Lent 5, March 13th 2016, thoughts going in

Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then 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. 4 But 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.” 6 He 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. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

            "Signs of life in the valley of the shadow of death"... or something like that. That's the 'theme' that's sorta floating around in my head regarding this passage.

            It's so brief, and yet as is typically the case in the Gospel of John, it's so packed with meaning. Let's begin by breaking it down:

            Vs 1: Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. As John informs us, Lazarus is the ultimate dead man walking. This chapter begins still very heavily laden with all that had gone on in the previous chapter when Lazarus was raised from the dead. Some extremely important details include: (1) The fact that this sign was causing many people to believe. Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him (11:45) (2) The impact this sign was having on the ruling religious elite and their attitudes about Jesus: 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life. 54 Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the people of Judea (11:46-47, 53-54). In fact as the story continues to unfold in chapter 12, even Lazarus will find his life in jeopardy: So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 11 for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him (12:10-11). In other words, this is no normal meal. This is the church of Christ meeting in the face of opposition. It is the source and message of life meeting in the shadow of death.

            Vs 2: Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Lazarus is now mentioned, by name, a 2nd time. Martha, who serves, is only mentioned once. Even Mary who makes this extraordinary act of devotion is only mentioned by name once. Judas, the betrayer, is only mentioned by name once. Lazarus is mentioned by name twice. John writes his gospel about 2,000 years before 'emoticons' are invented, yet I can't help but think that's how he's using Lazarus in this passage. DEATH is all around them. Jesus himself can no longer move about freely without being arrested. John himself will tell us all about his eventual arrest and cruel death. Readers the 2nd time through will know this is coming. And yet in the midst of all of this DEATH sits Lazarus... a living breathing emoticon of LIFE. By the very presence of Lazarus, the reader is cued to think back... to Jesus' own words: No one takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again (10:18).

            Vs 3: Then 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. The details of this verse are probably the most difficult. First, we have to hook vs 3 to vs 7. This is where Jesus give his own interpretation (and hence the correct one) of the act. The problem with vs 12 is that the Greek is obscure and the NIV attempts to iron it out. A more literal translation of vs 12 would read: Leave her; in order that for the day of my burial preparation she has kept this. St. Paul sorta says something similar in 1Corinthians 11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Paul's phrase is chocked with irony. How can one who is dead come? The obvious answer is that he did not stay dead. In that sense, Mary's act is laden with sacramental symbolism. It occurs while at table; it is a proclamation that the Lord fully intends to die; taking it a step further, we even see 'all sorts' gathered at table... the Lord of the Church, those who have died in the faith (symbolized by Lazarus), the faithful here (symbolized by Mary and Martha), and even the hypocrites (symbolized by Judas).

            Vss 4-6 But 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.” 6 He 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. Judas has very few speaking parts in the scriptures, but he is always depicted as (a) a hypocrite and (b) the tool of Satan. As the tool of Satan, his words must be so-interpreted. Hence, even a good-sounding thing is tainted. This is the ultimate weapon of Satan--a weapon we saw used in the temptation narrative back in week 1. If you're the son of God, don't starve yourself out here before you have a chance to die for the sins of the world, turn these stones to bread. If you're the son of God, jump off this pinnacle... God won't let anything happen to his anointed, and surely people will see this sign and believe it. If you're the son of God, put me first in your life and I'll ensure the whole world becomes Christian. In other words, as John says, giving to the poor isn't the problem; the problem is Judas and his motivations.

            Vss 7-8: Leave her; in order that for the day of my burial preparation she has kept this. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.” Of all of the things I wish Jesus hadn't said (there's a few), vs 8 is right up there. *NOT because there's anything wrong with Jesus' statement, but because of how it has been misused all of these years. You will always have the poor has so often been interpreted as a defeatist excuse not to bother. If you have a problem, and that problem can never be solved, then it is human instinct not to bother trying. This is NOT what Jesus said. In fact, he is summarizing the Torah (Deut. 15:11) There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. Note the implication. The *goal isn't to solve the problem; it's unsolvable. The *goal is to be a faithful part of God's activity for the poor. To be the never-ending count-balance to this never-ending problem.

            What's it all mean? For us the important part is to separate the acts/statements from the people. What Mary did was extoled by Jesus because of Mary's heart. She lavished an immensely expensive gift on him (in this culture 1 denarius was a day's wage for the working class, so do the math, this jar of perfume cost a year's wages). Could it have been saved? Of course. Could it have funded ministry to the poor? Of course. But Mary with a pure heart chose to lavish it on Jesus. In a moment it was gone--but Jesus received her gift. On the other hand, Jesus doesn't deny the point that Judas is making. Just the opposite--he affirms the Torah's admonition that the poor will always require the efforts of the faithful. But as John tells us, that's not what Judas is really about. In other words, the rebuke of Judas isn't for what he says, it's for the thought behind it.

            It's a complex passage, but in the end it boils down to a simple principle. The life of faith is about attitudes and motivation. You can direct all of your efforts to faithful servanthood like Martha. With a heart of faith, this is accepted. You can direct your efforts to internal symbols of great and expensive beauty, like Mary. With a heart of faith, this is accepted. You can even follow Torah's ideal that the faithful have a continuous call to help with a continuous problem. With a heart of faith, this too is accepted. What is unacceptable is any of the above coupled to a faithless heart.

Cheers,

T.M.