Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJames Nisbet Commentary - Mark 14:4 - 14:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
‘There were some that had indignation.… Jesus said, Let her alone.’
Mar_14:4; Mar_14:6
(a) Take heed and beware of covetousness. There is nothing that will sooner afflict the heart with spiritual rottenness than this; nothing that will more quickly and irretrievably destroy all that is good in the tissue of our characters than the rust and moth of covetous and selfish desires.
(b) Judge not one against another. The habit of grumbling and complaining is fatal to true peace of mind, and destructive of all real spirituality.
II. By our Lord.—Our Lord’s judgment of Mary’s act is deliberately and rebukingly expressed. ‘Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on Me.’
(a) The interference of Judas and the disciples was unwarranted. The charge of Judas had been that this was a specimen of useless waste. Such a suggestion had never occurred to the heart of Mary—that an expression of affection, and love, and gratitude in a world where these flowers so seldom bloom could by any possibility be ‘waste.’ The thought troubled her. The inner trouble flew to the face and expressed itself in the anxious eye and downcast look. But the Lord would not have this wretched meddlesomeness. How easily do we pronounce judgment on others! How soon may we find a flaw in the most perfect work of others’ piety! But Jesus always takes His people under His supreme and sufficient protection.
(b) Their opinion of Mary’s act was erroneous. They thought it was waste; in reality it was a good work. They thought it was waste, but He expressed His approval of this mode of applying her substance. They thought it waste; He declares that (unknown to her) it had a peculiar fitness to the occasion. They thought it waste; He said it was an act which should be worldwide in its influence.
Illustration
‘Continuity and diffusion mark all we do. It is not given us to say whether the word once spoken, or the act once performed, shall pass beyond its immediate object. We cannot help it. A blow struck at one end of a beam will vibrate to the other. A circle formed in the middle of a lake will ripple outwards towards the shore. No force once liberated is ever lost. It never subsides, so to speak, into its former self, but works on, by transmission or conversion, with unceasing and unresting activity. It is so with men’s words and deeds. When once spoken or done they are beyond recall, and largely beyond arrest. They continue in effective operation after we have forgotten them. They are perpetually enlarging their sphere of influence, and working out their characteristic results, when all trace of them has disappeared from human vision. Hence eternity alone can give a just and complete account of their actual power and effect. The thought is stupendously solemn, and ought to be solemnly laid to heart. It is one to inspire us with gladdening hope, or else to fill us with terrible dismay. It is one, too, to bring home to us, with special application and stimulating emphasis, the great practical question of the Apostle: “What manner of persons ought ye to be, in all holy conversation and godliness?” ’
‘Why was this waste of the ointment made?’
Mar_14:4
But, unfortunately, the obvious moral of the story has not prevented the application to foreign missions of a question, oft repeated and loud sounding, which amounts almost in so many words to the question of Judas, ‘Why was this waste?’
I. Its apparent justification.—(a) In the face of home needs, is it not a waste that millions are spent yearly on missions to the heathen? (b) In face of the great mortality in Africa and elsewhere, is it not a waste to be constantly sending out missionaries to these fever-stricken countries? (c) In face of the great dearth of faithful pastors at home, is it not a waste to send so many capable and trained clergy to places where their services are not appreciated?
II. Its absolute injustice.—(a) The motive of the question is entirely wrong, as shown by Judas himself, who was not concerned on account of the poor, but was a thief (Joh_12:6). Some opponents of missions are actuated by selfishness, and so ask this question simply out of a spirit of narrowness, not because of their zeal for the glory of God’s kingdom. (b) The very idea itself is wrong, viz. that Mary’s offering was lost, wasted, and thus profitless. The most convincing instance of this is the life, sufferings, and death of Jesus Himself; thirty years in the quiet of Nazareth, only three years of public life, hidden away in a little corner of the earth—what a waste of a beautiful life! But see Joh_12:24. Through Mary’s example is every similar so-called waste in God’s service justified. (c) The question is especially wrong when asked in connection with missions to the heathen. While the amount spent in this way is compared with other objects of expenditure—war, luxuries, vice—it is a mere trifle, and it must be remembered it brings a fruitful return in increased scientific knowledge, commerce, and colonial extension. The support of foreign missions has a beneficial effect on the Church at home by deepening the feeling of devotion, and the rich blessings of all sorts reflected.
III. Similarly as to the deaths of missionaries in the field.—(a) No one exclaims against a man who accepts a lucrative trade or official appointment to a pestilential climate, or is ordered off on military service to a post of danger. (b) The number of missionary deaths is as nothing compared with the losses in even a minor war. (c) The deaths of missionaries stimulate the devotion of the Church; e.g. How many men and women have been led to give themselves to God’s work at home as well as abroad by such deaths as those of Livingstone, Patteson, and Hannington?