It is fitting that this week’s Lectionary reading is St. John’s account of the anointing at Bethany, coming as it does six days before Passover. We will read it again on Monday of Holy Week.
The Anointing
The story of the anointing is told in all four Gospels, but with variations.
In St. Mark and St. Matthew, the scene is set in Bethany, in the house of Simon the Leper, while in St. Luke’s account, it is in the house of another Simon — a Pharisee.
In Mark and Matthew, as in John, Jesus is entering upon the final days before his betrayal, crucifixion and death, although in Mark and Matthew the anointing takes place two days before the Passover rather than six. In Luke’s version, however, Jesus is still in Galilee, near the beginning of his ministry.
In Mark’s and Matthew’s recollection, the woman (who is not identified) anoints Jesus’s head with pure nard, an rare and expensive perfume (in Mark’s version) or an alabaster jar of very costly or precious ointment (in Matthew’s version), while in Luke the unidentified woman pours ointment from an alabaster jar on his feet, along with her tears, which she proceeds to dry with her hair.
Luke tells us the woman is a “sinner”, but she is not accounted a sinner in either Mark or Matthew’s accounts, nor in John’s for that matter.
In Luke, the criticism of the woman’s action (in the unspoken thoughts of Simon the Pharisee) is directed more at Jesus for allowing a woman of bad reputation interact with him, while in Mark and Matthew, it is the disciples generally who voice objections. In the latter version, the objection is based on the waste of the expensive perfume that could be used for the poor and there is no condemnation of the woman other than for her wanton extravagance.
Only in St. John’s account, however, are all three of the main actors identified by name. Here is his version of the anointing:
Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. Mary 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. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” (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.) Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”
We see that, as with Matthew and Mark’s account, the anointing takes place in Bethany, shortly before the Passover, but here the woman is Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha. As in the Gospel of Luke, it is Jesus’ feet which are anointed with the expensive perfume, which is identified as nard — or spikenard — in John’s Gospel, as it was in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. John also identifies the one disciple who is critical of the extravagance of pouring out a year’s worth of money — Judas — parenthetically condemning him as a thief and not one who is actually concerned for the poor.
The Significance
Was Mary’s response sufficient?
It is instructive to remember that the Gospels are not intended to be narrative biographies, but instead are accounts of Jesus, his life, his mission, his teaching, his death and resurrection. So what is John telling us in recounting the anointing of Jesus at Bethany?
For this particular meditation, I’m going to consider the three primary persons in the story. I’m not a scholar or a theologian, but surely John identifies three specific individuals for a reason.
We focus on Mary because that’s really the person who acts in John’s version of the anointing. She does so — at least in part — as a response to Jesus and what he has done. Yes, Judas and Jesus respond as well, but theirs are responses to what Mary has done in the first instance.
Here then, is the scene portrayed in John’s Gospel. Mary’s sister Martha is serving and her brother Lazarus, shortly raised from the dead, is one of those at the table with Jesus. Mary enters and proceeds to pour out an entire pound of pure nard over Jesus’s feet, filling the whole house with the fragrance of the perfume.
Was this response enough? Was it sufficient?
Indeed, Nard was an extremely powerful perfume, often mixed with other aromatic spices to tame its strong, musky scent, which could be so overpowering as to be unpleasant. It was the distilled essence of the roots of a plant native to the foothills of the Himalayan Mountains in India — in a process that was not only time-consuming, but which was at a distance which was unimaginable in the Jesus’s time. In short, it was rare by virtue of its source, the lengthy process by which it was harvested and produced, and the difficulty and danger involved in transporting it from such a great distance from lands outside the Pax Romana.
How was it that Mary happened to have a pound of nard in the first instance? The Gospel doesn’t tell us. In the NRSV it says in verse seven that she “bought it”, but those words don’t actually occur in the original Greek. Other translations, such as the King James Version, state simply that she had “kept it” and most other translations use similar wording, but also lack any explanation of why she had it or could afford it in the first place.
In any event, it appears that she had it before and it leads me to wonder if maybe she’d had it previously for the purpose of using it for anointing her brother on the occasion of his death. We’re told in the account of Lazarus, however, that he was already well on the way to decomposition — in fact that he stank — so why hadn’t she used the spikenard? Still, one can wonder.
Regardless of how she came to be in possession of so expensive an item — worth an entire year’s income — it is an understatement to say that she was extravagant in her use of the ointment to pour the entire year’s worth over Jesus’s feet. No wonder that in Matthew and Mark’s account the disciples complain that the unidentified woman had “wasted” the perfume.
What was she thinking?
Accepting Jesus’ s explanation that she was anointing him in anticipation of his death and burial, we can posit that she understood what the disciples were slow to understand — that his path was toward Golgotha and not an earthly throne. Even if she didn’t fully understand, maybe she was acting in a prophetic manner. Or maybe her response had more to do with gratitude for returning her brother to life . . . but then why anoint Jesus if not in anticipation of his death?
And why so much . . . a whole year’s worth of a such a rare and expensive commodity? Really? Wouldn’t a little have been sufficient? Wouldn’t a small amount have provided enough of a scent without the necessity of filling the whole house? I think we’ve all experienced coming across a person who doesn’t know when to stop when it comes to the application of cologne. But even then, have you ever encountered someone who used an entire bottle at one go?
I repeat — what was she thinking?
That’s certainly the question that Judas had.
Even accepting John’s explanation that Judas wasn’t really concerned about the poor, but was a thief who stole from the common purse, you have to admit that he had a point . . .
. . . Don’t you?
After all, the same point was raised by the disciples generally in Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts. The money could have been used for the poor. Indeed, it was enough that it probably could have provided for several needy people for a considerable amount of time.
John’s account makes it too easy to dismiss the objections of Judas. Forget his dishonesty for a moment. Forget his betrayal of Jesus which was soon to follow. Focus on the extravagance. Focus on the excessive, improvident, extreme, unwarranted, needless, inexcusable, outrageous waste that Mary’s actions entailed.
Judas — and the other disciples — would argue that Mary could have kept a sufficient amount of the perfume for anointing Jesus, while selling the better part . . .
The better part?
First, even though nard — or spikenard — was a very powerful and concentrated perfume, it was still only a pound. While it was a very expensive pound when compared to other spices and aromatics, we should remember that Nicodemus would later bring a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about a hundred pounds with which to bury Jesus following his crucifixion.
Second, even though Judas and the other disciples were slow on the uptake when it came to understanding that Jesus’s earthly mission was going to lead to the cross, he — and they — should not have begrudged the anointing of the “messiah” — the “anointed one” himself — even if Mary poured the perfumed oil on his feet rather than on his head as was customary when anointing royalty.
Raymond Brown, in his commentary on the Gospel According to John, remarks that “this contrast fits in well with rabbinic theology” —
There were two classifications of “good works” (the expression in Mark 14:6): those that pertain to mercy, e.g., burial; those that pertain to justice, e.g., almsgiving. The former were looked upon as more perfect than the latter.The Gospel according to John (I–XII):
Introduction, translation, and notes
(Vol. 29, p. 449). Yale University Press
Finally, her extravagance, her lavish gift, her splendid, her rich, her magnificent, opulent, noble . . . regal offering was merited when you stop and realize that it was tendered to the one through whom all things came into being. The one, who, while in his incarnation, produced 180 gallons of wine at the wedding at Cana — more than the guests could consume. The one who miraculously provided enough food to feed five thousand and four thousand with baskets to spare. The one who caused so many fish to be caught that the catch threatened to tear the nets of the fishermen.
Was this gift sufficient for the one who healed the lame, gave sight to the blind, crossed the limits of cultural and national boundaries?
Was this gift sufficient for the one who raised Mary’s dead brother back to life?
The next time someone objects to the cost of the choir robes, the church organ, the stained glass windows, the carpet, the lighting, the vestments and other church “finery” — remember to whom these things are offered. And remember that for some people, including especially the poor, it may be the only way in which they will ever experience such extravagant beauty.
What about the poor?
Which brings us to Jesus’s statement about the poor.
Defending Mary’s actions, Jesus reminded the disciples — the “you” in verse eight is plural — that, “You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”
This might sound harsh and unfeeling at first blush, even egocentric (if you’re willing to use the term for the one who said “ego eimi”). But recognize that Jesus is quoting Scripture here: specifically, he is quoting Deuteronomy 15:11.
“For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, which is why I command you: open your hand to the poor and needy kinsman in your land.”
Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society (1985).
In other words, Jesus wasn’t simply saying that the disciples would have time for the poor later — he was commanding that they should make time for the poor. This was consistent with the new command that he would shortly give them that they should love others as he loved them. In this, Jesus was in a sense combining Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.
In “Ending Poverty is Possible”, Liz Theoharis writes:
The verb “exete” meaning “you have” used in this passage is in an imperative form and not in the future tense. It is, therefore, a command, not a prediction. I am inclined to interpret this command as Jesus instructing the listeners to hitch themselves – throw their lot in – with the poor. In John 12:8, Jesus says “Here! Have the poor with you! In everything you do, keep in mind the poor!” And then the parallel of “Because you do not have me always” reminds us that the poor are the stand-in group for Jesus. Because Jesus is saying he is not going to be physically present forever, here is a group that is Jesus. To remember Jesus is to remember the poor.
Emphasis added
As is so often the case, we find Jesus fulfilling — even expanding — the law of loving God and neighbor.
His grace through his sacrificial life is “sufficient” for our salvation. Yet it is more than sufficient. As Paul writes in his Epistle to the Ephesians —
So it was with Mary’s response. So it should be with ours.
Sufficient?
Not while the poor are still with us.
Not while there is a drop of perfume left in the jar.