Turn within your Bibles, please, to John 11, beginning at verse 55. John writes, ‘Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves. They were looking for Jesus and saying to one another as they stood in the temple, ‘What do you think that he will not come to the feast at all?’ Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where he was, he should let them know so that they might arrest him.
And six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
But Judas the Scariot, one of his disciples, he who was about to betray him, said, ‘Why was this ointment not sold for 300 dinari and given to the poor?’ He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. And having charge of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. Jesus said, ‘Leave her alone so that she may keep it for the day of my bearing. For the poor you will always have with you, but you do not always have me.’
And when the large crowd of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, they came not only on account of him, but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.
From there we turn to the Gospel of Matthew chapter 26 beginning at verse six to hear a similar story. But when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment. And she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, ‘Why this waste? For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.’
But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, ‘Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me, for you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.’ In pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial. Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world. What she has done will also be told in memory of her. This is the word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.
Let us pray. Lord, you give us your word. You give us these stories to learn from, to gain hope from. We ask that you open our hearts to hear you speak and to hear what you would say to us. Help us to take these things to heart. To understand what you have said and to believe what you have said, to believe it and apply it to our own lives, however best that may be, so that we may continue to serve you with our whole self and our whole being in all that we do. We pray this in the name of Jesus. Amen.
So, we are finally approaching the end of Jesus’s earthly life and ministry as it was recorded here in John’s gospel. At this moment, there are some significant points of difference between John’s gospel and the three synoptics that are worth us remembering. The synoptics were not meant to present an orderly narrative of Jesus’s life and ministry except as far as a beginning, his birth, a middle, his ministry, the end, his death and resurrection, but rather those gospels present a collection of stories from Jesus’s ministry, many of which are similarly repeated not as a linear narrative.
There are very few timestamps recorded in the synoptic gospels. There are few evidences helping us to understand when certain things happen. Meanwhile, John often provides us with details about dates and locations. John uses these details to present a timeline of Jesus’s life and use this background context to explain and interpret the events and the sayings that he recorded. John provides details about the different seasons throughout his narrative. Specifically, he references the recent feast of booths which was in late October, the feast of dedication, which was in mid December, and now this Jesus’s final Passover, which would be in early March.
The timing of events are important to John, so he’s been diligently accurate in their recording. One significant difference between the synoptics and John is the fact that the synoptics only describe one Passover trip by Jesus to Jerusalem, his final trip, whereas John describes three. This is not a contradiction, but it is a product of the respective authoral intentions. The synoptics do not say that Jesus only went to Jerusalem once and they do not say that his ministry only lasted for just one year.
Jesus was a devout and religious Jew and he was required to go to Jerusalem regularly by Torah. So instead, those gospels just remain silent about these details because the details do not advance their narrative purpose. And so throughout this last half of John’s gospel, we will be regularly considering the when of events.
While different church traditions hold to different particular timelines, we will be comparing our traditions to scripture to hopefully understand both tradition and scripture better in light of the text. Now the evangelist tells us now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, telling us that the time has moved on from mid December to March when mid December when Jesus had given the man born blind his sight to now here in March.
Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves. They were looking for Jesus and saying to one another as they stood in the temple, ‘What do you think that he will not come to the feast at all?’ Technically, all of the Jewish men, adults, were required to come up to Jerusalem for the Passover, but many of them, many people went up early.
They may have been your religious overachievers or their motive may have been simply to just spiritually cleanse themselves so that they could rightly worship the Lord. Or they might have come this year early this time because they were there looking for Jesus because they were attracted to his celebrity, his controversy and his compassionate ministry. And considering the public nature of this rivalry between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, it would not have been out of the ordinary for people to wonder whether or not Jesus would publicly appear.
They could also have been wondering and watching because the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where he was, they should let him know so that they might arrest him. So while the evangelist makes it seem as if the fact of the conspiracy against Jesus was widely known, he does not imply that the public considered the conspiracy favorably or actively and knowingly was participating in it.
And then six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany where Lazarus was whom Jesus had raised from the dead. And so they gave a dinner for him there six days before Passover on the eth of Nissan. Jesus returned to Bethany, the hometown of his friends Lazarus, Martha, and Mary. Some of the people there in the town decided to have a banquet for Jesus. This is the important occasion involving Mary that the evangelist had earlier alluded to in John 11:2.
And the same event is described in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, albeit with some differences. The first difference of note is John’s statement that this was six days before the Passover versus just before the passage in Matthew where Matthew recorded Jesus saying you know that after two days the Passover is coming and the son of man will be delivered up to be crucified before he notes the beginning of the conspiracy against Jesus.
But again, this is not a contradiction. The order of things within Matthew’s gospel does not always follow a strict chronology, but rather harmonizing these parts between Matthew and John is really rather simple and straightforward. We remember Matthew chapters 21-2 are a clear record of the final teachings of Jesus in Jerusalem during the time between his triumphant entry on Palm Sunday and his crucifixion.
Which makes Matthew 26:2 the natural conclusion of that narrative segment. Because remember the chapters and verses we have are not inspired nor are they original to the text. And so then if we connect Matthew 26 to John 11, we see how these two narratives flow in parallel with both events: the conspiracy and the dinner happening soon before Jesus’s arrest—with John’s narrative just being more specific.
The second difference here concerns our own natural assumptions and biases. Jesus therefore came to Bethany where Lazarus was whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at the table. When John tells us that Jesus came to Bethany, referencing Lazarus’s recent resurrection, we think the story is about Lazarus.
So, we’re immediately inclined to assume that the dinner was at Lazarus’s home. But if we slow down and read more closely, we notice that Lazarus is listed as a fellow guest at the dinner along with Jesus, not the host. Matthew’s the one who tells us that this banquet was served in the house of Simon the leper, while John explains that Martha was the one serving the dinner. Strange set of circumstances, isn’t it?
But there are three reasonable cultural explanations to understand this. The first is Martha, she may just have been helping the proper hostess. Or Martha could have been fulfilling the role of hostess since an unclean leper whose home purity-minded and health-conscious people ought not to enter. She might not have had a wife who would be there to fill that role.
Or I would suggest that Martha was Simon’s wife. This third option seems most probable to me because the town’s name of Bethany is commonly interpreted as house of affliction. But that is something that’s more speculative because it is difficult to reconstruct the original Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic from the Greek transliteration. But that interpretation is more plausible when we consider the facts of Lazarus’s illness and this leper’s home being in town because lepers they had to be kept separate because of their physical and spiritual uncleanness.
Now the third important difference is that John names the woman who anointed Jesus while Matthew and Mark do not. Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair and the house was filled with the fragrance of perfume. John states she anointed Jesus’s feet. Matthew says that she anointed his head. Again, these aren’t contradictory because she probably anointed both.
It’s the fact of her anointing Jesus that is the important detail because remembrances also do differ based on a person’s perspective. But second, it’s also the expensive value of the perfume. That’s the other important detail and it’s important because of the reaction her action caused. Now a fourth difference between them is that Matthew records their general response to Mary saying: and when the disciples saw it they were indignant saying why this waste for this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.
But John is more specific. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, he who was about to betray him said, ‘Why was this ointment not sold for 300 dinari and given to the poor?’ It’s not surprising that all of the disciples would be indignant because living according to a social gospel is far easier than living in obedience to God. Then as now.
It’s easy to confuse Christian social action and our good works of charity as being the purpose or the goal of our faith, but also then as now. They are these things are evidences for our faith. They are responses to our faith. Good works have never been the purpose of the Christian faith. If we think about Jesus’s healing ministry, his feeding miracles, and all of his teachings about loving one’s neighbor, we find it reasonable for these disciples to be considering how much charitable good could have been done with the perfume’s purchase price.
I mean, a single dinarius was a Roman soldier’s daily wage. So 300 dinari was about their annual salary. Roman soldiers earned far more than the average person, especially an agrarian peasant, far more than they could earn in a single year. And John, he here singles out Judas. John identifies him in advance as the betrayer of Jesus and names him as a thief.
This is not to deflect from the less than righteous reactions of the other disciples, but rather John here is beginning to demonstrate the quality of Judas’s character, giving evidence to show that his betrayal would be according to his nature. John would not afford Judas any opportunity to claim, ‘The devil made me do it.’ Judas’s nature and character was wicked. Judas said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief and having charge of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
He liked being the banker because he used the funds however he wanted as if they were his own. Sadly, even today, there are people who get into the business of charity work because they know that they can spend their received tax-free donations with little to no oversight or accountability to favor their own goals or selfish benefit.
Some people practice this as a kind of fraud, as a money laundering scheme or to evade taxes. And although it may not seem like anybody is really being hurt by it, it is lawlessness and it is theft. It exploits people’s better nature by fraudulently collecting donations and it becomes outright theft by taking and using funds that do not rightfully belong to them or by using them for a purpose different than instructed or intended.
It is theft and rebellion against the lawful authorities by unlawfully withholding taxes from those who are legislatively entitled to receive them. And that was Judas’s nature and his character. He was wicked and reprobate from beginning to end.
Fifth, both of these gospel writers, they conclude with two statements by Jesus that could be considered fatalistic or sound depressing, saying, ‘Leave her alone so that she may keep it for the day of my burial.’ And ‘For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.’ That first statement, it is prophetic. It is foreshadowing the imminence of his death.
But the second is an important reminder that the historic, the present, and the future church needs to remember as we practice our response of faith. Because through this narrative, John allows Mary to demonstrate her agape love for Jesus as her response of faith. And John shows us as well that all of the socially and culturally required forms and rituals that were related to a person’s death and burial were followed for Jesus.
Because since Jesus is the righteous and holy one, the gospel writers made certain to show that everything required by God’s law and human convention was done by or done for Jesus. But that second statement for the poor you always have with you and you do not always have me is a stark admission for us that is very difficult for us as Christians to accept as true.
It plainly reminds us that we do not have the visible physical presence of Jesus with us here in the world right now. But that’s not the biggest part. It also reminds us that Jesus told those around him and he tells us, for the poor you always have with you which is a concession that seems like a worldly concession that sounds and feels defeatist.
All across church history, Christians have often believed that we can win the world for Christ. Christians, we want to make the world a better place for everyone in it. And this Christian motivation to do good and to constantly improve our situations and circumstances have driven most of humanity’s social progress over the past 2,000 years.
So much so that even prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins will admit and agree that the world and humanity would be much worse off without Christians or Christianity. See, that is why Christians we’ve always walked a thin line between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the social gospel—a line between the good works that are done as a response of faith versus good works that are done for their own sake simply because we think that they are the good and right thing to do.
Gospel responsive works bring honor and glory to Christ because doing them we express our own Christ-likeness. While social gospel good works bring honor and glory to one’s own self because they draw the attention and the praise of other people so that others may see how good and nice and how loving and charitable a person is.
Now, the historic postmillennial and amillennial views of eschatology, they both agree that humanity’s circumstances in the world will continue to improve progressively overall with some ups and downs over time. But it’s the present postmill view that disagrees at the point where the historic and the amillennial agree that humanity can never achieve perfection before Christ’s return and the consummation of his kingdom.
Those people who hold that view suggest that if we are good enough Christians, if we can convert the world and impose Christian rule, then Christ will return. But that is a different rejection of God’s grace. That is a different kind of works-based salvation, one that honestly believes that Christ merely only made salvation possible and that we can or that we must complete his work.
That attitude and perspective offers false hope and a false gospel, promoting our human works over humble reliance on God’s grace alone. Jesus tells us that for the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me. So long as sin remains in the world, as long as there are unregenerate sinners in this world, we will always have the poor, the destitute, the suffering, and the unfortunate around us.
But when Christ returns and inaugurates his kingdom, when the world is made new and the redeemed of the Lord are brought into the new Jerusalem to live with God and the wicked are cast into the lake of fire with the devil and his angels and death, when Christ reigns upon the earth as he presently reigns in heaven, then and only then will there no longer be any poor because we will all be enjoying the fullness of Christ’s riches.
So humanity, we have no hope of ever completely, totally and finally abolishing poverty, of staving off starvation, of ending injustice, or preventing wickedness and sin. But that does not mean the church may not, should not, or cannot work towards those good purposes for God’s will. We must do so if we are obeying our Lord Jesus Christ who commanded us.
This is my commandment that you love one another as I have loved you. Because Jesus did all of these things and he explained that whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do and greater works than these will he do. We are commanded to work and improve the condition of the poor even though we know that we can never achieve ultimate or absolute success. But God can, does, and will in his perfect kind.
Now, previously when the evangelists had used this as a reference point to identify this family, I said that Mary’s action here would be more impactful and memorable than Lazarus’s resurrection. And that certainly sounds strange to think that anointing Jesus with perfume would have greater importance than raising a man from the dead.
But while the resurrection of Lazarus did have great personal importance for Martha, Mary, and Lazarus himself and it was also an important sign that proves Jesus as God the son. Its significance declines because eventually Lazarus died again. And I believe that the greater importance was Mary’s response as a demonstration of her faith in Christ, her agape love for Jesus, and as a symbol of her thanksgiving and gratitude to Jesus for all that he had and will have done for her.
Her singular action was an act of love for God with her whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. And it was an act of love for her neighbor as herself. It was an act of compassion and care that no one else could have thought to do, an act of preparation for the unimaginable yet inevitable passion of Christ for us.
Mary demonstrated her love for Jesus sacrificially. And that is why John used this act to uniquely identify Lazarus through his sister. And why Matthew records Jesus saying, ‘Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.’ Mary’s love for Christ, its depth and sacrificial character is an example that we should emulate as we proclaim the gospel of what Jesus has done for us.
We may and we should use Mary as an example of how to love Jesus through our expressions of love to others. To the least of these as expressions of our love for God. That is not the social gospel. That is a faithful Christian response to God’s mercy and grace.
So ultimately, what do these events from a fellowship meal in Bethany 2,000 years ago have to do with us today? The story demonstrates and proclaims three things. First, that the consideration and compassion Jesus showed towards people, especially the marginalized and unfortunate. Jesus was willing to not only eat with but also eat in the home of a man known for a leprous affliction.
I mean, the historical and biblical context has us expect that Simon the leper was someone living on the outside of society, alone and reviled, unable to participate in the Jewish religion and forbidden even from approaching the Lord for worship. Second, the respect that many ordinary people had for Jesus. This was demonstrated here by some residents of Bethany holding this gathering and meal in his honor. It was a sign of their respect and a gesture of thanksgiving for Jesus raising Lazarus.
And third, it demonstrates the agape love of Mary for Jesus as an individual and as a believer in the Lord. Her love for Jesus as her rabbi, as the savior of her brother, as her personal savior, and as her friend was demonstrated here through her sacrificial and expensive gift of the ointment, through the humility expressed by her anointing Jesus, and through her self-abasement in using her hair to spread and dry the ointment because she freely gave Jesus her best, giving him more than she could justly afford.
She served him out of an attitude of love and gladness rather than from fear or forced compulsion. Her service for Jesus showed that she understood who she was in relation to him while his verbal affirmation brought her up to the favored status that God declares his beloved children to have.
And these three things remind us that Jesus comes to us where we are. He comes to us in the midst of our misery and pain. And it’s one of the meanings of the incarnation of the theos who is Andros. But as demonstrated across so many stories across all four gospels, although Jesus comes to us where we are, he never leaves us there unchanged. He never leaves us as we were.
We must respond whenever we are confronted by Christ’s presence. His sovereignty demands it because he is our Lord. His holiness demands it because he is holy and we are not. Justice demands it because justice is what we deserve. And this promised threat of justice causes one of two possible responses within us. Either recalcitrance and greater intrigue, a hardening of heart and obstinate rebellion against the universal soft or repentance and contrition, a softening of heart and pleas for divine mercy and forgiveness.
But whichever response we give, our knee will bow and our tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The only question is whether or not we do so out of obedient love and fidelity or enforced submission to absolute and incontrovertible truth. These things, they also teach us to remember that not everyone who appears to honor and respect Christ does so in earnest truth. Some people do and they will claim affinity with Jesus because of what they believe it can profit them.
I mean, sadly, I’m sure we can each probably name a half dozen or more persons that we know of who’ve exploited the label of Christian to steal money through fraud, to abuse the trust and confidence of men or children of women or children, or who merely claim the name for social appearances and cultural conformity but then abandon the faith when it becomes inconvenient, when it becomes challenging or disadvantageous.
I mean just because a person says that they are a Christian it does not mean that they are. Being a Christian requires that we produce good fruit of repentance and trust, of good works, of charity done in true love, of obedience and holy living, of growth in grace and our assurance of God’s love.
I mean, if there is no sign of any of these, then we rightly question their claim as a matter of wisdom, not in judgment. Finally, we may each better emulate the loving response of Mary. While we cannot all anoint Jesus with a woman, nor can we all wash his feet, we can however love and serve those around us in need as we desire to serve Jesus because they like we are made in the image of God.
And since Christians, we are being transformed and conformed to Christ’s perfect image, we need to also remember that Jesus served and cared for everyone and anyone, not just those who shared his image, not just those who are his brothers and sisters. Because we forget to the detriment of our own discipleship that when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples in the upper room, he also washed the feet of Judas knowing that he was a thief and that he would soon betray him to a horrible death.
So, I urge you to always respond to Christ with love and faith. Always be repenting of your sins and mortifying them in your flesh. Trust Jesus and obey his commandments. Be a disciple. Make disciples and work for his kingdom and his glory alone. Amen.
Please stand and let us say what we believe.