John 12:5-6 - Exposition

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 f10 of our money. Christ had given emphatic advice about generosity to the poor, and even during this very week ( John 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 ( Matthew 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 having £ possession of the common purse (the word γλωσσόκομος , which occurs in the sense of a chest ( 2 Chronicles 24:8 ), has a curious etymology, which had passed out of recognition; from γλώσσα and κομέω comes γλωσσοκομεῖον , 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 John 20:15 , and Josephus, ' Ant.,' John 7:15 . 3, for this use of βαστάζω ), at all events had at his disposal— of the things which were cast , in generous profusion, into it. Thoma makes the astounding suggestion that "John" here covertly refers to Simon Magus of Acts 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 John 6:71 )? In reply: