John 12:4

Joh 12:4 . Hence the οὖν in Joh 12:4 , λέγει οὖν εἶς … πτωχοῖς ; “one” of His disciples. Matthew (Mat 26:8 ) leaves all the disciples under the reproach, which John transfers to Judas alone. On the designation of Judas see Joh 6:71 . Westcott, however, with a harmonising tendency, says “Judas expressed what others felt”. But this is contradicted by the motive which John ascribes to Judas, Joh 12:6 . Διατί … δηναρίων . Three hundred denarii would equal a day labourer’s wage for one year.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Judas . . . who should betray him--For the reason why this is here mentioned, see on Mar 14:11.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

4. One of his disciples, therefore, saith. Next follows the murmuring of Judas, which Matthew (Matthew 16:8) attributes to the disciples indiscriminately, and Mark (Mark 14:4) to some of them; but it is customary in Scripture to apply to many, by way of synecdoche, what belongs to one or to a few. Yet I think it is probable, that the murmuring proceeded from Judas alone, and that the rest were induced to give him their assent, as murmurings, by fanning a flame, easily kindle in us a variety of dispositions; and more especially, as we are too prone to form unfavorable judgments, slanders are readily embraced by us. But the credulity which the Spirit of God reproves in the Apostles is a warning to us not to be too easy and credulous in listening to calumnious statements.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(4) Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot.—Comp. Notes on Joh_6:70-71. St. Matthew tells us that the question was asked by “the disciples;” St. Mark, that it was asked by “certain persons;” St. John remembers that it was Judas who spoke, and he remembers that his words were characteristic of the man (Joh_12:6). He implies by the form in which he relates these words, that he spoke for himself, and that the others did not join in his feeling.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. Then saith, &c.] Rather, But Judas Iscariot, &c. The best authorities omit ‘Simon’s son.’

one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot] S. Mark says quite indefinitely, ‘some,’ S. Matthew, ‘his disciples.’ Each probably states just what he knew; S. Mark that the remark was made; S. Matthew that it came from the group of disciples; S. John that Judas made it, and why he made it. S. John was perhaps anxious that the unworthy grumbling should be assigned to the right person.

which should betray] Comp. Joh_6:71.

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.

Then saith one of his disciples,.... Who had no true love for his master, was an hypocrite, and a covetous person:

Judas Iscariot; so called, to distinguish him from another Judas, an apostle; See Gill on Mat 10:4.

Simon's son; this is omitted in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions; See Gill on Joh 13:2;

which should betray him; and so he did; this was pre-determined by God, foretold in prophecy, and foreknown by Christ; and is observed here, to show the temper and character of the man.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,

Ver. 4. Then said one of his disciples] St Matthew tells us, that all the disciples said thus. Judas was of so great esteem and authority among them, that what he did they are all said to do. So cunningly he had carried his conspiracy, that they all suspected themselves rather than Judas; every one said, Is it I?

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.

4. Should betray him—Which was about to betray him.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But Judas the Iscariot, one of his disciples, who was about to betray him, said. The speaker here is singled out by name. Matthew refers the speech to the disciples generally, in whom the suggestion of Judas had stirred up (without guile or blame on their part) a not unnatural inquiry. Mark says "some" murmured to themselves, "Why this waste?" (loss, destruction). John (without the malice which Renan has attributed to the writer) mentions the source of the suggestion, "Judas Iscariot, Simon"s son." The word Simwnov , contained in T.R., is omitted here in the best texts. The fact that he was the traitor, being one of the well-known and awful events of the gospel history when John wrote some half a century later, might well be introduced by the evangelist, with no other than a purely historical motive.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The objection of Judas:

v. 4. Then saith one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray Him,

v. 5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

v. 6. This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

v. 7. Then said Jesus, Let her alone; against the day of My burying hath she kept this.

v. 8. For the poor always ye have with you; but Me ye have not always.

When Mary gave the wonderful evidence of her devotion to the Lord, all the disciples were more or less taken aback, Mat 26:8. Their frugal manner of living immediately scented useless extravagance. But there was one in their midst, Judas of Kerioth, the son of Simon, who afterwards betrayed the Lord, that voiced his objections in no uncertain terms. The value of the ointment was three hundred denarii (fifty dollars or somewhat more). Devoid of all sentiment and real feeling as he was, Judas demanded why the ointment had not been sold for this sum, in order that the money might be given to the poor. But his apparent solicitude for the poor people was all sham, intended to mask the real interest which he felt, that of getting the money into his clutches. The poor were nothing to him; to them he did not devote one moment of anxious thought. Judas was a thief. As treasurer of the little band of disciples he carried the wallet for them all, had complete charge of all moneys. Since a system of auditing was hardly to be thought of, Judas could easily abstract small sums from time to time. And here he was obliged to see a splendid opportunity lost. Note: Judas is a warning example for all times. He undoubtedly had been a simple believer in Christ when first he was called to join the little band of disciples. But the temptations connected with the office which was entrusted to him proved too much for his endurance. His love of money, his covetousness, came to the front; he began to steal, and faith fled from his heart. But with faith gone and avarice reigning in the heart, it was an easy matter for the devil to take possession of Judas to such an extent that he betrayed the Savior. Jesus did not wish to expose Judas at this time, and therefore is satisfied with taking Mary’s part and defending her action. He explained that the action of the woman was a part of the preparation for His burial, which was destined soon to take place. Far from censuring her, therefore, they should rather have commended her highly. And so far as the point raised by Judas was concerned: the poor they always had with them. There was always opportunity to do good to these unfortunates that were in destitute circumstances. But the presence of Jesus would soon be removed from them; there was but little time left to give Him special evidences of love and devotion. Thus this apparent extravagance, being occasional only, is fully justified. And the saying of Christ finds its application even today. It is self-evident that a congregation will take care of the poor in its own midst; but after this has been provided for, a little luxury in the interest of beautifying the services of the Lord is by no means displeasing to Him.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

the one who would betray him

"the one who later enabled Jesus' enemies to seize him"

Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?

This is a rhetorical question. You can translate it as a strong statement. AT: "This perfume could have been sold for three hundred denarii and the money could have been given to the poor!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

three hundred denarii

You can translate this as a numeral. AT: "300 denarii" (See: Numbers)

denarii

A denarius was the amount of silver that a common laborer could earn in one day of work. (See: Biblical Money)

Now he said this ... would steal from what was put in it

John explains why Judas asked the question about the poor. If your language has a way of indicating background information, you can use it here. (See: Background Information)

he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief

"he said this because he was a thief. He did not care about the poor"

translationWords

Judas Iscariot

disciple

betray

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

4. Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκ. S. Mark (Mar 14:4) says, quite indefinitely, τινες; S. Matthew (Mat 26:8), οἱ μαθηταί. Each probably states just what he knew; S. Mark that the remark was made; S. Matthew that it came from the group of disciples; S. John that Judas made it, and why he made it. S. John was perhaps anxious that the unworthy grumbling should be assigned to the right person. For ὁ μέλλων αὐτὸν παρ. see on Joh 6:71.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4.] For Judas, we have οἱ μαθ. αὐτοῦ. Matt.,—τινές, merely, Mark. See note on Matt. ver. 8.

ὁ μέλλεν αὐτὸν παραδιδόναι is not inserted, nor are any such notices in St. John without significance. It has a pragmatic connexion with the narrative in hand. Only one with thoughts alien from Jesus could have originated such a murmur. And on the other hand, it may well be, as some have supposed, that by the rebuke of the Lord on this occasion, the traitorous scheme of Judas, long hidden in his inmost soul, may have been stimulated to immediate action.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. The description of Judas is almost identical with that given in 6:71 (where see note).

We must read δέ (אBW) for the rec. οὖν.

Apparently we should omit ἐκ before τῶν μαθητῶν (with BLW 33 249), although it is inserted, in accordance with Jn.’s general habit (see on 1:40), by אADΘ. ἐκ is also omitted in similar sentences at 18:22, 19:34.

אBLW, fam. 1, and most vss. read here Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης (cf. 14:22 for ὁ Ἰσκ.); but AΓΔΘ have Ἰούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτης, introducing the name of his father (as at 6:71, 13:2).

The rec. text, following ADΘ, places the sentence εἷς [ἐκ] τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ before Ἰούδας; but אBLW place it after Ἰσκαριώτης.

For ὁ μέλλων, D has ὃς ἤμελλεν (perhaps a reminiscence of 6:71). μέλλων 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.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Simon 's son. Omit.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vv. 4-6. “Then one of his disciples, Judas, the son of Simon, the Iscariot, he who was soon to betray him, says: 5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred denarii and the price given to the poor? 6. Now this he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and kept the purse and took what was put therein.”

This outbreak of indignation on the part of Judas is occasioned by the mean passion with which the evangelist charges him; but, like his treachery, it has a deeper source than avarice. For a long time (Joh 6:70) there had been in this heart a gloomy discontent with respect to the course followed by Jesus (Joh 6:70-71; comp. with Joh 12:15), and this feeling only waited for a pretext to manifest itself. In the Synoptics, it is the disciples (Matthew), some (Mark), who protest. It seems that on this occasion, as on others, Judas played among his fellowdisciples the part of the leaven which leavens the whole mass. Westcott says: “He expressed what the others thought.”

There is no doubt more than this: he excited among them a movement of discontent which would not have been awakened without him. We find here again a relation between John and the Synoptics which we have already pointed out in other stories. In the latter, the outlines are effaced: the former alone reproduces the characteristic features, as we might expect from a witness. Judas knows the exact price of the commodity in question, as if he were a tradesman. For the value of the denarius, see on Joh 6:7. The sum indicated was nearly equivalent, in the time of the emperors, to two hundred and sixty francs. It is found as identically the same sum in Mark. We have already remarked several similar coincidences between the two evangelists (Joh 12:3; Joh 6:7; Joh 6:10). Even independently of the subsequent fact of the treachery of Judas, attested by the four evangelists, it would be very rash to ascribe the accusation here formulated by John against Judas to a feeling of personal hatred, as modern criticism has allowed itself to do. The word γλωσσόκομον (properlyγλωσσοκομεῖον) denotes literally the case in which musicians kept the mouth-pieces of flutes; whence: box. This purse was probably a small portable cash-box. The property of Jesus and His disciples was mingled with that of the poor (Joh 13:29). This fund was supplied by voluntary gifts (Joh 12:5; Luk 8:1-3). We may see in Joh 20:15 how in the wordβαστάζειν, the sense of bearing, the only one used, in general, in the New Testament, is easily changed into that of taking away, purloining (de Wette, Meyer).

The simple meaning to bear is not impossible, however, if, with the Alexandrian authorities, we read ἕχων, having, instead of καί...εἶχε., and he had...and ....For by this means all tautology as between this clause and the following disappears. But it is absurd, in any case, to claim that the sense of taking away is excluded because of the article τά before βαλλόμενα, as if this article must signify that he took away everything which was placed in the box! It has been asked why Jesus, if He knew Judas, intrusted to him this office so perilous to his morality. We will not say, with Hengstenberg, that Jesus saw fit thus to call forth the manifestation of his sin, as the only means of accomplishing a cure. By such a course of action, Jesus would have put Himself, as it seems to us, in the place of God more completely than was accordant with the reality of His humanity. But is there clear proof that Jesus intervened directly in the choice of Judas as the treasurer of the company? Might not this have been an arrangement which the disciples had made among themselves and in which Jesus had not desired to mingle. Weiss thinks that Jesus had chosen Judas at first because he had a special gift in the financial sphere, and that afterwards He did not wish to interfere with a relation in which He recognized a divine dispensation.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.