"Two Very Different Responses" - A Sermon on Mark 14:1-11

Introduction

When we get to chapter 14 of Mark’s Gospel we have arrived at the point where Jesus is very close to the cross. Indeed we are in the last couple of days of Jesus’ earthly ministry. We should hang on every word and examine every incident, for there is great significance for us here – this should all have a big impact on us as Jesus followers in the modern day.

The setting is the celebration of the Jewish Passover (which will soon be reinterpreted for those who become Jesus followers). This was the annual festival commemorating the people of Israel’s freedom from captivity and slavery in Egypt so many centuries before (as recorded so vividly in the book of Exodus). This had been combined with the harvest “festival of unleavened bread”. We should sense the connection between God’s liberating activity on behalf of the people of Israel being remembered at Passover, and the path Jesus was taking to ultimately bring salvation to all humankind.

The real intentions of the religious leaders are exposed, because they want to carry out their plans with as little publicity as possible. Jesus, following his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, had his supporters, and the chief priests did not want to upset the Roman authorities who were set on keeping the peace. They simply wanted to manipulate events in any quiet way they could, to meet their objective of getting rid of Jesus, who had become so much a threat to their level of power and control. But this had to be done quietly, without any serious disturbance, and Judas of course played right into their hands.

First Response – Worship

What words would you use to describe the first response to Jesus (v.3-9)?

We could easily slip by the identity given to Jesus’ host in Bethany. His name was “Simon the leper”. Now given that this man was not currently an outcast, seemingly back at home with his family and entertaining guests, he was probably a cured “leper” who had been allowed to return to community life. One wonders whether this “Simon” had actually been healed by Jesus sometime over the past three years! His former state of leprosy though, had seemed to stick with him, in that this was how he was known – “Simon the leper”. But this was very significant, because Jesus chose to eat with this person who would have been so absolutely rejected from mainstream society in the past. Mark’s Gospel, in the very first chapter, right at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, records Jesus healing a leper – not from a distance, but by his very touch. Now, as the end approaches, Jesus accepts hospitality from another one who had similarly suffered and been shunned. So any positive response to Jesus that occurs during this incident … happens as Jesus continues to reach out to the marginalised of the local community. This is perhaps something that his disciples (especially one of them in particular) didn’t always appreciate. This very matter forms part of the context of Judas’ betrayal.

Now there was a woman present, and she came forward toward Jesus with an “alabaster jar” in her hand. This was a vessel, made from fine expensive Egyptian marble, which had a rather long neck. This neck would be broken off when the contents were to be used. The content of this “jar” was described as “very costly ointment of nard”, which was fragrant perfume, made from the root of a rare plant found mainly in India. You would understand that this would normally have been used sparingly, for by this description it was likely to have been worth a year’s wages. But this woman tipped the whole lot over the head of Jesus in an act of unbridled and extravagant worship.

This action symbolised the anointing of a king. Prior to Jesus’ arrest, trial and crucifixion, this woman was declaring Jesus’ true identity to all who were witnesses of this remarkable action. And as Jesus points out in verse 9, this would be an act remembered for all time. For the breaking of the neck of the bottle and the pouring of the contents over the head of Jesus implies that none of the perfume was held back.

Would this be our response to Jesus?

What is our response to the one who took all our needs and all our sin upon himself to a cross?

Is our response connected more to our own convenience, or will we embrace this elaborate, whole-hearted, unbridled worship (that we see lived out in this woman)?

There were of course detractors … aren’t there always! These people could not quite cope with this level of adoration being given to Jesus.
It was strange, it was unusual, and it wasn’t completely rational! They raised the objection about the value of the perfume, and if it was going to be ‘wasted’ like this, whether it should have rather been sold (and here they get really pious) and the proceeds given to the poor. It’s my view that they only raised this option to cover their own inability to worship Jesus the way this woman was. They were looking for excuses, rather than the real reason – lack of sincere commitment to follow the way of Jesus, which would in turn lead to a thorough spirit of thanksgiving and worship within them.

These other party guests went to the extent of publicly ‘scolding’ the woman (v.5b), which was no doubt a hurtful experience for her. Jesus immediately called them to account, and declared that what the woman had performed was a “good service” to him. This woman should not be caused to regret in any way something that was so pure, uncomplicated and beautiful! Indeed the greek word here “kalon” from “kalos” translated “good” (in “good service”) could also be translated – noble, excellent, precious, desirable, beautiful; something that rises above mere duty.

This passage should never be used to suggest that we don’t have to worry about the poverty in the world, simply because it is so entrenched. That would be a complete misreading of this text. The statement of verse 7 in no way supports the existence of poverty as an economic necessity or inevitability (as some capitalists or economic rationalists might today). Rather, the whole ministry of Jesus shows active concern for the poor (eg. the cheated, the marginalised, the disabled). Poverty is unchristian and inhuman, especially where it remains unaddressed. Jesus, here, is referring to a reality, albeit a tragic one, that generally speaking, society does not adequately address; and hence can say – “you will always have the poor with you”, meaning, ‘you can give help to the poor anytime’ … and so you should going forward. It’s just that right at this moment another dynamic is happening.

There is a sincere woman seeking to announce her personal commitment to Jesus, and acknowledge that what Jesus is about to endure is on her behalf. And in the very case of this passage, the guests at Simon’s house would literally have very few opportunities left to express the sort of worship that this woman has just expressed.

What this passage does suggest is that acts of generosity or attempts to defeat injustice do not replace the worship of the king of the kingdom of God, but rather should go hand-in-hand. Our acts of brotherly and sisterly love, and any of our attempts to address the poverty of others, are not a replacement for, but rather form part of our love for God.

There was even more significance in this woman’s act of worship, as she had, “anointed [Jesus’] body beforehand for its burial” (v.8). The normal Jewish custom was to anoint a body with aromatic oils in preparing it for burial (just like the women at the tomb were seeking to do when they found that the stone at the entrance had already been removed). However, the body of a person executed as a criminal, as Jesus was going to be, would not normally be so anointed. I think this woman knew exactly what she was doing, and what she was declaring in doing so – that Jesus was no criminal, he was the Servant King and redeemer of his people.

Second Response – Betrayal

What words would you use to describe the second response to Jesus here (v.10-11)?

Was Judas one of those disgruntled guests who didn’t appreciate the woman’s extravagant act? It would seem so! And this consolidates, and even validates in his mind, the action that he is going to take. Judas’ disagreement with the woman’s lavish act seems to be the straw that broke the camel’s back. This would give the religious leaders their opportunity to act quietly, so they seize on this opportunity (and on Judas’ known weakness – which seems to have been money) and seek to close the deal by actually offering Judas money.

There is a really sad note here in verse 10 … “who was one of the twelve” i.e. one of those closest to Jesus, one who had been invested in, one of those who had been on mission with Jesus – and was now being lost!

It’s interesting that Mark’s Gospel knows and says nothing about God manipulating Judas in any way – this was simply the case of a confused vulnerable man being manipulated by strong figures intent on their own way, with that man caving in. This was Judas’ decision, he might have resisted the lesser side of himself, but he didn’t.

What was Judas’ problem?

Perhaps Judas was more interested in the overthrow of the Romans and the possible setting up of a new government in Jerusalem; perhaps he began following Jesus out of the hope that his own personal agendas concerning gaining power might manifest. All this talk of Jesus’ death and burial thwarted all his personal goals. Sure he must have had creditable concerns concerning injustice and poverty that caused him to start out on the journey with Jesus, but he’d failed to completely open his heart to the truth and full purpose behind Jesus’ coming.

When this disappointment got the better of Judas, despite the consideration he had been shown – treachery set in! Despite following Jesus for the best part of three years, and seemingly being on the same side, he had not undergone sufficient personal transformation to go the full journey. It’s like Judas was one of the disciples just in an official capacity, without growing in his personal relationship with (the leader) Jesus. Judas did not really know Jesus for who he was and is … absolutely the opposite of the woman (in Simon’s house) who completely got it!

Conclusion

We have here a stark contrast – two very different responses to Jesus. There was one who couldn’t get past their own personal agenda and greed, so much so that they contributed to the death of someone who had befriended them and loved them (actions which ultimately of course brought Judas himself undone). And then there was the other, one who broke open an expensive bottle of perfume and (unconcerned for its value, or perhaps more to the point fully aware of its value) lavished it over the head of Jesus, denoting that Jesus was her King. It is said that what she did would be eternally remembered, yet her name is not given. This would suggest that it is the act of worship that is mostly in view … and that this type of extravagant enthusiastic worship could be performed by anyone … including you and me.

Any investment of time and resources in the worship of Jesus will never be a waste!