John 12.1-8 (NRSV)

Mary Anoints Jesus

¹Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. ²There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. ³Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. ⁴But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, ⁵‘Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?’ ⁶(He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) ⁷Jesus said, ‘Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. ⁸You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.’

Marsh reminds us that the woman in the similar incident described in Mark’s Gospel is in fact unnamed. In Mark’s account the woman anoints Jesus head with costly ointment. Luke also records an incident that has similarities, i.e. a woman bathing Jesus feet with her tears and wiping them with her hair. Marsh suggests that John was acquainted with all these synoptic traditions and seems to follow the Marcan account, but gives it its theological intention because, as always in John’s case, he wants to give his readers the meaning of the event. Placing the event after the death and Resurrection of Lazarus and before the entry into Jerusalem sets the scene for the death and Resurrection of Jesus himself. When greeting Mary at the tomb of Lazarus earlier, Jesus had comforted her by saying: “‘I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?’” Mary does believe this and so (possibly) recalling the earlier incident when Jesus’ feet had been anointed with the sinner woman’s tears, decides to do something similar, but this time with costly perfume. Marsh suggests that John sees this and ‘… skilfully blended [all this] into an act which marks Jesus as, at once the triumphant Messiah and yet one who is about to die for the sins of men …’ I believe Mary made this link herself before John! (Mary would have known about the earlier incident because the sinful woman who bathed Jesus’ feet with her tears took place at the home of Simon the Leper who also lived at Bethany, which was a small village within walking distance of Jerusalem. The news of this significant incident would certainly have been known in the area – and beyond).

Jesus arrived in Bethany on the Sabbath before the last Passover in which he was to share.  This, in itself, was a brave thing to do because it was Lazarus being raised from the dead that was the final straw and (as 11.53 records) ‘… from that day on [the Jewish authorities] planned to put him to death.’

It is assumed by the translators of the NRSV and NIV that this dinner took place at the home of Lazarus, but Marsh suggests (and I checked the Greek text) the exact location is not clear; it could have been at the home of Simon the Leper where everyone had gathered. The RSV follows the Greek text more closely and states:

Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. There they made him a supper …

It is not absolutely clear, and for John, the precise location is not of significance. But for me it is, because it can mean justifying my earlier assumption that Mary’s action hearkened back to the earlier incident at Simon’s house.

Martha is being typically Martha, practical, busy, preparing food and serving at table. This is a wonderful thing to do. It is always a privilege to be invited for a meal and to see the care and love that goes into the preparation even of the simplest fare. Mary (as is typically Mary) needs to express her love and devotion differently, especially as a result of her new-found understanding. Both sisters are serving the Lord in the best way they know how. Martha seems to have come to terms with the fact that Mary is different, and that that it is fine for her not to be doing the traditionally domestic thing which caused the earlier ill-feeling between the sisters, that is recorded in Luke 10 when Martha had complained that Mary was not doing her bit.

Mary takes a large quantity of expensive ointment and anoints Jesus’ feet. Anointing in the Ancient Middle East, was a great honour, but this usually meant anointing a person’s head; Mary is not so presumptuous, she anoints Jesus’ feet. Could this be because she has learnt something profound and significant from the sinner who had bathed Jesus’ feet with her tears? In fact, William Temple suggests that it was the Mary Magdalene who had done this first act with her tears and now with expensive nard, and not the sister of Lazarus at all. Mary Magdalene had  been forgiven so much and wanted to do something costly and special for her Lord while there was still time … a simple extravagance for someone special … I do not think it matters who did it.

Because of this beautiful act the whole Church is filled with the scent of Mary’s deed. Brother Mark, as you have written:

“A lovely deed becomes the possession of the whole world. It adds something to the beauty of life in general. A lovely deed brings into the world something permanently precious, which time cannot ever take away. The love stories are the immortal stories of the world.”

William Temple writes: “So should every Church and every home be filled with the fragrance of devoted love. May this be daily more true.”

This act was criticised by ‘some’ in Mark, the ‘disciples’ in Matthew or ‘Judas’ in John. This is not untypical. And on the surface there seems to be a really significant point being made here. “Why was not the perfume sold for a relative fortune, and the proceeds given to the poor?” There can be no doubt that the sale of this perfume would have raised a significant sum! But as J C Ryle points out, many of those who object to expense being incurred for extravagances for the Gospel never really give anything of significance for the poor anyway. He writes:

“They never give a farthing to such objects as these, and count as fools who do. Worst of all, they often cover over their own backwardness to help purely Christian objects, by a pretending concern for the poor at home. Yet they find it convenient to forget the notorious fact that those who do most for the cause of Christ, are precisely those who do most for the poor.”

Ryle continues to suggest that we should not be put off by those who are unkind to us when we show extravagance for our Lord. Jesus himself exhorts: “Leave her alone …”

What matters is that what we do, in worship, in study, in relationships – in all we do and are – is beautiful for the Lord – as Mother Teresa of Calcutta used to say “Do something beautiful for God …” and this is a fitting conclusion because her example meant linking the two together as we find Jesus in each other and especially the least – the poor, the hungry, the cold, the weak – for in these we find our Lord.