Monday of Holy Week -- April 18, 2011
John 12:1 – 11
Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 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.
But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 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.
“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.
Jesus affirmed Mary’s extravagant act of anointing him for his death. She offered a gift of totality, a complete gift of self that would mirror Jesus’ complete gift of self on the cross. By breaking the jar and pouring the expensive, fragrant oil over Jesus she gave a gift that could not be recaptured or taken back. Once spent, the gift was given forever.
And so it was, too, with Jesus’ gift of himself.
Judas’ objection to this offering sounds a little hollow, at least in John’s reporting of it. Remember, John was writing much later – probably the latest of the four Gospel writers – and had the benefit of hindsight. He was able to filter these events through his interpretive lens, as Judas’ character emerged in the events of the final days of Jesus’ life.
John’s editorial comments about Judas – that he didn’t care about the poor and that he was a thief who regularly stole from the disciples’ money bag – suggest that John felt Judas’ objection was a ploy, a one time put-up-job.
When Jesus responded to Judas, he leaned on a passage in the Old Testament. The quote sounds like Jesus is denigrating concern for the poor – Judas’ stated concern – and elevating devotional piety instead. In fact, this passage has been used to justify that kind of devotion for centuries, while Christians neglected the poor and those in need. The rationale typically has been that pious practice is better than social action because Jesus said so.
I think that’s a misreading of Jesus’ words. Maybe it would help to see the Old Testament passage from which his words come.
There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward those of your people who are poor and needy in your land. (Deut. 15:11)
Strangely, Jesus (or John!) only quoted the first sentence of the verse, the part that affirmed there would always be poor people in the land.
The rest of the verse was God’s command that the people of God open their hands toward those who are poor and in need.
In other words, concern for and openhandedness toward the poor was to be an ongoing life-stance, not a one-time opportunity for posturing.
And that, I believe, was Jesus’ problem with Judas’ stance. Even given his shady character, had concern for the poor been a regular part of his life’s framework, it would not have been an issue. But he took up the issue and the cause this one time as a way of digging at Jesus.
To take up a cause one time for the sake of show does not feather one’s spiritual cap. One-and-done blitzes into social causes do not evidence life-change or heart-transformation.
Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 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.
But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 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.
“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.
Jesus affirmed Mary’s extravagant act of anointing him for his death. She offered a gift of totality, a complete gift of self that would mirror Jesus’ complete gift of self on the cross. By breaking the jar and pouring the expensive, fragrant oil over Jesus she gave a gift that could not be recaptured or taken back. Once spent, the gift was given forever.
And so it was, too, with Jesus’ gift of himself.
Judas’ objection to this offering sounds a little hollow, at least in John’s reporting of it. Remember, John was writing much later – probably the latest of the four Gospel writers – and had the benefit of hindsight. He was able to filter these events through his interpretive lens, as Judas’ character emerged in the events of the final days of Jesus’ life.
John’s editorial comments about Judas – that he didn’t care about the poor and that he was a thief who regularly stole from the disciples’ money bag – suggest that John felt Judas’ objection was a ploy, a one time put-up-job.
When Jesus responded to Judas, he leaned on a passage in the Old Testament. The quote sounds like Jesus is denigrating concern for the poor – Judas’ stated concern – and elevating devotional piety instead. In fact, this passage has been used to justify that kind of devotion for centuries, while Christians neglected the poor and those in need. The rationale typically has been that pious practice is better than social action because Jesus said so.
I think that’s a misreading of Jesus’ words. Maybe it would help to see the Old Testament passage from which his words come.
There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward those of your people who are poor and needy in your land. (Deut. 15:11)
Strangely, Jesus (or John!) only quoted the first sentence of the verse, the part that affirmed there would always be poor people in the land.
The rest of the verse was God’s command that the people of God open their hands toward those who are poor and in need.
In other words, concern for and openhandedness toward the poor was to be an ongoing life-stance, not a one-time opportunity for posturing.
And that, I believe, was Jesus’ problem with Judas’ stance. Even given his shady character, had concern for the poor been a regular part of his life’s framework, it would not have been an issue. But he took up the issue and the cause this one time as a way of digging at Jesus.
To take up a cause one time for the sake of show does not feather one’s spiritual cap. One-and-done blitzes into social causes do not evidence life-change or heart-transformation.
Comments
Post a Comment