This post begins with a brief overview of the whole chapter, followed by commentary on verses 1-11. Translated by Qwen. Text in red is my addition.
7. The Fifth Manifestation of Jesus in Judea (12:1-50)
Through the raising of Lazarus, the zeal of many for Jesus and their faith were strengthened. A glorious demonstration of this is exhibited in Jesus' triumphal entry into the city. The Gentiles also wish to see Jesus; in their desire, Jesus explains the beginning of his glorification, declaring that his death will be for the salvation of believers. With an admonition that they should believe, his public ministry is concluded; the evangelist, adding an epilogue, laments the unbelief of the Jews and rebukes the cowardice of others.
Through the raising of Lazarus, great admiration was stirred among the people, and faith in Jesus was either born or increased in many. Hence it also came about that they received Jesus with solemn pomp and greeted him as King of Israel. Why, therefore, they went out to meet Jesus with such great joy and in festive manner, accompanying him as it were in triumph with favorable acclamations, is best explained from this narrative; and thus is supplied what seems to be lacking in the Synoptics, among whom Jesus is indeed greeted as Son of David by the blind men at Jericho, but why the crowds who were already in the city honored him with such signs of joy and admiration as never before is not sufficiently declared. Moreover, by such honor, the adversaries of Jesus were all the more provoked to remove him by death. Furthermore, the supper made in Bethany became an occasion and incentive for Judas to offer his assistance to the Sanhedrists for handing Jesus over to them—which is clearly gathered from the narrative of the Synoptics, Matthew and Mark (see on Matt. 26:6; Commentary on Matthew, II, p. 393).
As is had from the Synoptics, Jesus came from Jericho to Bethany. From Ephrem (11:54), therefore—as is probable from Luke 17:11ff.—he undertook a journey between the borders of Samaria and Galilee, thence into Perea (Matt. 19:1; Mark 10:1ff.; Luke 18:15ff.), and to Jericho, and to Bethany. By what route he proceeded from Ephrem to Bethany, John does not say. He mentions only the time of arrival, which the Synoptics do not note.
Jn 12:1: Jesus therefore—that is, because the Passover was near (Jn 11:55), at which the typical lamb was immolated, he himself, as the true Lamb, approached the place of his passion, to be voluntarily sacrificed for the salvation of the world—six days before the Passover, came to Bethany; that is, six days before the Passover he came to Bethany. For the construction, cf. Amos 1:1 (LXX) and 2 Macc. 15:36. This manner of expression is quite frequent even among profane authors (cf. Winer, §61, 5); and see what I have said on Jn 11:18.
When exactly he came, however, is not explained in the same way by all, because there can be variety in the computation of days, and indeed also in the acceptance of to pascha [the Passover]. For in numbering days, the first day equally as the sixth can either be included or excluded. Moreover, "Passover" can be said both of the day on whose evening the lamb was immolated, and of the feast day itself which followed it. For Lev. 23:5 says: "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at evening, shall be the Passover to the Lord; and on the fifteenth day of the month is the solemnity of unleavened bread." Likewise Num. 28:16: "On the fourteenth day is the Passover; on the fifteenth day is the solemnity." And Num. 33:3 names the fifteenth day "the day after the Passover." Likewise Josh. 5:10-11; nor otherwise Ezek. 45:21. Similarly, Josephus also calls the 14th of Nisan "the [day] of the Passover" (Antiquities 3.10.5), which manner of speaking is also seen in Justin and in the Chronicon Paschale, and in others (cf. Contra Tryphonem 99, 111; Chron. Pasch., pp. 12, 14). Now in 13:1 we read "before the feast day of the Passover"; whence the evangelist himself seems to intimate to us that the simple to pascha in this our passage is not to be understood of the feast day itself.
By this determination of time, he also teaches that the narrative in the two Synoptics concerning the supper (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3) is not so joined to the preceding events as if the supper had been held two days before the Passover.
The day on which Jesus came to Bethany was a Friday (cf. Cajetan, Toletus, Jansenius, Lapide, Schegg, Fillion). The supper was prepared on the Sabbath; the following day, therefore—the first day of the week—was the solemn and triumphal entry into the city. Which day is also gathered from the narrative of Mark: for what he narrates (in Mk 11:1-11) pertains to the day of entry; what is in Mk 11:12-19 to the day after entry; what is in Mk 11:20–14:1 to the second day from entry. Now on that day Jesus says: "You know that after two days the Passover will be" (Matt. 26:2). But the Passover occurred on a Thursday; therefore those words were spoken on a Tuesday, that is, on the second day from entry; therefore the entry fell on the first day of the week. Moreover, the day of arrival in Bethany can also be gathered without difficulty from this narrative: for the Passover, as was said above, can be understood of Thursday, on which the Passover was celebrated by Jesus according to the law; now the sixth day before Thursday falls on the Friday of the preceding week—for which manner of computing, see 2 Macc. 15:36, where the 13th of Adar is designated pro mias hēmeras tēs Mardochaikēs hēmeras ["one day before the day of Mordecai"], which day of Mordecai was the 14th of the month of Adar (cf. Commentary on Matthew, II, p. 199).
To Bethany is noted (cf. Jn 11:18), where Lazarus had been dead—or as most manuscripts and the Vulgate have: where Lazarus had been dead, that is, who had been dead, whom Jesus raised.
Jn 12:2: And they made him a supper there, and Martha served; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at table with him. By this manner of narrating it is confirmed what Matthew and Mark hand down: that the supper was not prepared in the house of Lazarus, but elsewhere, namely, in the house of Simon the leper; because Lazarus is designated not as host and master of the banquet, but as one of those reclining. Nor does it stand in the way that Martha serves; for her assistance was sought by Simon on account of the number of guests, which she most willingly provided, as before (Luke 10:40). Lest men should think that a phantom had been made because a dead man had risen, Lazarus was one of those reclining: he lived, he spoke, he dined; the truth was shown, the unbelief of the Jews was confounded (Augustine, De Consensu Evangelistarum; Chrysostom; Theophylact; Cajetan; Toletus).
As before (Luke 10:39), so now also Mary exhibits love and reverence toward Jesus in a remarkable manner.
Jn 12:3: Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of spikenard, pure, precious. A litra [pound] is a weight of twelve ounces. Nardum pisticum [pure spikenard]: spikenard, genuine—nardos pistikē (Mark 14:3)—the nard is genuine, sincere, not adulterated, not spurious (Cajetan); pistikēs, that is, akratou kai katapapistēmenēs eis katharotēta ["pure and certified for purity"]. For the rest, see Commentary on Mark, p. 362, where more has been said concerning this word.
And anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair. We are taught by Mark that the whole pound was expended for the anointing, who narrates that, the alabaster jar having been broken—that is, a vessel made of alabaster stone—she poured out the ointment. But how much was poured out, John teaches us, who does not explicitly state what others commemorate: namely, he mentions what others passed over in silence—that the head of Jesus was anointed; and he states what others omitted—that the feet were anointed and wiped with hair. Thus indeed the narratives both supplement and explain one another.
As in Jn 11:2, John seems to allude to the anointing already performed before (Luke 7:37-38), so he seems intentionally to mention those things which were done in this other anointing similar to the former. And truly, if the same woman anointed twice, it is easily understood how in the other anointing also she wished again to have recourse to the feet of Jesus, where sitting she was also taught (Luke 10:39).
And the house was filled with the odor of the ointment—for thus he is accustomed to narrate who himself was present and perceived the matter with his senses.
Jn 12:4: From the narrative of others, the disciples (Matthew), some (Mark) were indignant concerning this; John explicitly reports this of one; but from the very response of Jesus in verse 8 it is understood that, truly, according to Matthew and Mark, the other disciples also were indignant, but with different intention: that others indeed said this truly on account of care for the poor, but Judas on account of greed for his theft (Rupert; Glossa Ordinaria; Cajetan).
Therefore one of his disciples says, Judas Iscariot (cf. Jn 6:71; Matt. 10:4): 'Ish Qeriyyot [man of Kerioth], a town in the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:25); and Codex D reads apo Karyōtou ["from Kerioth"], who was about to betray him—note the manner of speaking concerning a thing which at that time had not yet been done but was future; otherwise [cf.] Jn 11:2. He designates this man in a twofold manner that he may be distinguished from the other apostle Judas.
Jn 12:5: Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii? Concerning which price, confer what is said in Jn 6:7. Three hundred denarii are estimated at more than 250 francs of French currency (Fillion), 195-200 Marks of German currency (Schegg), and 10 pounds sterling of English currency. A denarius was the wage for a day's labor; and if you consider the price of nard which Pliny indicates (12.12.26), Judas estimated correctly, being skilled in financial matters (cf. Commentary on Mark, p. 363). It is said in Mark 14:5 "more than three hundred denarii"; for thus they are accustomed to speak who compute a matter cursorily. Others explain the difference thus: that in one estimation the vessel with the ointment, in the other only the ointment is considered. This is too subtle and not necessary.
And given to the poor. But the mask of the hypocrite is torn away.
Jn 12:6: Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor—emele autō: not because the poor were a care to him, not because he had regard for the poor—but because he was a thief, and having the money box, he carried the things that were put in. Glōssokomon [money box]: a purse; properly glōssokomeion, a small box for storing reeds of pipes; then generally a little chest. Ebastazen [he carried]: many explain "he was taking away, stealing"; thus Origen and Cyril: ta tō Theō anatithemena kleptōn ["stealing the things dedicated to God"]. Similarly Nonnus: chēlō anēertaze, phylax kakos ["he lifted up with his pouch, a wicked guardian"]. And Theophylact writes: ebastaze, toutestin eklepte kai hierosylos ēn ["he carried, that is, he stole, and was a sacrilegious person"]. Note the imperfect tense, that is, he was accustomed to steal.
Thus also already Augustine: "He carried"—does he mean he exported? But he carried by ministry, he exported by theft. Similarly Thomas and Bonaventure: "He carried," that is, he carried away and was stealing. And that bastazein has this other meaning, Pape's Lexicon, Pol. 1.48.32.25, and among later authors Schegg, Fillion, Weiss think; others denying (Schanz). But in this passage the context plainly persuades, lest it be said the same thing as has already been said: having the money box. Add that the Greeks thus explain it.
Accurately, therefore, John reports who at last and with what mind raised the complaint; his words, pious in appearance, gave occasion also to others to wonder at the expense and to murmur. They ask why Jesus permitted Judas to have the money boxes. Chrysostom responds: it is for one, God, to know the secret matter; but if anything must be said by conjecture: that he might remove every cause of excuse—for he could not say that he committed the betrayal out of love of money, since he could satisfy his greed from the money boxes, but out of great wickedness, which Christ wished to restrain, using much indulgence toward him (similarly Thomas). And Bonaventure: that he might not have the excuse that he betrayed the Lord on account of poverty. And Bede: that perhaps the memory of honor conferred or money received might turn his mind away from the very selling [of the Lord]. They add also Augustine, Thomas: that the Church may be taught that evil men must be tolerated.
Various duties and offices are committed among men according to natural disposition and aptitude and inclination. Certainly there was no reason why Christ should forbid that the apostles distribute duties among themselves in the same manner. Grace was not lacking to Judas by which he could, if he wished, resist concupiscence and tame it. For the rest, see what I have said in Commentary on Matthew, II, p. 399.
Jn 12:7: Christ restrains his importunity: Let her alone—aphes, "let" (most manuscripts, Vulgate: sine, "allow")—that she may keep it for the day of my burial. On account of the added clause hina ["that"], it must be explained with Toletus: "Allow her to do what she is doing." For when Christ spoke these words, Mary was still anointing; for Judas had begun to murmur before the end of the anointing, that he might deter her from her purpose (similarly Schanz, Schegg). Then explain hina tērēsē: "that she may have kept it," that is, "that she may anoint me"; and this I wish: that this ointment by this anointing, as by an anticipation, be kept and expended for the day of burial. This anointing, therefore, is considered by Christ just as is said in Matt. 26:12: "For in pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it for my burial." The day of anointing is considered as the day of burial.
The manner of speaking is nearly as if he should say: "Allow her; for for the day of burial she is now expending this ointment." Thus indeed in the acceptance of Jesus; for Mary herself, as Thomas says, did not foresee the death of Christ; she did not understand what she was doing, but was moved by a certain interior instinct to do this. By now pouring out this ointment, she as it were keeps it for that day; for now she does what she wishes to do afterward, and yet will not be able (cf. Barradius). Among others, also Cyril gives a reason for the pouring out of the ointment: that it pertains not to luxury but to a certain mystery concerning his burial, even though she who was doing this was ignorant of the reason for the mystery.
Schanz thinks that hina tērēsē can be translated "that by anticipating she may observe it." The reading tetērēken ["she has kept"] (Toletus) is to be explained in the same way: this anointing was done for the office of my burial; for she anointed me just as a dead body is accustomed to be anointed for burial (Toletus).
In the death of Christ his glorification began. Therefore he now wishes this honor of burial to be rendered to him, which he foresaw could not be rendered to his dead body. Whence also he responds to the doubt of the other disciples who sincerely were thinking about the poor:
Jn 12:8: For the poor you will always have with you, but me you will not always have. Rupert notes that he who reads sine ["allow"] in verse 7: the words of his response the Lord has distributed into singular and plural number; whence it is understood that other disciples also were indignant; and since the discourse directed to one in verse 7 is now extended to several, it is sufficiently indicated that indeed Judas was the head, but others had joined in his murmuring (Cajetan). In verse 7 "leave" and "let" were in the singular, her4e in verse 8 "you" (3 times) is plural.
Jesus therefore admonishes: If I were dead, surely you would not be indignant that my body was anointed with precious ointment; therefore neither now be indignant: this anointing is in place of that one; nor does anyone ever think that the usual honors ought not to be paid to the dead, but that, those honors omitted, money ought to be distributed to the poor; nothing can be expended for honoring a funeral. And he insinuates this to them in such a way that he altogether reconciles the minds of the disciples and affects them with love and sadness: but me you will not always have—the opportunity of conferring some benefit and honor upon me will soon be lacking to you.
Christ also added more things which are reported in Matthew and Mark.
From those who had accompanied Jesus departing from Jericho and had now entered the city, a report was spread concerning the arrival of Jesus in Bethany.
Jn 12:9: Therefore a great crowd of the Jews knew that he was there, and they came not only on account of Jesus, but that they might see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. Curiosity to inquire after new and marvelous things is implanted in the hearts of mortals (Toletus); and who would not desire with this curiosity to see a man raised from the dead, from whom he hopes to hear things utterly unheard of concerning the other life? But by this curiosity many were led to faith. Christ performed the miracle that faith might be stirred up (Jn 11:42); for the same reason he betook himself to Bethany and wishes his arrival to become known—not in vain, but with this effect: that his adversaries might be driven to new insanity and impotent fury.
Jn 12:10: But the chief priests thought—ebouleusanto, took counsel, decreed—to kill Lazarus also; perhaps they intended to bring a charge against him together with Jesus, namely, that he had conspired with him to perpetrate a fraud, so that by that reason they might preserve some appearance of probity and law. But truly from those things which they afterward plotted against Paul (Acts 25:3), we are also taught that they by no means shrank from murder committed by ambush.
Jn 12:11: Because many on account of him were going away from the Jews and believing in Jesus. Hypēgon: they were departing, withdrawing themselves, namely, from the party of the Pharisees (cf. Schanz, Fillion, Weiss). Consider what sort of shepherds these were: not seeking to lead straying sheep back to the true shepherd, but striving to make them stray and to kill them (Toletus). They desired to remove a witness of the divine power and mission of Jesus—with blind and foolish fury.
"O foolish thought and blind savagery! Could the Lord Christ, who could raise the dead, not raise one who had been killed? When you were inflicting death upon Lazarus, were you removing power from the Lord? If it seems otherwise to you that a dead man is one thing, a killed man another: behold, the Lord did both: he raised both Lazarus when dead, and himself when killed" (Augustine).
By this faith and admiration of the people, that triumphal entry into the city is prepared. The evangelist, knowing that this solemn entry of Jesus has been described by the other evangelists, touches upon it briefly, supplementing it, omitting many things from others; and first he explains the day, then he explains that the crowd which came to meet Jesus was not Jerusalemite, but that which had come from elsewhere for the feast day (Cajetan).
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment