The Heart of a Good Woman (Jesus and Mary)
While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to Him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on His head as He was reclining at the table.
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”
Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to Me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me. When she poured this perfume on My body, she did it to prepare Me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”
"Masters of minutiae,” that is what we Christians have too often become. Though we know that we should not judge motives, we are virtually powerless to cease ascribing motives to the actions of our fellow saints. Focused as we are on action, we are too often ignorant of attitudes lying behind a given act. Consequently, we grouse and complain whenever some fellow saint fails to meet our expectations in the employment of their own possessions. I caution each of us to remember that we must gain control of our own attitude, accepting one another as Christ accepts us.
Nor should we think that questioning of the priorities of another is some new phenomenon. It is not. Such judgmental attitudes are at least as old as the church herself. Jesus, standing in the shadow of the cross, was worshipped by a woman motivated by pure love for Him as Saviour. The disciples, incensed at her extravagant display of love, followed the lead of one bitter heart in inveighing against her costly worship. Consequently, there is no worship which is not costly. All worship worthy of Christ as Lord must at the last call for total commitment of the worshipper. For that reason we need to be cautious when ascribing motives to those who worship the Lord Christ. I invite you to join me in exploration of this incident, that together we may discover how we may more effectively honour God through our own worship.
The incident is outlined in a cursory form in our text. Mark provides a somewhat more complete account [see Mark 14:1-9], but John especially gives us needed insight in John 12:1-8, apparently as one who witnessed this incident firsthand. Let’s put the story together so that we may fully understand what happened. The Passover was but two days away … the time when our Lord would begin His passion. It was but three days until He would provide Himself a sacrifice for the sin of mankind. Jesus and His disciples were in Bethany, the town where Lazarus and his two sisters, Mary and Martha, lived.
While in that town, they dined in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper. This Simon must have been a family friend of Lazarus, Mary and Martha. Lazarus was present that day and many people came simply to see him and to hear his account of being raised from the dead. Martha, according to her nature, served [cf. Luke 10:40]. Mary, unnamed in our text, anointed Jesus’ feet and head with pure nard contained in an alabaster jar [John 12:3]. Nard, an expensive perfume, was highly treasured by the people of that day. The rich fragrance of that expensive perfume soon filled the house.
Judas Iscariot, whose name was soon to be enshrined in infamy for all time, began to complain. Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages [John 12:5]! John, guided by the Holy Spirit and the advantage of hindsight, adds the commentary that he did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief… [A]s keeper of the moneybag, he used to help himself to what was put into it [John 12:6]. Judas was later discovered to have sold the Lord for thirty pieces of silver, but before ever that occurred he sold his conscience for a pittance, stealing from the moneybag.
What should startle us is the insight provided in Mark’s Gospel, what simply states that some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor” [Mark 14:4,5]. Our text, taken from Matthew’s Gospel is yet more disturbing. There, we read: When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor” [Matthew 26:8,9]. Judas spoke first, motivated by greed, then some of the others began to grumble to one another until at last the entire band of disciples was complaining. Literally, the disciples were scolding Mary for her extravagance. We should be startled that one grumbler, with motives which impugn the honour of the Lord our God, can lead the entire body of disciples into the sin of complaining, thus exposing a critical spirit.
Step aside for a moment to consider a disturbing thought. The Pharisees, whenever they wished to complain about the actions of the Master, groused to the disciples or grumbled to those about the Lord. Sometimes they simply muttered among themselves. Bold men of God, they had a straightforward way of avoiding any direct confrontation, choosing instead of tear Him down in the eyes of others. The disciples in this instance adopted the cowardly methods of the Pharisees. How human! How pathetic! How very much like the saints of this day when we refuse to lay our complaints before the Lord or take responsibility for our questions, instead seeking to destroy the reputation of another! Grumbling is an awful sin!
May I say that it is imperative that we be open and honest with one another. There is no room for grumbling among the saints of the Lord. Grumbling unchecked insures disharmony among the people of God. The grumbler disheartens those who would work for the glory of the Saviour and spreads a spirit of disunity. Grumbling accuses God of being unfair, states that God is not good, charges Him with evil. Grumbling is an awful sin which is treated far too lightly in this day. If more pastors, deacons and elders, would confront the grumbler with the awful nature of his or her sin, the churches of this day would be far stronger than they are. The work of God would advance far more rapidly than it does. Instead, we seem to feel obliged to pet the grumbler, hoping to somehow cajole them into a better frame of mind.
Notice Jesus’ response to the complaints of His disciples. Leave her alone, was His sharp command to these murmuring saints. Why are you bothering her? The disciples were rebuked quite sharply, and the rebuke was in part because of their own spirits. They had judged Mary’s actions, but they were incapable of knowing her motives. They could only ascribe on the basis of speculation, but the Lord knows all men [cf. John 2:24,25]. He knows what is in a man, and thus He is able to reveal intents and motives. We, however, lack that divine perspective. Thus, we do well to refrain from ascribing motives to the actions of others. Jesus went ahead to tell His disciples that she was acting in light of His coming burial, an event which they had yet to believe was coming despite His teaching.
Jesus never rebuked His disciples except He provided instruction, giving them the reason they merited disapproval. Listen to His explanation. She has done a beautiful thing to Me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me. When she poured this perfume on My body, she did it to prepare Me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her. Her actions were beautiful toward the Son of God. Her example will continue throughout history and her actions will be an example to those seeking to honour Him. Hold that thought in mind, as we will be returning to it in a few moments.
Before we explore the impact of this incident, turn your mind briefly to another aspect of this event. Judas used the occasion of the Lord’s rebuke as his justification, if not as the motive for betraying his Master. All three accounts tie his betrayal closely to his loss of control over the money and to the rebuke attached to the complaining which he initiated. Greed unchecked in the church becomes the means to betrayal of the Master. However, greed is not always obvious until some circumstance exposes the greedy individual. Somehow the covetous among us remain unsuspected until divinely exposed. Though we may suspect greed as a motivating factor in the actions of one of the professed saints of the Living God, we seldom see the heart exposed before the church. Thus, we are often more surprised at the one exposed than by the exposure itself.
This is the background to the study. Now focus with me more particularly on three great truths. I list them beforehand that we may together be prepared to see them clearly in the text. First, our reaction to worship reveals our priorities. Second, the relief of poverty is not a divine priority. Lastly, reverence of the Son of God must become our priority. Hold these thoughts in mind and join me in exploration of these divine truths.
Reaction to Worship Reveals Our Priorities — Can a person be too extravagant in worship of the Saviour? Can one actually become a fanatic about worship? If I listen to the world about me, I will draw the conclusion that moderation in religion is a good thing … even necessary. Is it? Mary was extravagant, pouring out on the Master’s head a full jar of rare Indian nard worth the equivalent of forty thousand to fifty thousand dollars ($40,000 to $50,000). The aromatic perfume was poured out on His head and on His feet, never to be used for any other purpose than this singular act of honouring the Lord.
If ever an act qualified as extreme, surely it was this act. Where did Mary obtain this perfume? Though we do not know for certain, we may draw the conclusion that it represented sacrifice; certainly it was a personal treasure. No doubt, used sparingly these five hundred millilitres would have lent fragrance to her life until her death. Shared with Martha, the scent would have graced their lives until each exited this life. Thus, not simply the value, but the potential for personal pleasure qualifies her action as extreme. Honestly, do you not feel a twinge of discomfort at the thought of defending such an act?
Perhaps, because the act is so far in the past and is so intimately connected with the Saviour in the days of His flesh, you can defend the action. But would you defend one who donated a year’s wages to purchase an organ for the worship of the Son of God? Would you be comfortable defending one who gave a huge sum of money to purchase stained glass windows, or to provide padded pews, or to build a music room? Honestly, wouldn’t there be a sense of distress that the money, had it been given to relieve world famine, could have fed thousands of people? Wouldn’t there be at least the thought that some great relief effort or some great social cause could be underwritten?
We are quick to castigate those donors who provided for extravagant buildings, for gold doors and beautiful leaded glass, for richly ornate interiors and beautiful carpets. We are quick to condemn those denominations who were known for their buildings marked by soaring spires and graceful columns gracing the fronts of brick edifices. We wonder at those who use their moneys to provide for beauty dedicated to the work of the ministry, questioning whether the moneys would not have been better used to relieve poverty or to provide for abortion counselling or to provide housing for the homeless or underwrite a thousand other acts arising from the social condition.
I came to faith in a fundamental church, after being raised in evangelical circles. Since my salvation I have conducted my ministry among people who value the Word of God, preaching for a verdict instead of engaging in a form of worship marked by a defined liturgy. I have usually conducted my services in buildings which are plain, even within buildings which are not dedicated to worship or service to God. My ministry has been often conducted in prison cells, in rented motel ballrooms and in funeral parlours (the business was dead and going under all the time). Not often was I invited to minister from the pulpit of fine church buildings, though I have certainly spoken to vast audiences in attendance at some of the largest churches in North America.
If ever an individual could be expected to inveigh against extravagance in worship, I suppose I would qualify. However, I cannot read this text, and more particularly I cannot read the words of the Master, without drawing the conclusion that it is impossible to be too extravagant in worship if we endeavour to honour Him. You see, it was not Mary who was under scrutiny, it was the disciples who were being scrutinised. Her action was not an offence to the Lord, but the attitudes of the disciples were offensive to Him. Our reaction to the worship of others, even to what we consider extravagant in their worship, reveals whether we are focused on the glory of our Lord Christ or whether we have another agenda when we come before Him.
I would hope that in my ministries throughout the years past and in the years which lie ahead until Jesus comes would reflect a holy balance. Especially would I hope that the issue of giving and the employment of the gifts of God’s people would reflect holy balance. I am concerned for social involvement, but I am cautious to ensure that the involvement of the congregation I shepherd honours the Lord Christ.
I know that our church cannot relieve the poverty of the entire world nor even of our own country or our own province … much less the poverty represented within our own town site. I do know that I am responsible to remind my flock of the responsibility to demonstrate concern for fellow Christians first. If we are not relieving the hurt of our fellow saints, we have no Scriptural reason to be unduly concerned for the pagans about us. Thus the limited ability of the flock I pastor must be prioritised to ensure that the mind of the Lord is reflected in the work of the Body.
I know that there are great social evils represented in our nation, but I find scant grounds for mounting one noisy campaign after another to assail any social ill. Even if the churches were to be effective in ridding the world of one evil, there will be multiplied others to challenge us. Until we have addressed the greatest evil … rejection of the Son of God … we have no moral right to assault the manifold bastions of social evil. Until we have assumed responsibility to fulfil the commission of the Master, we have no moral grounds to speak to the conscience of this dying world. Therefore, though I will speak pointedly against social evils, I will not lend my presence to promote their agendas.
Above all else, I am responsible to lead the flock I shepherd in doing that to which the Master has called us. I am responsible to call the flock to obedience, to evangelism — to discipling the lost, to bringing those born into the Family of God into the fellowship of the Body of Christ, and to instructing them in the truths of God. As the saints are brought into living relationship with the Son of God, they will fall in love with Him. Loving Him with deep love, some will no doubt seem extravagant in their worship. Some will give that which is most precious to them. When they have done so, our reaction will reveal a great deal of our own relationship to Him.
If we complain about the waste of those engaged in worship before Him, we reveal our own priorities. If we imagine that we are better equipped to say how they should have used the resources God entrusted to them, we reveal much about ourselves. In the Church of the Living God we are responsible to respect one another, and this means that we dare believe that the Spirit of God is capable of leading our fellow believer in paths pleasing to the mind of God. Respect for others means that we dare believe that they are sensitive to the Spirit of God. It does not mean that we check our brains in at the door, but it does mean that we are cautious not to judge motives too hastily.
Having confronted you with these thoughts, I trust that you are thinking with me. Now, focus with me on the text for a moment longer. The contrast in verse eleven is not between Jesus and the poor but between the words always and not always. Opportunities to help the poor will always be present and the disciples should take advantage of them within the context of service provided throughout the remainder of Scripture. But Jesus would not be in their midst much longer and opportunities to show Him love were diminishing rapidly. The disciples should have realised the paucity of time since He had been instructing them so intensely during the days preceding this incident.
Relief of Poverty is Not a Divine Priority — Let me restate the point in another form. Good is Enemy of the Best is an old saying originating in the Southern United States. Perhaps this particular point is somewhat shocking to you, especially if you have imbibed deeply of the contemporary mindset which states that the church is to be socially active. It is not that we are to show no compassion for those in need, but we must ensure that our priorities reflect the will of the Father. We must first do those things which honour Him through demonstrating obedience to His divine will. Think soberly with me of this issue of the responsibility of the church for social involvement.
The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me. There is no doubt that feeding the poor is a good thing, but is it the best thing? The words stating that The poor you will always have with you are neither a divine endorsement of poverty nor an encouragement to do nothing about poverty. Instead, Jesus was saying that the causes of poverty are many and people will always have occasions to help the poor [Mark 14:7].
Some people are impoverished through no fault of their own. Certainly, those civilians born in poverty within the war-ravaged nations of Africa suffer through no particular fault of their own. Others in our world have become impoverished through disasters both natural and manmade which have stripped them of all wealth or even hope of earning enough to provide for life. I do not say that we should have no compassion for such as these. On the other hand, were we to impoverish ourselves, donating all we possessed to relieve their want, the impact of our largess would be limited and until the cause of poverty in these instances was addressed, they would again shortly be in want.
Again, the poverty of our own nation is too often self-imposed and perpetuated through laziness. Our system of welfare too often creates unreal expectations of government assistance. Others choose not to work and expect support from those who do labour and pay taxes. I cannot imagine that I am responsible to provide a meal for everyone passing through Jasper who finds himself or herself short of funds. Neither am I obligated to supply gas money for everyone who asks just so they can make it to Grande Cache or to Vancouver. Though I endeavour to assist those of the community who are truly in need, I feel no particular responsibility to provide food for those phoning at five p.m. on a Friday evening just after the offices of the Ministry of Human Resources has closed for the weekend. I will suggest that they make plans to phone early the following Monday to ensure that they receive the help they believe they are entitled to receive.
You see, poverty is relative. I grew up in poverty, never knowing if there would be enough food to provide a meal from one day to the next and wearing the poorest of clothing as a child. We didn’t know we were poor since everyone else about us was in similar circumstances. However, my poverty as a child cannot even be compared to the poverty of some of my colleagues from school who grew up in China and Taiwan. My childhood poverty is not worthy of comparison to the starving children of the Sudan or the poverty of Christians who lived in Communist Romania or Bulgaria.
While I contend that the church will do more to relieve the hurts of this fallen world incidentally than will the organisations of all mankind, relief of social ills is not a divine priority. Hospitals, orphanages, educational institutions and even relief of human misery all had their start in the preaching of the Word by the churches of this world. Which Hindu nation has spontaneously started hospitals or orphanages without the presence of the church to first prod their conscience? Which Muslim nation spontaneously sought to provide education for all its citizens without first receiving a prick to the conscience by the churches of this darkened world? The Arab nations are still practising slavery! Without a Mother Teresa, India would still be permitting the untouchables to die in grinding poverty without comfort from anyone.
Relief of human suffering flows incidentally and not primarily out of worship of the Christ. It is a mistake to view the church as a community organisation responsible to the community for her actions. The church is accountable first to obey the commands of her Master. Though those in attendance at the synagogue in Capernaum were furious because of His words, Jesus was not without compassion when He spoke these words: I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian [Luke 4:25-27].
How else are we to respond to the words Paul penned in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-10? In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, labouring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”
Those words are but an iteration of the words recorded in 1 Thessalonians 4:11, 12. Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. Throughout his ministry, the Apostle stressed personal responsibility for one’s own welfare [cf. Ephesians 4:28; 1 Timothy 5:8, 16; Titus 3:14]. Assuming personal responsibility is moderated by command to the people of God to care for the helpless among them. The church is responsible for the widows and orphans represented within the Body of Christ [cf. 1 Timothy 5:3, 5, 9, 10], and to provide relief for fellow saints called to endure suffering for a season [Acts 11:27-30; 2 Corinthians 8:1-4].
There is a principle revealed in these multiplied passages. Relief of human hurt, though a good thing, is not the priority of the church. There must be balance, but immediate relief of poverty and of the sorrows of this world is not the primary responsibility of the Body of Christ. Until the church has assumed responsibility for the helpless within her membership, she has no responsibility to the hurting of this world. I know the argument that an empty stomach precludes hearing the preached Word, but stomachs were just as empty in the days of the Apostles as they are today, and we are hard pressed to find such action mandated in Scripture. I do not say to the Body of Christ that we must never show compassion, but I insist that we need to challenge our priorities.
Reverence of the Son of God Must become Our Priority — When she poured this perfume on My body, she did it to prepare Me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her. The opportunity to show love to Jesus on earth was limited. Rebuking the disciples, He said, You will not always have Me, that is, here on earth [cf. John 12:35; 13:33; 14:3-4]. Jesus said that Mary had done a beautiful thing [kalo;n e[rgon] to Me. Her actions were noble, good. Unlike His disciples, He saw her action as an expression of love and devotion to Him in light of His approaching death.
If there is a priority for us as Christians which is revealed in this text, it must be that we are called to worship the Saviour. A. W. Tozer spoke of worship as the missing jewel in the evangelical church. No doubt he was correct. Much of what passes for worship in this day is nothing short of raw hysteria. Singing oneself into a trance is not worship. Emotional tides which sweep one helplessly along is not worship. Worship will engage the soul of the individual in wonder, awe, fascination, and deepest humility in the presence of the Lord. To suggest that worship can stir the feelings without changing one’s attitude and actions is but little short of blasphemy of the Spirit of God.
It is at this point that some of us will likely part company. I only ask that you consider the point I now make before you reject it out of hand. Though we will not necessarily be lavish in our gifts to glorify the Saviour, neither will we be stinting. Generosity with what He has entrusted to our oversight will no doubt be involved in true worship; but especially will we become generous in the investment of our time. When worship becomes our priority, we will discover that we are committed to His service.
Too many of the professed saints of God have hours for recreation, but mere minutes for service to Christ. We have ample time to amuse ourselves, but seem never to find time to worship in Spirit and in truth. We give an hour … perhaps even two or three hours … on a Sunday morning and dare call it worship. Then we give no thought to time alone with Him throughout the remainder of the week.
I am unapologetic in calling the people of God to become extravagant in worship. I know that such a call may provide licence for some who are acquainted with the Lord only from a distance to think to purchase His love. Yet, those who are intimately related to Him must be set at liberty to glorify His Name. Some will perhaps seize the opportunity to worship in a manner that seems excessive to others. If the motive is to glorify Him, we should rejoice that He has enabled some to demonstrate such generosity.
Most of us will think ourselves hard-pressed to be extravagant in the donation of gifts. We must remember the commendation of the Master for the poor widow who gave all she possessed. Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on” [Mark 12:41-44].
In the act of worship, it is the size of the heart and not the size of the gift which attracts the attention of the Son of God. It is the motive behind the giving which honours Him, and not the gift itself. This is not to say that we should not be generous, but it is to challenge our priority in the act of giving. The divine accounting is quite different from that of this darkened world. Assuredly, each of us can become extravagant in the giving of our time to His service. I challenge each listener today to review your time to ensure that He has priority.
Each of us received 604,800 seconds as a gift this week past. We will have invested about 201,600 of those seconds asleep or in bed. The average Christian will have spent about 37,800 of those seconds in personal grooming, 50,400 seconds eating, 113,400 seconds in pursuit of amusement (usually watching television programmes), and 144,000 seconds earning a living. This leaves 57,600 seconds which available to be used as we wish. This is about two and one-quarter hours each day which are free to honour the Saviour after working, resting, amusing ourselves and caring for the daily routine. Few of us dare state that two and one-quarter hours each day is extravagant. It is not even comparable to the amount of time we invest in pursuit of amusement.
What changes would be observed in our church if the members were extravagant in the investment of time spent worshipping the Saviour? What sort of transformation would we see in each life were we to determine that we would become extravagant in the employment of our time to honour the One we call Lord and Saviour? It remains to be seen what glory would be ascribed to His Name and what power would be demonstrated in our lives if even a handful of us were to become extravagant toward Him.
It is doubtful that any church which has neglected worship will accomplish anything of lasting significance. Though commended for her many acts, the Church of Ephesus merited a rebuke from the Risen Son of God because it had left its first love [Revelation 2:2,4]. The people were no longer in love with the Son of God. Likewise, the Church in Thyatira was noted for busyness, but it tolerated evil [Revelation 2:19,20]. It too no longer engaged in true worship of the Saviour. The Church in Laodicea was rich and marked by action, but it was lukewarm and made the Living Son of God sick [Revelation 3:15,16]. Worship was a distant memory at best. Failure to keep her priorities straight has plagued the church since the days of the Apostles. No less are misplaced priorities a plague among the saints in this day late in the Age of Grace.
What would Christ say of this church; what would He say of your home church? Is worship a priority? Do you meet Christ among His people? Are you prepared to meet Him each time you join your fellow worshippers? Has the church become overly concerned with perpetuating herself? Are the programmes of the church more important than obedience to the Lord of the church? I remember an ordination service I attended years ago in which the messenger spoke to the ordinand, telling him that there would be days in which he would preach simply because it was 11:00 on a Sunday morning. I said to myself at that time that I would never do such a thing, even if it meant that I embarrassed myself by confessing to the church that I was unprepared. Unfortunately, too many church members are present because it is time for a service on a Sunday morning and not because they seek to meet the Sovereign Lord of the church.
If there is one message to be taken home, it must be that if we will honour the Lord of the church, we must become extravagant in worship. Beginning with our time and continuing on to the distribution of all over which He has granted us oversight, we must determine that He will be honoured. That is our call to each of you … to honour Christ the Lord as God Most High who is worthy of praise, glory, honour and majesty.
Those among us who have never submitted to Him as Lord of life we invite to faith in Him. Believing that He died because of your sin and confessing that He has been raised from the dead that you might be declared free of guilt and condemnation, we invite you to life in Him. Even as we stand and sing a hymn of appeal and worship we invite you to believe Him, to receive Him, to confess Him. Amen.