Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 12:1 - 12:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Introductory Note on the Anointing at Bethany (c. 12:1-8)
There are three evangelical traditions of the anointing of Jesus at an entertainment in a private house: that of Mar_14:3-9 (followed by Mat_26:6-13), that of Joh_12:1-8, and that of Luk_7:36-50. From the second century to our own time the comparison of these narratives has been attempted by critical readers, and various answers have been given to the questions which arise. Were there three anointings or only two? Or did one incident furnish the material for all three stories?
Few modern expositors hesitate to identify the incident described in Mar_14 with that of Joh_12. The place is the same, viz. the κμ or village of Bethany near Jerusalem; and in both traditions the scene is laid in the week before the Crucifixion, Jn. putting it on the Sabbath before the Passover, while Mk. suggests (although he does not say it explicitly) that it is to be dated two days only before that feast (cf. Mar_14:1, Mar_14:3). Mk. does not name the woman who anointed Jesus, but Jn. says that it was Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. In Mk. the host is “Simon the Leper,”1 but Jn. says that Martha waited on the company, which might mean that she was the mistress of the house; Lazarus, in any case, is included among those at table. In the Marcan story the woman anoints the head of Jesus (a frequent mark of honour to a distinguished guest; cf. Luk_7:46), no mention being made of His feet, or of the use of her hair as a towel. Jn., however, says nothing either of anointing the head of Jesus or of washing His feet; but he relates that Mary anointed His feet, and then wiped them with her hair. This is, prima facie, a strange statement. Anointing the feet of a guest might follow the washing of them, but why should the ointment be wiped off? And it is improbable that a suitable towel (see 13:4) would not be at Mary’s disposal in a house where the acting hostess was her sister. That she should have used her hair for the purpose of wiping the feet of Jesus on this occasion, either after washing or anointing them, is an extraordinary circumstance, to which we shall return presently.
It is not doubtful, however, despite the superficial differences between the Marcan and Johannine stories, that they refer to the same incident, and that Jn. is conscious of the fact and familiar with the earlier narrative. Like Mk., Jn. mentions the criticism made about the waste of the precious ointment (a criticism which he ascribes to Judas); and like Mk., he recalls the Lord’s rebuke, “The poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always.” Again, Mk.’s πολβνμρσιτ σμ μυεςτνἐτφαμνis reflected in Jn.’s ἵαεςτνἡέα τῦἐτφαμῦμυτρσ ατ. And Jn.’s νρο πσιῆ πλτμυis a reproduction of Mk.’s νρο πσιῆ πλτλῦ. We may say with confidence that the Marcan and Johannine narratives are versions of the same story, Jn. having corrected Mk. where he thought it necessary to do so.2
The narrative of Luk_7:36f. is markedly different from both Jn. and Mk. The place where the incident happened is not named, but the context suggests that it was somewhere in Galilee, and that it occurred during the period of John the Baptist’s imprisonment. But Lk. does not always observe strict chronological sequence, and the story may have been inserted at this point in connexion with the accusation that Jesus was “a friend of publicans and sinners” (v. 34). The host, on this occasion, was a Pharisee named Simon, and the woman who is the central figure was “a sinner” (ἁατλς The story tells of her coming into the house—uninvited, as was possible in a country where meals were often semi-public— and standing behind Jesus, as He reclined at table. As she wept, her tears dropped on His feet, and she wiped them off with her long flowing hair. Then she kissed them, and anointed them with ointment which she had brought with her, probably with the hope of being allowed to anoint His head. This would have been an ordinary act of courtesy, but anointing of the feet is not mentioned again (except Joh_12:3) in Scripture, and was evidently unusual.1 Simon the Pharisee was shocked that a guest who had been entertained as a possible prophet should submit to the ministrations of a sinful woman; but Jesus rebuked him with the parable of the Two Debtors, and the story ends with the benediction given to her who had been forgiven much and who had therefore loved much.
The moral of this narrative is wholly unlike anything in the narratives of Mar_14 and Joh_12; nor does there seem to be any connexion with the narrative of Mar_14. The name of the host, indeed, both in Lk. and Mk. was Simon, but Simon the Pharisee is not necessarily to be identified with Simon the Leper, for Simon was the commonest of Jewish names. Nor can we suppose that a leading Pharisee would have entertained Jesus at his house during the week before His Passion, when He was already the subject of orthodox suspicion. The unnamed woman may be the same in both narratives, nevertheless, although Mk. does not note that she was or had been a sinner; but that Mk. and Lk. deal with quite different incidents is plain.
The resemblances, however, of the Lucan story to that in Joh_12 are striking. In both, it is the feet (not the head, as in Mk.) which are anointed, and the language used is similar in both cases. Thus Luk_7:38 has τῖ δκυι ἤξτ βέεντὺ πδςατῦκὶτῖ θιὶ τςκφλςατςἐέασν…κὶἤεφντ μρ, while Joh_12:3 has ἤεψντὺ πδςτῦἸσῦκὶἐέαε τῖ θιὶ ατςτὺ πδςατῦ
It will be observed that there is no formal washing of Jesus’ feet in either story, and that the falling of the woman’s tears upon them, which is so touching a feature of Lk.’s account, has no place in Jn. But the linguistic similarities between the two verses just cited show conclusively that Jn. intended to tell a story similar to that told by Lk.; while, on the other hand, his version is as puzzling as Lk.’s is lucid. Why should Mary of Bethany appear with dishevelled hair, and use this instead of a towel? Why should she anoint the feet of Jesus at all? The woman of Luk_7 did so from penitent humility, but does this apply to Mary of Bethany? And why should Mary wipe off the unguent once it was applied? The ἁατλςonly wiped off her falling tears.
We shall approach these difficulties presently, but at this point we seem called to recognise the fact that Jn. is writing in terms of the Lucan story. He is not necessarily describing the same incident as Lk., but he is describing an incident so similar in some exceptional features, that we must believe him to be writing of the same woman that Lk. has depicted. This involves the conclusion that Jn. regarded Mary of Bethany as the sinful woman of whom Lk. tells. Lk. does not make this identification. He mentions Mary afterwards as being at the house of Martha her sister, the situation of which is not indicated (10:38), and records how Mary was praised by Jesus as having “chosen the good part,” in comparison with the housewifely activities of her sister. This is not inconsistent with the conclusion that Mary had formerly been of loose behaviour, but it does not suggest it directly.
The relations between the various evangelical narratives of the anointing of Jesus have been discussed at length, both in ancient and modern times, and we cannot stay here to examine the opinions of individual Fathers or critics.1 Clement of Alexandria (Pæ ii. 61) identifies the anointings of Luk_7 and of Joh_12, Mar_14; so does Tertullian (de pudic. xi.). Origen is not consistent with himself, at one time speaking of three (Comm. in Mt. 77) or two anointings (Hom. in Son_1:12), at another time of only one (Fragm. in Joann. 112, ed. Brooke, ii. 287). Ephraim Syrus (Hom. i. “On our Lord”) has a lengthy commentary on the sinful woman, whom he explicitly distinguishes from Mary of Bethany. Tatian treats the story of Luk_7 in like manner as distinct from the story of Joh_12, Mar_14. But, since the time of Gregory the Great, the Roman Church has been accustomed to identify Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, and the ἁατλςof Luk_7. The Breviary office for the Feast of St. Mary Magdalen (July 22) draws out this identification, and treats the story of Mary as that of one who, once a great sinner, became a great saint.
This identification has been accepted in the present commentary. Of Mary Magdalene, i.e. Mary of Magdala (a village some 3 miles from Capernaum, now called Mejdel), Lk. tells that “seven devils had gone out of her” (Luk_8:2), a statement that is made immediately after the story of the ἁατλς She is named along with other women who had been “healed of evil spirits and infirmities”; and Lk.’s statement about her is repeated in the Marcan Appendix: “He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven devils” (Mar_16:9). This description would not necessarily point to special vice, for it might only refer to madness; but it remains, for all that, a very apt description of a woman who had been rescued as the ἁατλςwas, and would be a convenient euphemism. Further, the identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany enables us to interpret the otherwise difficult words of Joh_12:7, “Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying” (cf. Mar_14:8, Mat_26:12). No evangelist speaks expressly of Mary of Bethany as going to the tomb to anoint the Lord’s body on the day of the Resurrection; but all four name Mary Magdalene as taking part. The equation of Mary Magdalene to Mary of Bethany explains quite simply the Lord’s words about the latter at the Supper at Bethany (Joh_12:7, where see note)—words which are otherwise left without fulfilment.
We hold, then, that a comparison of Joh_12 with Luk_7 makes it necessary to identify the woman that was a sinner with Mary Magdalene and also with Mary of Bethany, or at any rate to recognise that Jn. identified them.
There is another significant bit of evidence for the latter conclusion. At Joh_11:2 is a parenthetical explanation (whether by Jn. or by a later editor need not now be discussed; see note in loc.), that Mary of Bethany is ἡἀεψσ τνκρο μρ κὶἐμξσ τὺ πδςατῦτῖ θιὶ ατς Now this would not identify Mary of Bethany for the reader, if another woman had also “anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair.” If we distinguish the woman of Luk_7 from the woman of Joh_12, this singular gesture may be attributed to two women, and thus the note of 11:2 would be useless for its purpose of identification. It is plain that the Fourth Gospel regards the ἁατλςof Luk_7 as the sister of Lazarus and Martha.
It is to be observed, however, that while Jn. uses the same words of Mary’s action that Lk. does of the action of the ἁατλς he does not necessarily imply that the narratives of Joh_12:3 and Luk_7:38 refer to the same incident. Mary may have, in the days of His public ministry, anointed the feet of Jesus in penitence (Luk_7:38); and then, having repented and returned to her family, when Jesus came to her home the day before His entry to Jerusalem, have repeated an act so full of memories for her (Joh_12:3). No emphasis is laid in Lk. on the costliness of the ἀάατο μρυ the woman had brought with her an ordinary supply of unguent. But in Jn. and Mk. the special quality of the ointment is a principal feature of the story. It was “very precious,” so exceptionally costly that the use of it called forth criticism. If Mary desired to repeat the act which had in the first instance called forth the benediction of Jesus, it would be quite natural that she should provide herself with unguent of specially fine quality. And the circumstance that she used her hair for a towel would also be explained by her purpose of reproducing the former scene. It could not be exactly reproduced; there were no tears of penitence on the second occasion. But, just on that account, a true narrative of what happened would be at once like and unlike the story of Luk_7; and this is what we find in Joh_12 Thus, while we do not identify the incident recorded in Luk_7 with that recorded in Joh_12 and Mar_14, we may regard Luk_7 as telling of the first occasion on which Mary anointed Jesus, the second being that narrated in Joh_12:1 and (with less exactness) in Mar_14, Mk. missing the point that it was the feet (not the head) of Jesus that were anointed at the house in Bethany shortly before His Passion.
The Supper at Bethany (12:1-8)
12:1. ὁονἸσῦ. ονis not causal: it does not carry us back to 11:57, where it is said that the priests were planning to arrest Him. His motive in going to Bethany was not to seek a place of safety, but it was on His way to Jerusalem, whither He was proceeding for the feast. ονis only copulative, “and so” (see on 1:22). He knew, indeed, of the enmity of the priestly party; but that did not move Him from His purpose. Indeed, Jn. lays special emphasis on the continual consciousness on the part of Jesus of what was impending (cf. 18:4).
According to the Synoptists (Mar_11:11, Mat_21:17, Luk_21:37), He lodged at Bethany during the nights that remained before the end.
πὸἓ ἡεῶ τῦπσα a transposition of πό the phrase meaning “six days before the Passover.” Meyer cites Amos 11 πὸδὸἐῶ τῦσιμῦfor the same construction. Jn. is prone to record dates (see Introd., p. cii); and he notes that the day of the arrival of Jesus at Bethany was the Sabbath before the Passover, i.e., in our reckoning, the Saturday preceding Palm Sunday. He may have arrived just as the Sabbath was beginning, i.e. on the Friday evening; or He may have only come from a short distance, and so have refrained from exceeding the limit of a Sabbath day’s journey.
From Mar_14:1, Mat_26:1, we might infer that the supper at Bethany was held later in the week, “two days before the Passover,” but neither statement is quite definite as to the date. What Jn. tells here is more probably accurate.
ὅο ἦ Λζρς On this account, Bethany was a place of special danger. It was no place to come for one who feared the vindictiveness of the priests which had been excited by the raising of Lazarus.
For the constr. ὅο ἦ, see on 1:28.
ὁτθηώ is added after Λζρςby ADΓΘ with support from the vss., including the Coptic Q, but om. א
ὃ ἤερνἐ νκῶ Ἰσῦ. The rec. text omits Ἰσῦ, which indeed is unnecessary to the sentence, but א insert it. Perhaps all the words after Λζρς sc. [ὁτθηώ] ὃ ἤερνἐ νκῶ Ἰσῦ, are a gloss that has crept in from v. 9, where ὃ ἤερνἐ νκῶ is quite in place and apposite; here it is superfluous. Cf. v. 17.
Syr. sin. gives here: “came Jesus to the village Beth Ania unto Lazar, him that was dead and lived. And he made for Him a supper there, and Lazar was one of the guests that sat down to meat with Him, but Martha was occupied in serving.”
2. ἐοηα ονατ δῖννἐε. The subject of ἐοηα is undefined. Probably we should understand that the villagers of Bethany prepared a supper for Jesus, having still in vivid recollection the fame of His recent miracle. Mk. says that the entertainment was in “the house of Simon the Leper,” and this may be an accurate report, although of Simon we know nothing (see p. 410). From the way in which the presence of Lazarus as one of the company is mentioned by Jn., it would seem probable that at any rate the supper was not in his house. On the other hand, ἐοηα ονατ δῖννmight mean that it was the well-known household of Bethany, Martha and Mary and Lazarus, who gave the feast, and the Sinai Syriac (quoted on v. 1) understands the text thus. Lazarus would in any case be a figure to attract attention and curiosity, which may account for the words ὁδ Λζρςεςἦ ἐ τνἀαεμννσνατ. That Martha was serving (δηόε) would be more natural if she were in her own house, as at Luk_10:40, where it is said of her πρεπτ πρ πλὴ δαοίν
The rec. text omits ἐ before τνἀαεμ with ADWΓΘ but ἐ is inserted by א and this is consonant with Jn.’s style (see on 1:40).
For ἀαεμννσνατ אΘ the rec. (W) reads σννκιέω ατ. The better-attested reading is interesting because of the preposition σν which is used again by Jn. only at 18:1, 21:3 (it does not occur in Rev.). Abbott (Diat. 2799, ii.) remarks that Jn. agrees with Demosthenes and Epictetus in hardly ever using σν the reason being that σνbelongs to literary, as distinct from spoken, Greek. Thus Lk. (Gospel and Acts) employs σνmore frequently than all the other N.T. writers put together.
3. ἡονΜρά. This is the reading of B 33, and is probably right, despite the authority of אΘfor Μρα See on 11:20.
λβῦαλτα μρυ λτα(libra) occurs again in N.T. only at 19:39. Mk. says of the woman (whom he does not name) ἔοσ ἀάατο μρυ “having an alabaster cruse or flask of ointment,” and then goes on to tell that she broke the flask and poured the contents on the head of Jesus. To anoint the head of a guest (cf. Psa_23:5) was an act of Eastern courtesy and respect, but Jn. treats the incident differently, and tells that Mary anointed Jesus’ feet. The Lat. fuldensis tries to combine the two, and its text here gives “habens alabastrum …et fracto effudit super caput ihesu recumbentis et unxit pedes.” Syr. sin. has a similar conflate text.
This marked difference between the narratives of Mk. and Jn., which clearly refer to the same incident, is considered above (p. 410).
νρο πσιῆ πλτμυ This is almost identical with Mk.’s νρο πσιῆ πλτλῦ. A special point is made in both narratives (not in the earlier story, Luk_7:38) of the costliness of the ointment provided (cf. “the chief ointments” of Amo_6:6). The adj. πσιό (only here and at Mar_14:3 in the Greek Bible) is of uncertain meaning. It may be derived from πσι, and it is applied, as Abbott (Diat. 1736d) has pointed out, to a “faithful” wife. Thus it might mean here genuine, as indicating the quality of the spikenard. The vg., however, at Mar_14:3 (but not here), renders it spicati, and Wetstein called attention to the word σίαο, which means a luxurious unguent. It is possible that, as Abbott suggests, some form of σίαο originally stood in the Gospel texts, and that it was altered to πσιό by an attempt at allegorical interpretation. Swete quotes Jerome as playing on the word thus: “ideo uos uocati estis pistici.” Another, less likely, derivation of πσιό is from πν, so that it would mean “potable,” as some perfumes were; but this would be quite out of place in the present context. Yet another explanation is quoted by Dods (in loc.) from the Classical Review (July 1890), sc. that we should read not πσιῆ, but πσαῆ, the latter word referring to the Pistacia terebinthus, which grows in Palestine “and yields a turpentine in such inconsiderable quantities as to be very costly.” Whatever the precise derivation of the word may be, the combination νρο πσιῆ (νρο, like πσιῆ, occurring again in the N.T. only at Mar_14:3) is so unusual, that we must suppose Jn. to have followed here either the actual text of Mk., or a familiar tradition embodying these words.
With this costly unguent, Jn. tells that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus. He insists upon the word feet, repeating τὺ πδςtwice, that there may be no misunderstanding, and to show that he is deliberately correcting Mk.’s account. He adds, in words that reproduce Lk.’s story of the sinful woman (Luk_7:38), that Mary wiped the Lord’s feet with her hair (κὶἐέαε τῖ θιὶ ατςτὺ πδςατῦ Attention has already (p. 411) been directed to the fact that a perfumed anointing of feet (as distinct from the washing of them, of which there is no mention here) is a custom not mentioned in Scripture elsewhere than here and Luk_7:38. It is further to be observed that for a woman to have her hair unbound was counted immodest by the Jews,1 and that Mary should unloose her hair at an entertainment where men were present requires some special explanation. A towel would be readily accessible (cf. 13:5) whether this supper was in the house of Martha and Mary, or not; and it would be more seemly and convenient to use it. But for what purpose were the Lord’s feet wiped after the unguent had been applied? In the story of Luk_7:38 the woman wiped His feet with her unbound hair, because her tears had fallen on them by inadvertence, but she did not wipe off the ointment. These considerations seem to prove that when Jn. reproduces as nearly as possible the words of the earlier narrative (Luk_7:38) he does so, not by any inadvertence or mistaken recollection, but because the act of Mary recorded here did actually reproduce her former gesture, then dictated by a sudden impulse of penitence, now inspired by adoring homage of her Master. The moment of her “conversion,” to use the modern word, was the moment to which she looked back as the most memorable in her life; and when she learnt that Jesus was to honour a supper in Bethany by His presence, she decided that she would once again anoint His feet, and present herself in the guise of a penitent and grateful disciple, the significance of whose strange gesture would be well understood by all her friends, as well as by Jesus.
This, at least, is what Jn. seems to indicate. If he did not regard Mary as identical with the unnamed sinner of the earlier incident, he has told the story of the anointing at Bethany in a way which is unintelligible.
ἡδ οκαἐλρθ ἐ τςὀμςτῦμρυ For this use of ἐ as indicating “with,” cf. Rev_8:5, Mat_23:25.
This detail is peculiar to Jn., and suggests that the narrative is due to the recollection of some one who was present on the occasion. It seems to have been known to Ignatius, who interprets the savour of the ointment pervading the whole house as typifying the fragrance of incorruptibility diffused throughout the Church from the Person of Christ (Eph. 17). Cf. also Clem. Alex. Pœ ii. 8 (P 205) for a similar spiritualising of the incident.
Wetstein quotes from Midr. Koheleth, vii. 1: “A good unguent spreads from the bedroom to the dining-hall; so does a good name from one end of the world to the other.” The latter clause recalls Mar_14:9, “Wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she hath done shall be told for a memorial of her,” a saying which Jn. does not record. It is possible, but improbable, that the circumstance told by Jn., that the house was filled with the odour of the ointment, gave rise, by an allegorical interpretation, to the saying of Mar_14:9. But the idea that Jn. meant it to be taken allegorically is devoid of evidence and may be confidently rejected.
4. The description of Judas is almost identical with that given in 6:71 (where see note).
We must read δ (א for the rec. ον
Apparently we should omit ἐ before τνμθτν(with BLW 33 249), although it is inserted, in accordance with Jn.’s general habit (see on 1:40), by אΘ ἐ is also omitted in similar sentences at 18:22, 19:34.
א fam. 1, and most vss. read here Ἰύα ὁἸκρώη (cf. 14:22 for ὁἸκ but AΓΘhave Ἰύα ΣμνςἸκρώη, introducing the name of his father (as at 6:71, 13:2).
The rec. text, following ADΘ places the sentence ες[ἐ] τνμθτνατῦbefore Ἰύα; but א place it after Ἰκρώη.
For ὁμλω, D has ὃ ἤελν(perhaps a reminiscence of 6:71). μλω may convey the idea that Judas was predestined to betray Jesus (see on 3:14 and 6:71).
According to the Synoptists (Mar_14:4, Mat_26:8), the uneasy feeling that the ointment was wasted was shared by several of the onlookers, but Jn. specifically mentions Judas as the one who remonstrated. Perhaps he first suggested to the others the extravagance of what had been done by Mary in purchasing exceptionally rare and costly ointment.
5. This verse reproduces Mar_14:5 ἠύαογρτῦοτ μρνπαῆα ἐάωδνρω τικσω κὶδθνιτῖ πωος 300 denarii would be about ten guineas, a large sum. To suppose, as Schmiedel does (E.B. 1797), that 300 is a symbolical number indicating “the symmetrical body of humanity,” is fantastic. The Gospel of St. Mark, at any rate, does not deal in allegories of this cryptic kind.
Jn. here follows Mk.,1 just as he does at 6:7 when he recalls 200 denarii as the estimated cost of bread for the multitude.
6. επνδ τῦοκλ This is the evangelist’s comment (cf. 7:22; and see Introd., p. xxxiv). It has been thought by some that he is unfair to Judas, and that he is so possessed with the conviction of the baseness of his treachery, that he imputes the lowest of motives to him (see on 6:70, 18:5). The criticism that the money spent on the costly ointment might have been better spent is very natural on the lips of the disciple who, as keeper of the common purse, was responsible for the moneys spent by the Twelve, amounting in all, we may be sure, to no large sum. But Jn. roundly says that he was a thief. Judas was not above a bribe, for he took the thirty pieces of silver; but he was not therefore dishonest, although the value which he attached to money may have made ill-gotten gains a strong temptation. “Temptation commonly comes through that for which we are naturally fitted” (Westcott), i.e. in this case the handling of money. And it may have been found out, after the secession of Judas, that, as Jn. says, he had been guilty of small peculations, for which he had full opportunity. However ever that may be, the bitterness of the words about Judas in this verse is easily explained if they go back to one who was a former comrade in the inner circle of the Twelve, who had had no suspicions even at the end (see on 13:28, 29), and whose indignation, when disillusioned, was all the more severe.
τ γωσκμν cf. 13:29. A γωσκμῖνoriginally meant a case to hold the reeds or tongues (γῶσι of musical instruments, and hence any kind of box, e.g. it is used for a coffin (by Aquila, Gen_50:26). The word became accepted by Aramaic speakers, and appears as גוקאin the Talmud. It stands for a coffer into which money is cast, at 2Ch_24:8, 2Ch_24:10 ἐέαλνεςτ γωσκμν and this is the sense in which the word is used here. The γωσκμνor money-box of the disciples was kept by Judas (it was not necessarily carried about with him habitually: τ γωσκμνἔω is the phrase), and into it well-wishers (cf. Luk_8:3) were wont to throw (βλεν small coins to provide for the needs of Jesus and His followers. In this it was like the begging-bowl of an Eastern holy man. To translate it “purse” is misleading; and the Latin vss. rightly render it by loculi, i.e. a box or coffer with several compartments. See Field, in loc., on γωσκμνand βσάεν
For ἔω (אΘ the rec. has εχνκί(AΓ).
τ βλόεα sc. the moneys cast into the box by well-wishers and friends; cf. 2Ch_24:10 quoted above.
ἐάτζν The verb βσάενis used (10:31, 16:12, 19:17) of carrying or bearing something heavy; but here and at 20:15 it is equivalent to the vulgar English “to lift,” i.e. to carry off furtively or unscrupulously, and so “to steal.” Field gives a convincing illustration of this usage from Diog. Laert. iv. 59 μθναδ τῦατ θρπνι …ὅαἐολτ ἐάτζν “When therefore the servants found this out, they used to steal whatever they pleased.” Deissmann (Bible Studies, Eng. Tr., p. 257) cites some further instances from the papyri of this use of βσάεν
Hence we must translate, “he was a thief, and having the money-box used to steal what was cast into it.” To render ἐάτζνhere as if it only meant that Judas, as the treasurer, used to “carry about” what was put into it, would give a tame and superfluous ending to the sentence.
7. With vv. 7, 8, cf. Mar_14:6-9.
The rec. text, with AΓ, omits ἵαand reads ττρκν while אΘsupport ἵα…τρσ.
We must render “let her alone, in order that she may keep it (sc. the remainder of the spikenard) against the day of my burying.” In Mk.’s narrative (here being corrected silently by Joh_1) the flask of ointment was broken and its entire contents poured upon the head of Jesus; but Jn. says nothing of the flask being broken, and it is not to be supposed that all the ointment was used for His feet. ἐτφαμς(cf. 19:40) is “preparation for burial,” and might or might not include the anointing of the whole body. The words of Jesus tell of His impending death and burial to any of the company who had sufficient insight; the rest of the spikenard will soon be needed, and will not be wasted.
We have above (p. 412) identified Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene; and thus she who began His ἐτφαμςby anointing the Lord’s feet in Bethany, was among the women who finished the anointing of His body eight days later (cf. 20:1, Mar_16:1).
For ἄε ατν cf. Mar_14:6, Mat_15:14, 2Sa_16:11, 2Ki_4:27. We might translate (with R.V.mg) “Let her alone; (it was) that she might keep it,” or (with R.V.txt) “Suffer her to keep it,” but we prefer to render “Let her alone, in order that, etc.”
8. This verse is identical with Mat_26:11, and both Jn. and Mt. reproduce exactly the words of Mar_14:7, both of them omitting Mk.’s κὶὅα θλτ, δνσεατὺ ε πισι But that Jn. is using Mk. rather than Mt. all through the story is not doubtful.2
D and Syr. sin. omit the whole verse here for some unknown reason, perhaps because ἐὲδ ο πνοεἔεεwas (mistakenly) deemed to be at variance with Mat_28:20. But cf. 17:11 οκτ εμ ἐ τ κσῳ
With πωοςπνοεἔεεμθ ἑυῶ, cf. Deu_15:11.
The People’s Curiosity About Lazarus, and the Hostility of the Priests (vv. 9-11)
9. ὁὄλςπλςis read by א and at v. 12 by BLΘ but in both places many authorities omit ὁ If we omit ὁand read ὄλςπλς “a great multitude,” then no difficulty presents itself. We had ὄλςπλςbefore at 6:2, and πλςὄλςat 6:5: cf. Mar_5:21, Mar_5:24, Mar_5:6:34, Mar_5:9:14, Act_6:7, Rev_7:9.
But ὁπλςὄλςis undoubtedly the right reading at Mar_12:37, and it means there the mob, the mass of the people, or, as the E.V. has it, “the common people heard Him gladly”; and of this use of ὁπλςὄλςField (in Mar_12:37) gives some classical instances. This, too, would suit the context well in the present passage, for crowds are generally composed of “the common people” and include “riff-raff.” But, as Abbott points out (Diat. 1739-1740), the variant of Jn. gives here and at v. 12, not ὁπλςὄλς(as at Mar_12:37), but ὁὄλςπλς which is bad Greek. Westcott suggests that ὄλςπλςhere must be treated as “a compound noun,” but why Jn. should adopt such a usage is not explained.
Having regard to the grammatical difficulty presented by ὁὄλςπλς and to the fact that both Latin and Syriac versions give “a great crowd” as the rendering, the balance of evidence seems to be against ὁ and we therefore read ὄλςπλςboth here and at v. 12.
ἔν ον The rumour of the supper at Bethany spread quickly, and the people generally were much excited by the expectation of seeing not only Jesus, but Lazarus whom He raised from the dead (for ὃ ἤερνἐ νκῶ, cf. vv. 1, 17).
ὄλςπλςἐ τνἸυαω, “a great crowd of the Jews,” sc. of the people of Judæ who were generally hostile to Jesus. But “the Jews” does not specially indicate here, as at 5:10, 6:41, etc., the party of opposition to Him; it includes those who favoured (v. 11) as well as those who did not favour His claims (see on 1:19). A “great crowd” of them came to Bethany, apparently on the evening of the Sabbath, to see the man who had come back from the dead, as well as to see Jesus who raised him. To see one returned from the dead would indeed be a great experience (cf. Luk_16:31).
10. ἐολύατ δ ο ἀχεεςκλ The Sanhedrim (see on 7:32) had given directions that the movements of Jesus should be reported to them (11:57); and having heard of the excitement caused by the presence of Lazarus as well as of Jesus at Bethany, they made up their minds that both Lazarus and Jesus should die: ἵακὶτνΛζ ἀοτίωι, “that they would kill Lazarus also.” The priests, being of the Sadducean party, who rejected the idea of resurrection, were naturally disconcerted by the report that Lazarus had been raised from the dead; and they were unscrupulous as to the means which they employed to put an end to what they regarded as mischievous talk.
11. The priests were specially urgent about the putting away of Lazarus, because, on his account (δʼατν many of the Jews (cf. 11:45) “began to go away” (ὑῆο), perhaps to Bethany, which was the centre of attraction, “and began to believe in Jesus” (ἐίτυνεςτνἸσῦ; cf. note on 1:12). The force of the imperfect tenses must be observed. The verb ὑάεν “to withdraw,” is a favourite word with Jn. (see on 7:33), and ὑῆο here may mean simply “they began to withdraw,” i.e. from their allegiance to the chief priests, as at 6:67, where Jesus asks His disciples, “Would you also go away?”
The Triumphal Entry to Jerusalem (vv. 12-19)
12. The Synoptic accounts of the entry to Jerusalem are found at Mar_11:7-10, Mat_21:4-9, Luk_19:35-38. As has been pointed out above (on v. 1), Mk. (followed by Mt.) places the supper at Bethany later in the week of the Passion, but Jn., putting it on Saturday, Nisan 9, halts Jesus and the disciples at Bethany for that night, the entry taking place on Sunday, Nisan 10. Christian tradition has followed Jn. in putting the triumphal entry on Palm Sunday.
τ ἐαρο, sc. on the Sunday. Jn. is fond of these notes of time (see Introd., p. cii).
ὄλςπλς(see on v. 9) κλ “a great crowd that had come up to the feast,” sc. those that came from the country parts to the metropolis, including doubtless many Galilæ (see 4:45).
ἀοσνε, “having heard,” sc. from those who had come by way of Bethany. ὅιis recitantis. The words they heard were: ἔχτιἸσῦ εςἹρσλμ. BΘprefix ὁto Ἰσῦ, while א omit; it is usually B that omits the def. art. (see on 1:29).
The entry of Jesus would naturally provoke curiosity and enthusiasm, coming (as Jn. represents it to have done) not long after the raising of Lazarus (11:55, 56). The most conspicuous discrepancy between Mk. and Jn. is at this point, Mk. not mentioning Lazarus at all, but describing none the less the triumphal entry, while the enthusiasm with which Jesus was received is expressly connected by Jn. with the miracle at Bethany (see Introd., p. clxxxiii).
13. ἔαο τ βΐ τνφιίω. βΐν a “palm branch,” occurs again in the Greek Bible only at 1 Macc. 13:51, in the account of Simon’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, μτ ανσω κὶβΐνκλ (cf. 2 Macc. 10:7). To carry palms was a mark of triumphant homage to a victor or a king (cf. Rev_7:9). Either βΐ or φίιε, separately, would mean “palms,” so that Jn.’s τ βΐ τνφιίω is superfluously precise (see Abbott, Diat. 2047), “the palm branches of the palm trees,” perhaps trees which grew on the slopes of Olivet. The Synoptists do not mention the bearing of palms: Mk. has σιάα, i.e. “litter” of leaves, etc., which were strewn in the road; Mt. says ἔοτνκάοςἀὸτνδνρνκὶἐτώνο ἐ τ ὁῷ There seem to have been two crowds, one accompanying Jesus, the other going out from the city to meet Him (ἐῆθνεςὑάτσνατ); see Swete on Mar_11:9, and cf. v. 18 below.
κὶἐρύαο κλ “they kept crying out Hosanna.” ἐρύαο is read by א as against ἔρζνof the rec. text (AΓΘ For καγζι applied to the shouting of crowds, cf. Ezr_3:13; and see note on 11:43 above.
Before Ὡαν, the rec., with א ins. λγνε: om. BLΓΘ
The words from the Psalter with which (according to the Synoptists as well as Jn.) the acclaiming crowds greeted Jesus as He rode into the city, were the words with which in the original use of the Psalm the priests blessed the procession entering the Temple. “Hosanna: Blessed in the Name of Yahweh is he that cometh” (Psa_118:25, Psa_118:26). The sense is missed if ἐ ὀόαικρο is connected with ὁἐχμνς The Hebrew priests were chosen “to bless in the name of Yahweh” (Deu_21:5); and so also it is written of David ελγσντνλὸ ἐ ὀόαικρο (2Sa_6:18). Cf. also 1Ki_22:16, 2Ki_2:24; and see note on 16:23.
The quotation of Psa_118:25, Psa_118:26 by the crowds who hailed Jesus on His entry to Jerusalem was something more than a mere blessing of welcome, as of One who had done wonderful things (cf. Psa_129:8). It recognised in Him ὁἐχμνς “the Coming One,” even as Martha had said to Him σ ε …ὁεςτνκσο ἐχμνς(11:27; cf. Mat_11:3).
The cry of Hosanna (in Aramaic הֹׁענא rendered σσνδ in the LXX of Psa_118:25) was the refrain sung by the people in the processional recitation of Psa_118 at the Feast of Tabernacles. When v. 25 was reached, the palm branches which were carried by the worshippers were waved; and hence these sprigs of palm with myrtle and willow (lulab was the technical name) came themselves to be called hosannas.
The practice, however, of bearing palm sprigs and crying Hosanna was not confined to the Feast of Tabernacles, although it originated in the Temple services at that festival; and we have already cited from 1 Macc. 13:51 an instance of palm branches being borne on the occasion of a popular welcome to a hero at another time of the year. There is thus no historical improbability in Jn.’s statement that palms and hosannas were accompaniments of the entry of Jesus to the city.1
κὶὁβσλὺ τῦἸρή. Mk. has instead of this ελγμν ἡἐχμν βσλί τῦπτὸ ἡῶ Δυί, which conveys the same idea, sc. that the crowds were acclaiming Jesus as the Messianic king. Lk. has ὁἐχμνςὁβσλύ, but Mt. puts it differently, reporting the cry as Ὡαν τ υῷΔυί (a different use of hosanna, perhaps derived from some liturgical refrain). Jn. has already (1:49) attributed the confession σ βσλὺ ε τῦἸρή to Nathanael. It was this public acclamation of Jesus as King of Israel or King of the Jews which was the foundation of the charge made against Him before Pilate (18:33). He had refused earlier in His ministry to allow the eager people to “make Him king” (6:15); but now He did not disclaim the title (cf. Luk_19:38-40). Pseudo-Peter represents the inscription on the cross as being in the form οτςἐτνὁβσλὺ τῦἸρή (see on 19:19).
14. ερνδ ὁἸσῦ ὀάινκλ This is not verbally consistent with the Synoptists, who tell that it was the disciples who had found the ass, in accordance with the directions given them by Jesus (Mar_11:2-6). Chrysostom is at unnecessary pains to reconcile the various statements; see v. 16 below.
ἐάιε ἐʼατ So Mar_11:7; Luk_19:35 says ἐείαα τνἸσῦ.
κθςἐτνγγαμνν See on 2:17 for this formula of citation.
15. The quotation is from Zec_9:9, in an abbreviated form. The LXX has πλννο, whereas Jn. has πλνὄο, a more literal rendering of the Hebrew; for the opening words, “Exult greatly,” he gives μ φβῦ Mk. and Lk., while narrating the entry into Jerusalem, do not quote the prophecy. Mt. (21:5) gives it in the form Επτ τ θγτὶΣώ, Ἰο, ὁβσλύ συἔχτίσιπαςκὶἐιεηὼ ἐὶὄο κὶἐὶπλνυὸ ὑουίυ Jn. notes (v. 16) that the application of this prophecy of Zechariah to the entry of Jesus was not thought of until a later time; but Mt. introduces his account with the formula ἵαπηωῇτ ῥθνδὰτῦποήο λγνο …(see Introd., p. cliv).
The full quotation, as given by Mt., is misleading. The story, as told by the other evangelists, is simply that an ass’s colt was found and that Jesus rode on it. But Mt., misunderstanding the Hebrew repetition in Zec_9:9,
“…upon an ass,
and upon a colt, the foal of a she-ass,”
where only one animal is indicated, tells us that two animals were fetched,1 and garments put on them that they might be ridden. Jn., on the contrary, gives only that part of the prophecy which is relevant, sc. “sitting on an ass’s colt.”
It is not to be thought that there is any suggestion of humility in riding upon an ass. On the contrary, the ass and the mule were the animals used in peace by great persons for their progresses, as the horse was used in war. The sons of the judges rode upon asses (Jdg_10:4, Jdg_12:14); so did Ahithophel (2Sa_17:23); so did Mephibosheth, Saul’s son, when he went to Jerusalem to meet David (2Sa_19:26); cf. Jdg_5:10. Indeed Zec_9:10 shows plainly that the prophecy was specially of One coming in peace.
The LXX translators did not understand this. They have πλυ only in <