The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 2 — Section 126

Lor<!, nooordlng lo her wont, not necosenrily .\vr(µ.ou. Each of the eynoptists ecv,•mlly os hosteee (llengstenberg and Lange), but mentionse.fa.ctwhichJohn omits-thBt Mary o.s the expression of her devoted thankful- broke the ale.ba.eter bolC, and poured the ness: (2) tho.t Lozo.rue should have been costly unguent on hie he11.d in rich n.bun- ono of tfiose who so.t o.t meat, reolined at da.noe, a.s though hers had been the myal to.blo, with him, i.e. took a poeition ns a or high-priestly anointing (cf. Pa. cxx.xiii.); guost, like himself; and (3) tho.t Mary bnt John shows that this o.t lea.at wna not should ho.ve poured forth her costly spike- a.11 she did. She anointed the feet of J esll8, mud, in royo.l self-forgetting love. The and wiped his feet with her hair; and the conduct of nil the three thus mentioned is house we.a filled with the odour of the oint- oompntible with the fact stated in the sy- ment. Thoma thinks that, conforma.bly with noptio no.rrBtive, thnt the festival we.s cele- John's idea., the anointing of the hear! of brnlcd in the house of Simon the leper. Our the true High Priest waM the work of God Lord hnd commented, in the house of Simon a.lone, quoting Philo'a comment on Lev. xxL the Phe.risee (Luke vii. 44, etc.), on the a.b- 10, etc., "The head of the Logos, na High sonce of tho oustome.ry e.nointing with oil. Priest, is anointed with oil, i.e. his inner- Me.ry knew of this, and resolved that, what- most essence gleo.ms with dazzling light; " ever the wome.n who was a. sinner had done, a.nd adds, that a.e the feet of the high priest no similar a.et of neglect should occur on were we.shed with water from recent defile- that memorable evening. A chronological ment of the worltl's dust, so God's anointed discrepanco renders o.n identification of the Lamb and Priest was anointed on hie feet synoptic no.rrative of Matthew with this with the spikenard of faith, the best and cost- story perplexing. In Me.tt. xxvi. 2 we a.re liest thing that man coultl offer. So profound brought to within two de.ye of the Pass- an analogy seems to us contrary to the sim- over, whereas here we ce.nnot we:11 be less plicity of the narrative, which is perfectly thsn five days before it. However, there is natural in its form. The perfumed nard nothing in Me.tt. xxvi. 6-13 which indu- ra.n down to the Saviour's feet a.nd the bitably declares the date of the suppeT skirts of his garments, a.nd there o.ccwnu- The "two de.ye" may refer to the date of lating, the significant act is further re- Judas's treachery, after mentioning which counted how Mary wiped off the superfluous he· goes back to an event which furnished perfume from his feet with the tresses of occasion a.nd tem pte.tion to the a. va.ricious her loosened hair. This simple a.et pro- mind of Judas. • . claimed the self-humiliation a.nd adoration Ver. 3.,-Mary therefore took a polllld of her unbounded love, seeing tba.t the (the synoptists Matthew and Mark sa.y loosening of a woman's hair was a mark of "an a.la.baster," i.e; a. fie.sk ma.de of the unusual self-abandonmen.t. Many most un- costly spar, which. we.a peculiarly adapted necessary inferences have been drawn from to the preservation of liquid perfume, her- this. John adds an interesting feature, metically sea.led beforo it we.a broken for reveo.ling the sensitive eye-witness of the iµimeciiute use. The fact, as stated by scene, "and the house was filled with the Matthew a.nd Mark, is inconsistent with her odouT of the ointment;" a.nd the whole house reserving a.ny of the precious fiuid for of God ever since ha.s been fro.grant with another ocC11Bion) of ointment (" liquid per- her immortal a.nd prophetic act. fume," sometimes added to the more ordimuy Ver. 4.-But Judas the Iscariot, one of oil), ofpure (or possibly, pidtic) na.rd. Mark his disciples, 1 who was about to betray him, uses this unusu!l,l word ,,.,,,.,,..,,&s, which said. The speaker here is singled out by belongs to la.tar Greek. The derivation of name. Matthew refers the speech to the dis- ,,.,,,.,cn1<&s from .,,,.,;,,, .._equivalent to "pot- ciples genera.lly, in whom the snggestion of able," is not ~ppropria.te in meaning, though Judas ha.d stirred up (without guile or b!llme this " no.rd " we.a used for perfuming wine. on their pa.rt) a. not unnatural inquiry. 1\Iark In Mark xiv. 3 also the Authorized Version says " some " murmured to tl.tewsel ves, trimslo.tes it "spikena.rd," a.a it does here "Why this we.ate?" (loss, destruction). J ohu (of. also Song of Sol. i. 12 and iv. 13, H, (without the malice which Rena.n baa at- where Hebrew :1'.'!~ corresponds with vcl.p6os). tributed to the writer) mentions the source But the one plsco. where the word WllS sup- posed to be found in Aristotle is now seen 1 The T.R. reads, 11.,-,.. 0311 ,.s 11< .,;;,., ,,...,. 1 not to be ,,.,,,.-ruc&s, but ,ruo r,,c&s, trustworthy, 671TG>11 a.U-roV, 'JoUB°Cll ~lµ.wJ1os 10-,cap,Wn,s, with or una.dilltera.ted. It is possible that the a la.rge number of later uncials, with va- word ma.y have ha.d e. looe.l geogra.phiool rieties of spelling in Old La.tin Versions. ni.l.ul', belonging to some proper name, and The R.T., Tischendorf (8th edit.), Alford, is untr11.D.Slate.ble. Very preoious. Mark Tregelles. on the authority of ~. B, L, I, (xiv. S) uses the word ,ro.\11Te.\oiis, and 83, Vulgate, and numerous ventlons, read, Matthew (xxvi. 7) /3ap,,.,.lµou. John appears /1.E"'(EI aE 'I~as 6 'l<T1Cap11.\'T'1JS, ,Is EiC 'TWII to combine the idea of both words in. his so· µa971-roi11 av'l'ou, 6 ~,M.,v, etc. R.T. omits,,..  132 THE GOSPEL AOOORDING TO ST. JOHN. [on. xu. 1-80,