John 12:1-8

¹Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. ²Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with Him. ³Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. ⁴But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray Him, objected, ⁵"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." ⁶He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. ⁷"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. "It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of My burial. ⁸You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have Me."

This chapter serves as both a summary and a climax of the first 11 chapters of theological truth that John has shown us. This portion of John’s gospel concludes the theme of “The Signs,” and when we move to chapter 13, we’ll have a new theme, “The Glory.”

Last time, we looked at the resurrection of Lazarus. Jesus overcame the stench of rotting flesh and gave a man new life after four days in the grave. And John, having had much to say in his gospel about the nature of true faith, which advances beyond a mere fascination with miracles and looks to the Person of Jesus Christ alone, begins this chapter with the account of Mary expressing her lavish devotion to Jesus, not for physical signs and blessings, but out of love for Him alone, by recounting the smell of a fragrant offering (faith / life), opposed to the stench of decaying flesh (sin / death).

Is this the same event as the synoptic gospels describe (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:36-50)? Matthew and Mark say this is Simon the Leper’s house, that Mary poured the perfume on Jesus’ head, and that some or all of the disciples were indignant about the apparent waste. If John’s account is the same, we can wonder why Martha was serving if this was Simon’s house. We see that Lazarus was a guest, as noted by his reclining at the table with Jesus. The homeowner would not likely be doing that. We should also ask why John says the perfume was poured on Jesus’ feet, rather than His head. And the answer is that Mary likely anointed His whole body, as there was certainly enough to do so. After all, the whole house was filled with the aroma. It makes sense to consider that John is preparing his audience for the parallel foot-washing episode in chapter 13, while Matthew and Mark are displaying King Jesus by the anointing of His head. Also, some, if not all, of the disciples were indignant about the apparent waste. However, John has the most rebuke for Judas of the gospel writers, so it makes sense that he would be singled out here. We might also observe that perhaps Judas was the first to be angry – on account of his impure motives – and with his remark about the poor brought along the other disciples, who lacked the motive to steal and were merely thinking of the rationale of Judas’ argument.

Luke says that they were at Simon the Pharisee’s home, that an unnamed sinful woman from “that town” (not even Bethany?) came in, wet Jesus’ feet with her tears, wiped them with her feet, and then poured perfume on them. Jesus told Simon a parable and dismissed the woman after declaring her sins forgiven; her faith had saved her. The differences in Luke’s account are much more substantial, even incongruous; thus it is suggested by commentators that Luke’s was different (earlier in Jesus’ ministry), while the other three accounts are of the same event. Pushing aside the event-consistency to focus on John’s account, we must notice first that Martha is serving. She’s serving Jesus, and it goes pretty much unnoticed here. That’s how it ought to be for us. We ought to be able to serve Jesus pretty much unnoticed. God notices, and others benefit. That’s what it’s all about (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12).

And second, we need to notice that Mary’s act of devotion was sudden and inappropriately extravagant from the human perspective – yet clearly prompted by the Holy Spirit. Jesus certainly did not profit from her action in any tangible way, but the poor could have benefited greatly, as Judas points out. Notice the contrast between Mary – fully devoted to Jesus – and Judas – fully devoted to self. Here we get a clue as to exactly how spiritual apostasy takes place. Bitterness takes root in Judas’ heart with Jesus’ rebuke – “Leave here alone.” It begins to manifest itself there (1 Timothy 6:10); and left unchecked by lack of commitment to spiritual disciplines, it is possible to profess to be a believer, to be a high-standing member of the church and still be unconverted. Keep in mind the apparent waste, though. Even had the perfume been exchanged for cash, and even had Judas helped himself to a percentage of it, we could argue that it still would have been practically better spent that way than to pour it all out on Jesus. But Jesus did not see it as waste; it portrayed the heart attitude, true love and devotion to Him as Messiah, which is worth more than all the cash in the world (consider conversely the attitude of Ananias and Saphira in their generous gift, which of course resulted in their deaths). Mary’s faith, unlike that of the crowds that enjoyed being fed for free, was genuine; the Spirit had overwhelmed her with love and delight for Jesus, the Son of God. There is nothing more precious than that sort of faith; no gift can rival it. Have you ever loved Jesus like that?

This act of Mary also had significance beyond that of demonstrating true faith. This perfume symbolized the precious nature of Christ’s impending death, and how it would be a sweet aroma to God, rising up as the smell of forgiveness and reconciliation for His lost and sinful people. Although Mary, simply trying to express her love as emphatically as possible, might not have recognized this truth, her act in God’s plan had a significance far beyond her own intention. Just as God used Caiaphas, who hated Jesus, to prophesy accurately about the nature of Jesus’ death, so God used this true act of Mary’s loving faith to signify more than anyone could understand at the time.

At any rate, the disciples clearly did not appreciate the significance of so many of these signs until after Jesus had risen from the dead as we’ll see in v16, but later on, they understood, and were strengthened in their faith. This reality, too, was divinely ordained to underscore the necessity of Christ’s completed work of redemption, signified by His resurrection, for the corresponding resurrection of the elect to newness of life, to a new spiritual nature that sees Christ and believes.

Finally notice Jesus’ remark in v8: “You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have Me.” What an extraordinary thing to say! If Jesus were not the Son of God, would this be a “good” thing to say? If He were not the divine Messiah, who He was and is and forever will be, exactly who He claimed to be, wouldn’t that be the most arrogant thing to say? What if we were talking about whether to give extra charitable contributions or buy the new television? And what if we justified our decision to get the TV by saying that there will always be time to be generous, but this TV will only be available at this price for a limited time? I’m not saying we can’t buy the TV, but let’s make sure our hearts and minds are aligned with God’s will. What is better for the Kingdom? It’s challenging, but it’s arrogant to say that the TV is more important for you than giving to the poor – unless you’re the Messiah, in which case, whatever you say is right and just and good.