ, although he still retained the name of "leper," to distinguish him from others named Simon, or Simeon, a common name amongst the Jews. There came a woman. This woman, we learn from St. John, (Joh_12:2, Joh_12:3) was Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. The vessel, or cruse, which she had with her was made of alabaster, a kind of soft, smooth marble, which could easily be scooped out so as to form a receptacle for ointment, which, according to Pliny ("Nat. Hist.," 13:3), was best preserved in vessels made of alabaster. The vessel would probably be formed with a long narrow neck, which could easily be broken, or crushed (the word in the original is suntriqasa so as to allow of a free escape for the unguent. The ointment was made of spikenard nardou pistikhv). The Vulgate has nardi spicati. If this is the true interpretation of the word pistikhv , it would mean that this ointment was made from a bearded plant mentioned by Pliny ("Nat. Hist.," 12:12), who says that the ointment made from this plant was most precious. The plant was called by Galen "nardi spica." Hence pistikhn it would mean "genuine" ointment ointment made from the flowers of the choicest kind of plant, pliny ("Nat. Hist.," 12:26) says that there was an inferior article in circulation, which he calls "pseudo-nard." The Syriac Peshito Version uses an expression which means the principal, or best kind of ointment. The anointing of the head would be the more usual mark of honor. It would seem most probable that Mary first wiped the feet of Jesus, wetting them with her tears, and then wiping off the dust, and then anointing them; and that she then proceeded to break the neck of the cruse, and to pour its whole contents on his head.
Vers. 3-9. Tribute of grateful love.
Read full note →
A singular interest attaches to this simple incident in Christ"s private life. Proud and foolish men have tried to turn it into ridicule, as unworthy of the memory of a great prophet. But they have not succeeded. Our Lord"s own estimate of Mary"s conduct is accepted, and the world-wide and lasting renown promised by Jesus has been secured. The record of the graceful act of the friend of Jesus is instructive, touching, and beautiful. And the commendation which the Master pronounced is an evidence of his human and sympathizing appreciation of devotion and of love.
I THE ACCEPTABLE MOTIVE TO CHRISTIAN SERVICE IS HERE REVEALED. Mary was prompted, not by vanity and ostentation, but by grateful love. This had been awakened both by his friendship and teaching, and by his compassionate kindness in raising her brother from the dead. What Jesus appreciated was Mary"s love. Services and gifts are valuable in Christ"s view, not for themselves, for he needs them not, but as an expression of his people"s deepest feelings. Let Christians consider what they owe to their Savior salvation, life eternal. They may well exclaim, "We love him, because he first loved us." Acceptable obedience does not come first, for in such case it would be a form only; but if love prompts our deeds and services, they become valuable oven before Heaven.
II THE NATURAL MODES OF CHRISTIAN SERVICE. These are severally exemplified in this incident.
1. Personal ministry. Mary did not send a servant; she came herself co-minister to Jesus. There is some work for Christ which most Christians must do by deputy; but there is much work which may and should be done personally. In the home, in the school, in the Church, in the hospital, we may individually, according to opportunity and ability, serve the Lord Christ. What is done for his "little ones" he takes as done for himself.
2. Substance. Mary gave costly perfume, estimated to have cost upwards of ten pounds of our money. She had property, and therefore gave. All we have is his, who, when he purchased us with his blood, purchased all our powers and possessions. It is a precious privilege to offer him his own. "It is accepted according to what a man hath.
3. Public witness. Mary anointed the Master"s feet in the presence of the company, and thus declared before all those assembled her devotion to him. It is good for ourselves that we should witness to our Savior, and it is good for others who may receive our testimony. It is a disgrace to professing Christians when they are ashamed of the Lord who redeemed them.
III THE TRUE MEASURE OF CHRISTIAN SERVICE. She did, it is recorded, what she could; she gave what she had to give. This is an example worthy of universal imitation. We are reminded, as it were paradoxically, of two apparently opposed characteristics of Christian action and liberality.
1. How much devoted friends of Christ may do! Men may do much for harm and evil; and, on the other hand, what good even one person has sometimes accomplished in private life! What can be done should be done.
2. Yet, how limited are men"s powers! If Christians could do more than they do, how vast a field of labor stretches around them! We are limited in our powers for usefulness. Our means may be small, our circle of influence restricted. Our powers of body and of mind are often a restraint upon us; our life is brief, even at the longest. The sister of Bethany could not do what others might; nevertheless, what she could do she did. And we are never to rest in inactivity and indolence, because the claims are so many, and our powers are so small, and our opportunities so few.
IV THE APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF CHRISTIAN SERVICE.
1. The Lord accepts what his friends bring to him, as the expression of their love, in proportion to their means and powers. He is not influenced by men"s regards. Good men as well as bad men often disapprove wise and benevolent actions. He judgeth not as man judgeth.
2. The Lord rewards the grateful and devoted friends who minister unto him. He enlarges their opportunities of usefulness and service here. "To him that hath shall be given." And he will hereafter recompense them in the resurrection of the just, when he shall say, "Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.
APPLICATION.
1. Let Christians give love its way, and follow where it leads. There is no danger of our loving our Savior too ardently, or of our serving him too zealously.
2. If your means of showing devotion be but few, fret not; only let it be said, "They have done what they could.
HOMILIES BY A.F. MUIR Vers. 3-9. The precious spikenard; or, the impulse of the absolute.
The house of Simon the leper was a familiar resort to Jesus. It is Mary the sister of Lazarus who now approaches him as he reclines at meat. Let us look at
I HER ACT OF DEVOTION. The nard or spikenard was an unguent of the East. It was "genuine" and costly. Probably it had been kept against that day. She now entered, probably at first unperceived, and, breaking the neck of the alabaster cruse, poured the precious nard upon the Savior"s person (John says his feet; Matthew and Mark, his head; probably both received the anointing). John adds, And wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment." The offering was:
1. Sudden. It was given ere any one could interfere. The breaking of the cruse may also have pointed to the quick, spontaneous impulse which prompted. The woman who had come forward so unexpectedly, at once retired again before the tumult and anger her act had occasioned.
2. It sprang from secret sources of reverence and love. The disciples could not comprehend it. They were not consulted. It expressed her own feeling unshared with any other.
3. It was oblivious of cost. The price put upon it by the disciples three hundred denarii was about ten pounds of our money, but of greater actual value at that time. Mary belonged to a respectable family, and could probably afford the gift, although its purchase would tax her personal means. Of that she does not think. It is freely given, poured out without care or stint upon him for whom it had been designed.
II THE CRITICISM TO WHICH IT EXPOSED. The disciples "had indignation among themselves." It presently broke forth in reproaches and murmurs. The action was stigmatized as purposeless "waste." Another use it might have served, viz. the relief of the poor, was mentioned. This judgment was partly honest, partly knavish; wholly ignorant and wrong. "What is not outwardly useful may be highly proper;" and men ought to be very careful in pronouncing upon religious offerings. A higher platform of principle is often affected by those who are really less spiritual.
III CHRIST"S VINDICATION. "Why trouble ye her?" They had no business to interfere.
1. The act was commended. "A good noble, beautiful work." He saw the inward character of it. In his sight alone was it justified.
2. It was defended as more opportune and urgent than almsgiving. "Ye have the poor always with you,... but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could: she hath anointed my body aforehand for the burying." Many and mingled feelings prompted the offering gratitude for the restoration of Lazarus, adoration of the character of Jesus, recognition of him as "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," as the Lord of life and death, etc.; but may not the foremost motive have been the reverent one which sought to do honor to One about to die? She who sat at the feet of Jesus divined his teaching more deeply than his professed followers. How are we to characterize this emotion which overcame her? It was deep, pure, unselfish, overwhelming. May it not fitly be termed "the impulse of the absolute"? It is the essence of religion. Thus the devout soul responds to the infinite sacrifice. Martyrs, apostles, missionaries, have felt its power.
It obeyed a higher reason than the rudimentary religious experience of the apostles could comprehend. When the "length, and breadth, and depth, and height" of the passion of Jesus are perceived, no gift can fully express the sense of worship and obligation that arises: The highest sentiments of human nature are appealed to, and all the resources of our life are at his service, at the same time that we are profoundly conscious how far short they fall of his deserts or the claim he has upon us. It is a transaction, when it takes place, which others cannot judge; it is between the soul and its Lord. M.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv7–9 The poor with you always.
Mar_14:7
The poor with you always.
Read full note →
The condition of the poor may be bettered
Covetous men have put our Lords words, Ye have the poor with you always, beside the Old Testament sentence, The poor shall never cease out of the land, in order to quiet the trouble of their own consciences when forced to think of the little they are daily doing for the poor; and then tell themselves, and too often tell others, that aspiration, self-denial, and liberality are, after all, mere spasmodic, ineffectual palliatives of a disease which is inveterate and hopeless, and that, the existence of poverty being an unalterable decree, there can be no true neglect in doing nothing in their power, if there can be no full success in doing all. To some other people this combination of texts supplies a convenient discouragement to throw on all suggestions for elevating the condition of the poor, and alleviating the pressure of their poverty; for it enables them practically to conclude thus: To do this thing would be, more or less, to fly in the face of the Almighty: To alter the conditions He has so clearly laid down would be, in fact, to contradict His will. Of course this error also admits of an easy reply, too logical by far, however, for men who would offer the argument. It is this. God may have willed, and has willed, that absolute equality of goods Shall be, in this world, an impossibility; that the terms rich and poor, being relative terms, shall always have persons to whom they may be applied, though a man who is rich as compared with a peasant may be poor as compared with a prince. But God has never revealed as His will that those conditions shall never be interchangeable; on the contrary, His word tells us that such interchange must be sought (Jam_1:9), and the history of the world, from day to day, shows us, as part of its natural course, a continual rising of some, and sinking of others, in the social scale. Then there is another class of objections to deal with. It is urged by those who really sympathize in good will for the physical and moral raising of the poor, and feel that the bettering of poor mens condition would be an admirable thing if only it were possible, but that its antecedent impossibility frustrates all efforts towards so desirable an end. There are very many such-people who feel Christian love to fellow men fill them with longing to promote their temporal, and through it their eternal good; people who, themselves blessed with ease and affluence in worldly things, feel themselves in some sort trusted by God to benefit their poorer fellows; who know the pity and the wrong of merely flinging money, in whatever sums, into the grasping hand of the loudest clamourer; who strive with all their might in seeking, and fail so often bitterly in finding, the true deserving poor; who go themselves amidst the haunts of squalor, the homes of misery, the very centres of disease, trying to make true Christian mercy the dispenser of their money, and to consecrate even filthy lucre to the holy ministry of Christian love. How many these are, of Christian men and Christian women, God only knows who only can reward; but yet how disappointing is their work! They see from day to day so little fruit; they meet from day to day so much resistance; what wonder if, while conscience urges them to persist in their work, despondency should often overwhelm them, and make the toil, which only hope can lighten, a crushing burden when hope is fled? Is it not too sadly true that when the self-indulgent love to cry, the raising of the poor is resistance to God, the self-sacrificing often have to answer, the raising of the poor is hopeless for man! The one class lets them lie, and cries, their poverty is destiny; the other class labours even while it cries, our labour is in vain! And both have only quoted half the texts-the one side to excuse neglect, the other to explain despondency; while the whole text can force duty on the slothful and give courage to the zealous. For our Lord, indeed, spoke the truth of His day, of our day, and of all days, when He said, Ye have the poor with you always; but He said something more which we should lay to heart, When ye will, ye can do them good. These glorious words settle all questions at once as to the title of man to interfere with the condition of the poor, and as to the alleged hopelessness of such interference. The thing may be done, and the thing may be done with success. To alter the condition of the poor is allowable; to alter it for the better is possible. Ye can do them good! (W. L. Blackley, M. A.)
Christians caring for the poor
When the deacon, St. Lawrence, was asked, in the Decian persecution, to show the prefect the most precious treasures of the Church at Rome, he showed him the sick, the lame, the blind. It is incredible, said Lucian, the pagan jeerer and sceptic, to see the ardour with which those Christians help each other in their wants. They spare nothing. Their first legislator has put it into their heads that they are all brothers. These Galileans, said Julian the apostate, nourish not only their own poor, but ours as well. In the year 252 a plague raged in Carthage. The heathen threw out their dead and sick upon the streets, and ran away from them for fear of contagion, and cursed the Christians. St. Cyprian, on the contrary, assembled his congregation, told them to love those who cursed them; and the rich working with their money, the poor with their hands, never rested till the dead were buried, the sick cared for, and the city saved from destruction. (Archdeacon F. W. Farrar.)
Care of the poor
Thomas Willet, one of the old Puritan divines, was a man of remarkable benevolence. He spent the income of his two benefices in comforting and entertaining the parish poor, often inviting them to the hospitalities of his house. When asked why he did so, his reply was, Lest Joseph and Mary should want room in the inn, or Jesus Himself should say at last, I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in.
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On v3 Mat 26:6-13; Mar 14:3-9; Joh 12:2-8. “Then they made…
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.
Read full note →
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.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v6 Mar 14:6 - Mar 14:9.
Mark
THE ALABASTER BOX
Read full note →
Mar 14:6 - Mar 14:9.
John’s Gospel sets this incident in its due framework of time and place, and tells us the names of the actors. The time was within a week of Calvary, the place was Bethany, where, as John significantly reminds us, Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead, thereby connecting the feast with that incident; the woman who broke the box of ointment and poured the perfume on the head and feet of Jesus was Mary; the first critic of her action was Judas. Selfishness blames love for the profusion and prodigality, which to it seem folly and waste. The disciples chimed in with the objection, not because they were superior to Mary in wisdom, but because they were inferior in consecration.
John tells us, too, that Martha was ‘amongst them that served.’ The characteristics of the two sisters are preserved. The two types of character which they respectively represent have great difficulty in understanding and doing justice to one another. Christ understands and does justice to them both. Martha, bustling, practical, utilitarian to the finger-tips, does not much care about listening to Christ’s words of wisdom. She has not any very high-strung or finely-spun emotions, but she can busy herself in getting a meal ready; she loves Him with all her heart, and she takes her own way of showing it. But she gets impatient with her sister, and thinks that her sitting at Christ’s feet is a dreamy waste of time, and not without a touch of selfishness, ‘taking no care for me, though I have got so much on my back.’ And so, in like manner, Mary is made out to be a monster of selfishness; ‘Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?’ She could not serve, she would only have been in Martha’s road if she had tried. But she had one precious thing which was her very own, and she caught it up, and in the irrepressible burst of her thankful love, as she saw Lazarus sitting there at the table beside Jesus, she poured the liquid perfume on His head and feet. He casts His shield over the poor, unpractical woman, who did such an utterly useless thing, for which a basin of water and a towel would have served far better. There are a great many useless things which, in Heaven’s estimate, are more valuable than a great many apparently more practical ones. Christ accepts the service, and in His deep words lays down three or four principles which it would do us all good to carry with us into our daily lives. So I shall now try to gather from these utterances of our Lord’s some great truths about Christian service.
I. The first of them is the motive which hallows everything.
‘She hath wrought a good work on Me.’ Now that is pretty nearly a definition of what a good work is, and you see it is very unlike our conventional notions of what constitutes a ‘good work.’ Christ implies that anything, no matter what are its other characteristics, that is ‘on’ Him, that is to say, directed towards Him under the impulse of simple love to Him, is a ‘good work’; and the converse follows, that nothing which has not that saving salt of reference to Him in it deserves the title. Did you ever think of what an extraordinary position that is for a man to take up? ‘Think about Me in what you do, and you will do good. Do anything, no matter what, because you love Me, and it will be lifted up into high regions, and become transfigured; a good work.’ He took the best that any one could give Him, whether it was of outward possessions or of inward reverence, abject submission, and love and trust. He never said to any man, ‘You are going over the score. You are exaggerating about Me. Stand up, for I also am a Man.’ He did say once, ‘Why callest thou Me good?’ not because it was an incorrect attribution, but because it was a mere piece of conventional politeness. And in all other cases, not only does He accept as His rightful possession the utmost of reverence that any man can do Him, and bring Him, but He here implies, if He does not, as He almost does, specifically declare, that to be done for His sake lifts a deed into the region of ‘good’ works.
Have you reflected what such an attitude implies as to the self-consciousness of the Man who took it, and whether it is intelligible, not to say admirable, or rather whether it is not worthy of reprobation, except upon one hypothesis-’Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father,’ and all men honour God when they honour the Incarnate Word? But that is aside from my present purpose.
Is not this conception, that the motive of reverence and love to Him ennobles and sanctifies every deed, the very fundamental principle of Christian morality? All things are sanctified when they are done for His sake. You plunge a poor pebble into a brook, and as the sunlit ripples pass over its surface, the hidden veins of delicate colour come out and glow, and the poor stone looks a jewel, and is magnified as well as glorified by being immersed in the stream. Plunge your work into Christ, and do it for Him, and the giver and the gift will be greatened and sanctified.
But, brethren, if we take this point of view, and look to the motive, and not to the manner or the issues, or the immediate objects, of our actions, as determining whether they are good or no, it will revolutionise a great many of our thoughts, and bring new ideas into much of our conventional language. ‘A good work’ is not a piece of beneficence or benevolence, still less is it to be confined to those actions which conventional Christianity has chosen to dignify by the name. It is a designation that should not be clotted into certain specified corners of a life, but be extended over them all. The things which more specifically go under such a name, the kind of things that Judas wanted to have substituted for the utterly useless, lavish expenditure by this heart that was burdened with the weight of its own blessedness, come, or do not come, under the designation, according as there is present in them, not only natural charity to the poor whom ‘ye have always with you,’ but the higher reference of them to Christ Himself. All these lower forms of beneficence are imperfect without that. And instead of, as we have been taught by authoritative voices of late years, the service of man being the true service of God, the relation of the two terms is precisely the opposite, and it is the service of God that will effloresce into all service of man. Judas did not do much for the poor, and a great many other people who are sarcastic upon the ‘folly,’ the ‘uncalculating impulses’ of Christian love, with its ‘wasteful expenditure,’ and criticise us because we are spending time and energy and love upon objects which they think are moonshine and mist, do little more than he did, and what beneficence they do exercise has to be hallowed by this reference to Jesus before it can aspire to be beneficence indeed.
I sometimes wish that this generation of Christian people, amid its multifarious schemes of beneficence, with none of which would one interfere for a moment, would sometimes let itself go into manifestations of its love to Jesus Christ, which had no use at all except to relieve its own burdened heart. I am afraid that the lower motives, which are all right and legitimate when they are lower, are largely hustling the higher ones into the background, and that the river has got so many ponds to fill, and so many canals to trickle through, and so many plantations to irrigate and make verdant, that there is a danger of its falling low at its fountain, and running shallow in its course. One sometimes would like to see more things done for Him that the world would call ‘utter folly,’ and ‘prodigal waste,’ and ‘absolutely useless.’ Jesus Christ has a great many strange things in His treasure-house-widows’ mites, cups of water, Mary’s broken vase-has He anything of yours? ‘She hath wrought a good work on Me.’
II. Now, there is another lesson that I would gather from our Lord’s apologising for Mary, and that is the measure and the manner of Christian service.
‘She hath done what she could’; that is generally read as if it were an excuse. So it is, or at least it is a vindication of the manner and the direction of Mary’s expression of love and devotion. But whilst it is an apologia for the form, it is a high demand in regard to the measure.
‘She hath done what she could.’ Christ would not have said that if she had taken a niggardly spoonful out of the box of ointment, and dribbled that, in slow and half-grudging drops, on His head and feet. It was because it all went that it was to Him thus admirable. I think it is John Foster who says, ‘Power to its last particle is duty.’ The question is not how much have I done, or given, but could I have done or given more? We Protestants have indulgences of our own; the guinea or the hundred guineas that we give in a certain direction, we some of us seem to think, buy for us the right to do as we will with all the rest. But ‘she hath done what she could.’ It all went. And that is the law for us Christian people, because the Christian life is to be ruled by the great law of self-sacrifice, as the only adequate expression of our recognition of, and our being affected by, the great Sacrifice that gave Himself for us.
‘Give all thou canst! High Heaven rejects the lore
Of nicely calculated less or more.’
But whilst thus there is here a definite demand for the entire surrender of ourselves and our activities to Jesus Christ, there is also the wonderful vindication of the idiosyncrasy of the worker, and the special manner of her gift. It was not Mary’s métier to serve at the table, nor to do any practical thing. She did not know what there was for her to do; but something she must do. So she caught up her alabaster box, and without questioning herself about the act, let her heart have its way, and poured it out on Christ. It was the only thing she could do, and she did it. It was a very useless thing. It was an entirely unnecessary expenditure of the perfume. There might have been a great many practical purposes found for it, but it was her way.
Christ says to each of us, Be yourselves, take circumstances, capacities, opportunities, individual character, as laying down the lines along which yon have to travel. Do not imitate other people. Do not envy other people; be yourselves, and let your love take its natural expression, whatever folk round you may snarl and sneer and carp and criticise. ‘She hath done what she could,’ and so He accepts the gift.
Engineers tell us that the steam-engine is a very wasteful machine, because so little of the energy is brought into actual operation. I am afraid that there are a great many of us Christian people like that, getting so much capacity, and turning out so little work. And there are a great many more of us who simply pick up the kind of work that is popular round us, and never consult our own bent, nor follow this humbly and bravely, wherever it will take us. ‘She hath done what she could.’
III. And now the last thought that I would gather from these words is as to the significance and the perpetuity of the work which Christ accepts.
‘She hath come beforehand to anoint My body to the burying.’ I do not suppose that such a thought was in Mary’s mind when she snatched up her box of ointment, and poured it out on Christ’s head. But it was a meaning that He, in His tender pity and wise love and foresight, put into it, pathetically indicating, too, how the near Cross was filling His thought, even whilst He sat at the humble rustic feast in Bethany village.
He puts meaning into the service of love which He accepts. Yes, He always does. For all the little bits of service that we can bring get worked up into the great whole, the issues of which lie far beyond anything that we conceive, ‘Thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain . . . and God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him.’ We cast the seed into the furrows. Who can tell what the harvest is going to be? We know nothing about the great issues that may suddenly, or gradually, burst from, or be evolved out of, the small deeds that we do. So, then, let us take care of the end, so to speak, which is under our control, and that is the motive. And Jesus Christ will take care of the other end that is beyond our control, and that is the issue. He will bring forth what seemeth to Him good, and we shall be as much astonished ‘when we get yonder’ at what has come out of what we did here, as poor Mary, standing there behind Him, was when He translated her act into so much higher a meaning than she had seen in it.
‘Lord! when saw we Thee hungry and fed Thee?’ We do not know what we are doing. We are like the Hindoo weavers that are said to weave their finest webs in dark rooms; and when the shutters come down, and not till then, shall we find out the meanings of our service of love.
Christ makes the work perpetual as well as significant by declaring that ‘in the whole world this shall be preached for a memorial of her.’ Have not ‘the poor’ got far more good out of Mary’s box of ointment than the three hundred pence that a few of them lost by it? Has it not been an inspiration to the Church ever since? ‘The house was filled with the odour of the ointment.’ The fragrance was soon dissipated in the scentless air, but the deed smells sweet and blossoms for ever. It is perpetual in its record, perpetual in God’s remembrance, perpetual in its results to the doer, and in its results in the world, though these may be indistinguishable, just as the brook is lost in the river and the river in the sea.
But did you ever notice that the Evangelist who records the promise of perpetual remembrance of the act does not tell us who did it, and that the Evangelists who tell us who did it do not record the promise of perpetual remembrance? Never mind whether your deed is labelled with your address or not, God knows to whom it belongs, and that is enough. As Paul says in one of his letters, ‘other my fellow-labourers also, whose names are in the Book of Life.’ Apparently he had forgotten the names, or perhaps did not think it needful to occupy space in his letter with detailing them, and so makes that graceful, half-apologetic suggestion that they are inscribed on a more august page. The work and the worker are associated in that Book, and that is enough.
Brethren, the question of Judas is far more fitting when asked of other people than of Christians. ‘To what purpose is this waste?’ may well be said to those of you who are taking mind, and heart, and will, capacity, and energy, and all life, and using it for lower purposes than the service of God, and the manifestation of loving obedience to Jesus Christ. ‘Why do ye spend money for that which is not bread?’ Is it not waste to buy disappointments at the price of a soul and of a life? Why do ye spend that money thus? ‘Whose image and superscription hath it?’ Whose name is stamped upon our spirits? To whom should they be rendered? Better for us to ask ourselves the question to-day about all the godless parts of our lives, ‘To what purpose is this waste?’ than to have to ask it yonder! Everything but giving our whole selves to Jesus Christ is waste. It is not waste to lay ourselves and our possessions at His feet. ‘He that loveth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for My sake, the same shall find it.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On v3 J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CIV. Jesus Arrives…
J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CIV. Jesus Arrives at Bethany].
P A R T S E V E N T H. LAST WEEK OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY, THE FOURTH PASSOVER, THE CRUCIFIXION.
Read full note →
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]
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v3 woman Mary of Bethany.
woman Mary of Bethany.
head (See Scofield "Mat 26:7")
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv3, 6 The anointing at Bethany:
The anointing at Bethany:
v. 3. And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper as He sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on His head.
Read full note →
v. 4. And there were some that had indignation within themselves and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
v. 5. For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
Mark here inserts a story of the Saturday before, when Jesus first came to Bethany from Jericho, unless we want to assume that two anointings took place. This Simon the leper seems to have been a relative of Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead. He had been cured of his terrible disease by the Lord and was duly thankful for the gift thus received, in his own way. Jesus had accepted an invitation to dinner with him and was reclining among the guests, when the incidents here narrated took place. A woman came into the room bearing an alabaster vase with genuine and very precious ointment, an Indian perfume made from the stems of a plant growing in the southern Himalayas, known as nard, or spikenard. The woman’s actions drew the attention of the entire table company to her. Going over to Jesus, she broke off the narrow neck of the vase, in order that the perfumed ointment might. flow out all the more easily and then poured it out upon His head. It was an act of simple, unconscious devotion, of tender love. But it was not viewed with favor by all the table-round. There were certain ones present, and among them not a few of the disciples, with Judas Iscariot leading, that began to feel indignation rising in themselves: Why has this waste of the ointment been made? And not satisfied with mere grumbling, Judas finds the courage to give some reason for his objection: This myrrh might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii (fifty dollars) and the money given to the poor. In this way he snarled directly at the woman, and the others seconded him. It was a passionate outburst altogether out of proportion to the guilt of the woman, even if she had been tactless or extravagant. But the thought of Judas grew out of a heart that had long since ceased to be single in Christ’s service. His heart belonged to the devil of avarice; and the poor interested him not at all.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv3, 6 Connecting Statement:
Connecting Statement:
Though some were angry that the oil was used to anoint Jesus, Jesus says that the woman has anointed his body for burial before he will die.
Read full note →
Simon the leper
This man previously had leprosy but was no longer ill. This is a different man than Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot. (See: How to Translate Names)
he was reclining at the table
In Jesus' culture, when people gathered to eat, they reclined on their sides, propping themselves up on pillows beside a low table.
alabaster jar
This is a jar made from alabaster. Alabaster was a very expensive yellow-white stone. AT: "beautiful white stone jar" (See: Translate Unknowns)
of very costly liquid, which was pure nard
"that contained expensive, fragrant perfume called nard." Nard was a very expensive, sweet-smelling oil used to make perfume. (See: Translate Unknowns)
on his head
"on Jesus' head"
What is the reason for this waste?
They asked this question to show that they disapproved of the woman pouring the perfume on Jesus. This can be written as a statement. AT: "It is terrible that she wasted that perfume!" (See: Rhetorical Question)
This perfume could have been sold
Mark wants to show his readers that those present were more concerned about money. This can be stated in active form. AT: "We could have sold this perfume" or "She could have sold this perfume" (See: Active or Passive)
three hundred denarii
"300 denarii." Denarii are Roman silver coins. (See: Biblical Money and Numbers)
given to the poor
The phrase "the poor" refers to poor people. This refers to giving the money from the sale of the perfume to the poor. AT: "the money given to poor people" (See: Ellipsis and Nominal Adjectives)
translationWords
Bethany
leper
anger
rebuke
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv3, 4, 6, 8, 9 14:3-9 The story of Jesus’ being anointed by a…
14:3-9 The story of Jesus’ being anointed by a woman in Bethany (14:3-9) sets the scene for events to follow. Luke’s account (Luke 7:36-50) is significantly different and might be a different event. This incident took place in Bethany, two miles east of Jerusalem on the lower, eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, where Jesus apparently stayed when he was in Judea (Mark 11:1, 11-12). The home belonged to Simon, a former leper (lepers were isolated from society; perhaps he had been healed by Jesus; see 1:40-45). • eating: Or reclining. The meal was a banquet, as indicated by their reclining. A woman (see John 12:3) broke the neck of a sealed, alabaster jar containing expensive perfume (pure nard) and poured it all on Jesus’ head (see Exod 29:4-7; 2 Kgs 9:1-6).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.