John 12:5

12:5 a year’s wages: Judas may have been exaggerating, but Mary’s sacrifice was certainly very costly.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 12:5. Τριακοσίων δηναρίων, for three hundred denarii [pence]) Fifty or sixty florins.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_12:5-6. Τριακοσίων] Mar_14:5 sets forth the climax in the tradition by ἐπάνω τριακ. The mention of the price itself (about 120 Rhenish guldens, or about £10) is certainly original, not the indefinite πολλοῦ of Mat_26:9.

πτωχοῖς] without the article: to poor people.

κ. τ. γλωσσ. εἶχε κ. τ. β. ἐβάστ.] gives historical definiteness to the general κλέπτης ἦν. He had the chest, the cash-box (see as regards γλωσσόκ. 2Ch_24:8; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 98 f.), in his keeping, and bore away that which was thrown into it, i.e. he purloined it. This closer definition of the sense of βαστάζειν, auferre (Joh_20:15; Mat_7:17; Polyb. i. 48. 2, et al.), is yielded by the context. See Krebs, Obss. p. 153. So Origen, Codd. of the It. Nonnus, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide, Kypke, Krebs, and several others, including Maier, Grimm; comp. Lange.[105] The article does not signify that he had taken away all the deposits (objection of Lücke and several others), but refers to the individual cases which we are to suppose, in which deposits were removed by him. The explanation portabat (Vulgate, Luther, Beza, and many others, including Lücke, De Wette, B. Crusius, Luthardt, Ebrard, Wichelhaus, Baeumlein, Godet, Hengstenberg, Ewald; Tholuck doubtful) yields a meaning which is quite tautological, and a matter of course. The βαλλόμενα were gifts of friends and adherents of Jesus for the purchase of the necessities of life and for charitable uses. Comp. Luk_8:3; Joh_13:29. That the disciples had acquired earnings by the labour of their hands, and had deposited such earnings in the bag, nay, that even Jesus Himself had done so (Mar_6:3),of this there exists no trace during the period of His ministry.

The question, why Jesus had not taken away the custody of the chest from the dishonest disciple (which indeed, according to Schenkel, he probably did not hold), is not answered by saying that He would remove every pretext for treason from him (Ammonius, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others), or that He did not desire violently to interfere with the development of his sins (Hengstenberg); for neither would harmonize with the educative love of the Lord. Just as little, again, is it explained by suggesting that Judas carried on his thefts unobserved, until perhaps shortly before the death of Jesus (Lücke), which would be incompatible with the higher knowledge of the Lord, Joh_2:25; comp. Joh_6:64; Joh_6:71. The question stands rather in the closest connection with anotherhow Jesus could adopt Judas at all as a disciple; and here we must go back solely to a divine destination, Act_1:16; Act_2:23. Comp. the note after Joh_6:70-71. That the custody of the chest had been entrusted to Judas only by agreement of the disciples among one another (Godet), is an assumption which quite arbitrarily evades the point, while it would by no means have excluded the competency of Jesus to interfere.

[105] Who, however, explains: he laid hold of. But βαστάζειν denotes to lay hold of only in the sense of ψηλαφᾶν (Suidas). See Reisig, ad Soph. O. C. 1101; Ellendt, Lex Soph. I. p. 299. And also in this sense only in the tragic poets.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

An horrible example in Judas of a mind blinded with covetousness, and yet pretending godliness.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

three hundred pence--between nine and ten pounds sterling.

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

Verse 5. Three hundred pence] Or denarii: about 9£. 13s. 9d. of our money; reckoning the denarius at 7 3/4d. One of my MSS. of the Vulgate (a MS. of the 14th century) reads, cccc denarii.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred denarii? A pound of ordinary ointment, Pliny tells us, cost not more than ten denarii; but the same Pliny says, that the highest price of the best ointment was three hundred and ten denarii. Now the Evangelists agree, that this was the most costly ointment, and Therefore Judas is correct in valuing a pound of it at three hundred denarii, — a sum which, according to the computation of Budaeus, amounts to fifty livres of French money. And as almost every kind of luxury involves excess and superfluity, the greater the waste of money, the more plausible reason had Judas for murmuring; as if he had said, “Had Mary spent little, there would have been some excuse for her; but now, since, in a matter of no importance, she has wasted a vast sum of money, has she not done an injury to the poor, who might have obtained from such a sum great relief? What she has done, therefore, admits of no apology.”

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.

(5) Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence?—Both the earlier Gospels preface this estimate by a reference to the use which was made of the ointment as actual waste. St. Matthew says only “that it might have been sold for much.” St. Mark, “that it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence,” that is, in actual value, for the yearly wage of a working man, and for the food therefore which would have maintained a poor man’s household for a whole year. (Comp. Note on Joh_6:7.) St. Mark adds, “and they were angry at her.” (Comp. Note on Joh_11:33.)

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

5. three hundred pence] Here, as in Joh_6:7, the translation ‘pence’ is very inadequate and misleading; ‘three hundred shillings’ would be nearer the mark (see on Mar_6:7). S. Mark adds that some were very indignant at her.

to the poor] More accurately, to poor people; there is no article (comp. Luk_18:22).

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.

Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence,.... Meaning Roman pence, one of which is, of the value of our money, seven pence halfpenny; so that three hundred pence amount to nine pounds seven shillings and six pence:

and given to the poor? this was his pretence, and with which he covered himself; his uneasiness was, because it was not sold, and the money put into his hands, as appears by what follows.

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

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

Ver. 5. Sold for three hundred pence] He, the thief, had quickly computed and cast it up. Pliny tells us that a pound of ordinary ointment might be had for ten pence; but the best was worth three hundred and ten pence. So that Judas was much about the good, as they say. And Mary spared for no cost; as neither did Justinian in his rich communion table, offered up by him in the temple of Sophia in Constantinople, that had in it, saith the author, all the riches of land and sea. Cedren. Hist.

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.

5. Given to the poor—Covetousness and irreverence are here covered under the cloak of benevolence. The poor are, indeed, as the Scriptures abundantly teach, a prominent object of Christian duty. Yet poverty is no merit, but is very often the due penalty of idleness and unthrift. The due expenditures of art and taste are right, as tending to civilize and elevate mankind; the wealth laid out in awakening the sentiment of worship is still more right, as contributing to spiritualize the heart of man.

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

Vers. 5, 6. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? Sinful motive often hides itself under the mask of reverence for another virtue. In Mark"s Gospel the same price was put upon the pound of pure nard as that which is mentioned here about of our money. Christ had given emphatic advice about generosity to the poor, and even during this very week (Joh_13:29) it is clear that his words were not forgotten, and in his great discourse, probably also delivered during this same week, he identified himself with the poor, (Mat_25:35, etc.) and called for unreserved consideration of them; so that this language was not unnatural. The value of this ointment is another minute indication that there is no connection between the Lazarus of John and the Lazarus of the parable. But John adds that the utter lack of perception on Judas"s part of Mary"s self-devotion was prompted by the most unworthy motive. The suggestion of Judas is put down by the evangelist to the sheerest covetousness. During the interval that elapsed, Judas had revealed his character, and John did not hesitate to refer the suggestion to the traitor. Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor. He really cared nothing for the poor. He was ambitious, eager for the display of the Master"s power, anxious for the rewards which might follow the Master"s assumption of supreme authority, turning to his own account all that might happen. But because he was a thief, and havingpossession of the common purse (the word glwssokomov , which occurs in the sense of a chest, (2Ch_24:8) has a curious etymology, which had passed out of recognition; from glwssa and komew comes glwssokomeion , that in which month-pieces of flutes might be kept in safety, and subsequently a chest or box for the safe guardianship of other valuables), he was the bearer perhaps, bore array, (see Joh_20:15, and Josephus, "Ant.," 7:15. 3, for this use of bastazw) at all events had at his disposalof the things which were cast, in generous profusion, into it. Thoma makes the astounding suggestion that "John" here covertly refers to Simon Magus of Act_8:18, etc. The question is often asked Why was Judas entrusted with the common purse? Was it not likely to aggravate a disposition to which he was prone? Did not Jesus know what was in man? and had he not discerned the propensity of Judas? (see Joh_6:71) In reply:

(1) The appointment may have been made by the apostles themselves.

(2) Our Lord may not have interfered with it, deeming confidence more likely to help him than distrust.

(3) It may also show how, if men will yield themselves to sin, God will not and does not promise them immunity from temptation, but sometimes even brings them into it.

(4) The purse might have been a preservative against the vile temptation to sell his Master, and a test and motive for self-conquest.

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

5. τριακοσίων δην. Over £20, if we reckon according to the purchasing power of the denarius: see on Joh 6:7. Πτωχοῖς (no article), to poor people: comp. διάδος πτωχοῖς (Luk 18:22).

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.

5. τριακοσ. δην.] Common (with the slight difference of the insertion of ἐπάνω) to our narrative and Mark. The sum is about 9l. 16s. of our money (Friedlieb, p. 31).

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

5. This verse reproduces Mar 14:5 ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ μύρον πραθῆναι ἐπάνω δηναρίων τριακοσίων καὶ δοθῆναι τοῖς πτωχοῖς. 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.

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

Three hundred pence [τριακοσιων δηναριων] . Or three hundred denarii. On the denarius, see on Mt 20:2. Mark says more than three hundred pence. Three hundred denarii would be about fifty dollars, or twice that amount if we reckon according to the purchasing power. The poor [πτωχοις] . See on Mt 5:3. No article : to poor people.

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