(Audio Version)
Introduction
If you have children, then you know that it is a parent’s
responsibility to teach them the difference between what is right and what is
wrong. In a Christian home, the basis of right and wrong comes from the
Scriptures. In non-Christian homes, right and wrong finds its basis in a myriad
of belief systems which may or may not originate from the Scriptures. Once kids
reach a certain age, the need to teach them about right and wrong diminishes as
they themselves begin to build on the foundation parents have established. This
has certainly been the case in our home as my girls are now nearly finished
with college and preparing to move into the professional fields of their
respective studies. For them, like for many other adults whose lives are built
on a Christian foundation, deciding between right and wrong has become routine.
They are, however, faced with other far more difficult decisions to make that
are perhaps not specifically addressed by the Scriptures. I talk with my girls
about these decisions all the time as they try to determine what is right and
what is wrong. I have often tried to explain to them, and they’re probably sick
of hearing me say it, that the really difficult decisions we have to make in
our lives are not choosing between right and wrong but Choosing Between Better And Best. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not
saying that there is no absolute right and wrong. I’m not saying that
everything is relative. Cultural relativism or personal subjectivism is just a
license to do whatever makes us feel good at any given point in time. Because
there is a God who is absolutely good and absolutely perfect, absolute right
and absolute wrong exist. However, once sin was introduced into God’s perfect
created order, being able to discern what is absolutely right and absolutely
wrong is not always easy because sin has distorted all aspects of creation,
including our ability to reason. I read an article this week about a
controversial decision made by World Vision with respect to same-sex marriage.
World Vision is a Christian, para-church ministry serving the needs of the poor
around the world. World Vision initially decided that they would change their
long-held position on same-sex marriage and no longer discriminate against
employees on that basis. However, many in the evangelical community took
offense to World Vision’s new policy and withdrew their financial support. The
leadership at World Vision quickly reversed their decision and the evangelical
community renewed their financial support. Some saw the decision by
evangelicals to withdraw their financial support as Christians standing their
ground in the face of lifestyle of sexual perversion that has been emboldened
in recent years to try and force its perversion into all areas of our culture,
including the Church. Others saw it as evangelicals leveraging the poor and
needy in order to get their way. The latter group saw service to the poor as
the only thing that mattered and taking a position against homosexuality as
foolish and self-serving if it in any way jeopardized caring for the poor. Both
sides consider their respective positions to be right while considering the
other side’s position to be wrong. However, this is one of those situations
where choosing between right and wrong might have to give way to Choosing Between Better And Best.
Sometimes I wish I could ask Jesus what to do in these situations because the
Bible isn’t always clear what we should do. However, Jesus always seems to have
the right answers when it comes to Choosing
Between Better And Best.
Subject Text
Mark 14:3-9
3While he
was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known
as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive
perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his
head. 4Some of those present were saying indignantly
to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5It could have been sold
for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.”
And they rebuked her harshly. 6“Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why
are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7The
poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8She did what she
could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached
throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in
memory of her.”
Context
Jesus’
earthly ministry is coming to an end at this point. Our Subject Text takes place
during Passion Week and Jesus has set his sights on the cross that awaits him.
On Sunday, Jesus rides into town on the back of a donkey to shouts and praises
of: “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the
coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” The religious
leaders are furious that the people are shifting their allegiances to Jesus;
they can’t stand that Jesus is receiving and accepting such praises from the
people; praises that should be reserved for the long-awaited Messiah; Jesus is
threatening their theological monopoly. During the Passion Week, Jesus traveled
the short distance between Bethany where he stayed the nights and Jerusalem
where he spent his days warning people about the religious leaders, teaching
the people about His future return, and making the religious leaders more miserable
and angry with each passing moment. When Jesus returns to Jerusalem on Monday,
he pours gasoline on an already raging fire when he drives out the profiteers
from the Temple. First Jesus undermined the popularity of the religious leaders
by actively warning the people about the corrupt religious establishment; and now
He was attacking some of their financial resources by shutting down the
profiteering enterprises set up in the Temple. Jesus took direct aim at the two
most important things in the lives of the religious leaders—power and money and
on Tuesday, the chief priests and the teachers of the Law were looking for ways
get rid of Jesus. But the Passover was just two days away so their timing
needed to be just right. For the moment, Jesus was safe. It’s Tuesday evening
and Jesus is back in Bethany where our Subject
Text takes place.
Text Analysis
Jesus was a
marked man and I have no doubt He knew it. But where do we find him on Tuesday
night just a few days before the cross? According to v. 3a Jesus is reclining
at the table at the home of a man known as Simon the Leper. In the ancient near
east, guests were not seated around the dinner table on chairs like we do today.
Instead, tables were relatively low to the ground and guests sat on the floor and
reclined on their elbows or against cushions around the table. Try and keep
this image in your mind because I’m going to come back to it later. First,
however, we need to address the obvious—who is Simon the Leper? How did he get
that name? “Leper” anything in the ancient world was not to be trifled with let
alone to be adopted as a nickname. We can probably be certain that Simon didn’t
have leprosy at the time of this event. Lepers were not permitted to be among
the general population. Instead, they had to be isolated within the community
of the “unclean.” It is likely that this particular Simon was previously healed
by Jesus. Before, having the title of “leper” meant Simon was unclean; it was a
title that carried with it the stigma of shame. We don’t know, because the text
doesn’t tell us, but I wonder if Simon doesn’t retain the title as a badge of
honor to remind people that he was once unclean; a reject; an outcast. Now,
he’s hosting dinner parties with his friends at his house with the One who made
him clean once again and gave him back his life.
A dramatic
event begins to unfold in v. 3b when a woman anoints Jesus with a very
expensive bottle of scented oil used as perfume that she pours over his head.
The woman may or may not have been an invited guest. This was not technically a
private party. That’s not generally how they did things in the ancient near
east. Instead, the doors to the house remained open and people could enter and
stand around the room and listen to whatever religious leader or teacher in attendance
may have been saying. In this case, people would have been gathered around to
hear Jesus teach. Therefore, it wouldn’t necessarily have been unusual for this
woman to have entered Simon’s home. It’s hard to know exactly who the woman was
based on our Subject Text. However, this event is one of the
few that is recorded in each of the four Gospels so we should look the other
three Gospels for a few clues. I am thankful that the Gospels don’t parrot each
other since it adds to their authenticity. Only true witnesses could give
slightly different versions of the same event. In some cases the differences
help to clarify something and at other times they create more confusion. In
this case, they do both. Matthew and Mark recall the event similarly in that they
place the event at the house of Simon the Leper and identify the woman who
anointed Jesus as simply “a woman.” Luke places the event at the house of a
Pharisee and identifies the woman as, “a woman of the city who was a sinner.” John
places the event at the home of Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead, and
Martha, his sister. The “woman” is identified as Mary, Martha’s sister. While
all four Gospel writers have the woman (Mary?) pouring scented oil over Jesus’
head, Luke and John tell us that she used her tears to wash Jesus’ feet and
then dried them with her hair. What a beautiful image of reverence and humility
in action. When we understand her actions in context then we’ll understand the
depth of her self-abasement. Remember at the start when I said the guests were
seated on the floor around the table? That means their feet were either close
to the table or close to another person. That may not sound like a big deal to
you but let’s remember that most people in those days didn’t have closed-toe shoes
and the streets weren’t paved. Furthermore, people and animals used the same
transportation routes and animals aren’t generally as civilized as people. As a
result, dirt and dust weren’t the only things that were on peoples’ feet.
Hopefully you’re starting to get a picture of what Jesus’ feet might have
looked like without me having to get more graphic. That doesn’t make a
beautiful picture less beautiful but more beautiful. She uses her hair to wipe
off whatever nasty stuff may have been on Jesus’ feet. But that’s not all the
woman does for Jesus. From our Subject
Text, Mark tells us that the unidentified woman breaks the alabaster jar
and pours its contents over Jesus’ head. “Within the jar was a very expensive
perfume, ‘nard,’ which was derived from a plant native to India…To access the
costly perfume, the woman broke the neck of the alabaster jar and poured the
entire amount on Jesus’ head…The breaking of the alabaster jar was not because
this was the only way of pouring out the perfume, for it could have been poured
out in the same manner as it was poured into the jar. Its ‘breaking’ dramatizes
the total outpouring of this valuable perfume, container and all, for
Jesus…Such ointment jars, when used for anointing the dead, were often
purposely broken and left in the tomb.”[1]
The
beautiful image of humility, love, and reverence is broken in vv. 4-5 when some
of the others at the banquet became indignant about her extravagant display of
affection. The text says that she was harshly rebuked because her actions were
a wasted effort in that the ointment could have been sold and the proceeds used
to care for the poor. John says that one of the people complaining that the
perfume should have been sold and the money given to the poor was Judas, who
was stealing from the money box in his care. Although Judas certainly could
have been among those who were critical of the woman, Mark only tells us that
it was “some of those present.” It is possible that they all, like Judas, had
less than noble motives behind their criticism of the woman. However, the text
doesn’t say that so we probably shouldn’t assume it. It is possible that some
of those who were criticizing the woman were sincerely concerned with the
hardships that faced the poor and to a certain degree, their position isn’t
unreasonable. Jesus was very much concerned about the poor and the oppressed
and gave them a special place of honor in the kingdom of God. Furthermore,
Jesus said that whenever we do something to serve those in need, we are really
serving Him and when we neglect those in need, we are really neglecting Him. So
it is entirely possible that those who were being critical of the woman were
simply trying to emulate Jesus’ concern for the poor. But this woman wasn’t
trying to neglect the needs of the poor, she wanted to show her love and
devotion to Jesus and this is the means the seemed best to her; she wanted to show Jesus how much He meant to her. The
implication of the text is that this particular ointment wasn’t just some
run-of-the-mill perfume purchased from a passing street vendor; it was very
expensive. “Some ointments were extremely rare in the ancient world and costly
to obtain and possess…Ointments might be included in the treasury of a king.
The prophet [Amos] describes the complacent and wealthy of Israel as those who
can afford the finest lotions (Amos 6:6). No wonder Jesus’ disciples complained
at the woman’s ‘waste’ of her expensive ointment when she poured it on Jesus’
head. It could have been sold and used more practically to meet the needs of
the poor. In fact, the nard in Mary’s alabaster flask was worth three hundred
denarii, nearly a year’s wages (Jn 12:5). Ointments (or oil) is listed among
the products that the merchants of the world trade and value.”[2]
Jesus
wasn’t the least bit impressed in v. 6-7 by the concern for the poor expressed
by some of those who were there regardless of how sincere they may have been.
In fact, Jesus praises the woman for her costly display of honor and affection
for Him. Jesus wasn’t admonishing them for their attitude toward the poor, He
was admonishing them because they were critical of the woman who cherished
Jesus above the wealth represented by the expensive ointment and above an
important social need that her wealth could have been used to mitigate. Mind
you, there’s nothing wrong with giving up something of value for the benefit of
those in need. In fact, you could say it is one of our highest callings.
However, it is not the highest
calling. That would be to honor and love Jesus above all else including caring
for the poor. Remember, nothing, nothing, nothing, no matter how noble, can
take the place of Jesus in our lives and in our hearts. Anything that takes the
place of honor away from Jesus is idolatry—and that includes caring for the
poor. That might sound harsh and when ministries who serve and care for the
poor bombard us with images of malnourished and dying children in the world, we
can’t imagine how anything could possibly be more important. Nothing in the
text tells us that this unidentified woman didn’t care for the poor just like
nothing in the text tells us that those who were criticizing her didn’t love
Jesus. This isn’t a matter of choosing between right and wrong, it is a matter
of Choosing Between Better And Best.
Jesus provides them with perspective when He reminds them that they will always
have to opportunity to serve the poor but this was her way of demonstrating her
devotion to Him at that moment. “Jesus does not enter into a debate with the
disciples about the virtues of charitable giving. Rather, he defends a person
whom they are willing to demean in the name of a theoretical good…The disciples
judge by appearances; Jesus judges by motive. By their standards she has done a
wasteful thing; by his she had done ‘a beautiful thing’…Faith and discipleship
are not ideal realms, what we might like to be and do; they are absolute
realities, who we are and what we are able to give. In Jesus’ sight an act has
value according to its motive and intent, and that—not its material value—is
what makes it serviceable in the kingdom of God…Jesus’ statement in 14:7, ‘the
poor you will always have with you…But you will not always have me,’ should not
be taken as indifference to the poor…That Jesus taught and practiced mercy to
the poor is attested in every stratum of Christian tradition. The essential
issue in v. 7 is not the poor, however, but the woman in their midst, and not
even the highest social good can be used to justify the injury done to her.
Once again Jesus puts forward his own person in scandalous prominence. ‘You can
help the poor anytime you want. But you will not always have me.’ We can,
perhaps, justify such a statement from the mouth of God, but it is hard to
imagine a justification for such a statement from a mere mortal. In placing
himself above the poor Jesus places himself above the great commandment to
‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ But with unassuming pretentiousness Jesus
asserts his priority to all other goods. The value of a gift signals the value
of the person to whom it is given. The extravagance of the woman shows that she
alone understands Jesus’ incommensurable worth.”[3]
Although
Jesus often foretold of his impending death, it doesn’t appear that many, if
any, gave it any serious consideration. If those who heard Jesus foretell his
death were concerned, they were very good at concealing it. Therefore, when
Jesus describes the woman’s actions in v. 8 as consecrating His body for
burial, we shouldn’t assume that that was the woman’s motivation even if Jesus
adopted that as its meaning. Think about it, does God need anything so that we
could do something for Him? It’s a
ridiculous notion to be sure but God provides us with opportunities to show our
love for Him. That might be to serve the poor or might be to offer Him an extravagant
sacrifice to show our love and commitment. Whatever we are called to do or
give, God doesn’t expect us to do or give something beyond our capability or
capacity. Instead, He expects us to do or give what we are able to do or give.
And that’s precisely how Jesus characterizes this woman’s actions toward Him.
Jesus said that the woman “did what she could.” “What she had to do she did;
the reference being not to the measure of her power (wealth) but to her
opportunity; she did what lay to her hand, and could only be done then.”[4]
Is caring
for the poor a big deal? Absolutely! But Jesus tells us in v. 9 that wherever
the Gospel is preached in the world, this woman’s gesture toward Jesus will be
remembered. There were probably countless followers of Jesus who were this
woman’s contemporaries who served and cared for the poor. Can you tell me who
they were? I can’t. But we know this woman and even though she may have been
very generous and compassionate toward the poor, this act of devotion toward
Jesus is what she is remembered for. The fact that her actions are recorded in
the written Scriptures illustrates the ongoing fulfillment of Jesus’ promise. The
sacrificial devotion of a woman unnamed by Mark would be used from that point
forward as an example for others to follow. “The malicious scheming against
Jesus surrounding the act of sacrificial love reveals that people did not come
pouring out of the saloons and peep shows to kill Jesus. It was the religious
politicos and one of Jesus’ intimates who did him in. The church tends to look
for threats from without and ignore the threats within. Those who hold the
reins of power may honestly believe that what they are doing is in the best
interest of God’s cause on earth. They may convince themselves that the end
justifies the means. They may never see that self-interest motivates their
words and actions and that it leads them into their greatest guilt. Jesus’
commendation of this anonymous woman also reveals that one can never be fully
aware of one’s own significance or role in God’s kingdom. The woman had no idea
of the worldwide significance of her action, nor did the high priests, Judas,
or Pontius Pilate. Albert Einstein said, ‘It is a tragic mistake for those in
power to think that they are in control.’ It is also a mistake for us to think
that our sacrificial devotion is wasteful or insignificant. Who knows how God
will use it.”[5]
Application
So what was
accomplished in the case of Christians withdrawing their financial support from
World Vision in response to World Vision’s attempt to align itself with a
culture seeking to normalize sinful sexual behavior? World Vision reversed its
decision and financial support was restored. Did everyone live happily ever
after? Unlikely! Not when Satan is involved. What happened in the aftermath of
these events gives us a clue of how Satan uses sin to accomplish his task. Do
you think it is Satan’s mission to make sure people go hungry? Don’t be deceived!
Satan is concerned with humanity’s eternal destiny in the same way that God is
concerned about humanity’s eternal destiny—except in the opposite direction.
Whether the poor are cared for or not is of little concern to Satan. Satan’s
objective is to keep unbelievers out of heaven and entice Christians to
compromise their faith and tarnish their witness and he uses any means
available. Currently, the Christian faith is under attack from all sides by the
homosexual movement and Satan uses it at every opportunity to accomplish his
objectives from outside the Church and from within. For example, the homosexual
community condemned the Christians who withdrew their financial support as
injuring innocent children in order to prove a point. Of course this is to be
expected from the homosexual community but other Christians joined the
homosexual community in condemning their own brothers and sisters in Christ and
calling their behavior shameful! Other Christians said that this is precisely
the reason why people don’t like Christians. Excuse me but I recall Jesus
warning us that we would be hated because we are His followers. Christians have
been hated for more than 2,000 years because of their uncompromising biblical
integrity. Why are we worried about being hated now? The article that
introduced this story to me talked about how evangelicals may have won a
cultural war but wound up losing a generation in the process. Except that
evangelicals won nothing because they ended up being attacked by their own
brothers and sisters in Christ! No war can be deemed successful when you’re
being shot at by your own side! Satan accomplished much in this event in that
he used homosexuals, who insist that everyone, including Christians, must accept
their sinful sexual behavior, and other Christians to attack those who were
probably trying to figure out what the best
response should be to World Vision’s policy change that was in conflict with
their biblical values. Poor people; children, were used by Satan as pawns to
pit not only the homosexual community against the Christian community but he managed
to deceive other Christians to join in the condemnation of their own spiritual
family as well. In a culture where Christian values are at best ignored and usually
subverted and ridiculed; where Christian business are being forced to accept
same-sex marriages or close their doors; where Christian business leaders are
losing their jobs because they support traditional marriage; where there is a
coordinated effort to make sexual preference a protected civil right (If you
don’t think that’s a big deal then you’re being willfully naïve. That means
churches will not be able to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual
preference in any of their practices not just their hiring practices. In other
words, pastors will be required to
perform same-sex marriages and will no longer be allowed to condemn homosexuality as sinful. Think about the
consequences of that and see if you still think it’s no big deal.), some
Christians clearly felt like they were running out of options to stem the
aggressive advancement of the homosexual agenda and suspended their financial
support so they would be heard. In the words of Jesus, they did what they were
able to do. Satan has figured out that whenever someone uses the phrase, “It’s
for the children,” or “Jesus just wants us to love everyone,” biblical values
go out the window and our Christian witness becomes so tarnished that no one
can differentiate us from the culture—and Satan is happy. If God’s primary
objective was for the poor to be fed then it probably would have been included
in the Great Commission—don’t you think? Instead, God’s primary objective is
for us to be in a love relationship with Him first, and thereafter share the
message of salvation with anyone and everyone. We can do that in the process of
caring for the poor but we also do that through our biblical integrity. Our
duty to care for the poor is a response to our commitment to always make sure
that God holds the position of highest honor in our lives. And we do that by
being faithful to all the Gospel not just the part that says we must care for
the poor (Mt 25:31-46) but also the part that says we should have nothing to do
with those claiming to be believers yet willfully engage in sinful behavior (1
Cor 5:11). Should Christians continue to support an organization that is in
conflict with their biblical values? What if the organization undertakes the
lofty biblical mandate of caring for the poor? Let’s use a different set of
variables: Is it wrong to steal from someone who has much and give it to
someone who has little? Your first response is probably, no. But let’s put a
face on the variables. What if the one who has much is an arrogant, successful,
American businessman living like a king in luxury and the one who has little is
a child in some central, African country devastated by poverty, war and
disease. I’ll bet some of you who were quick to answer “no” the first time had
to think about it this time. Does the end ever justify the means? It’s easy to
debate the matter here on paper but let’s remember that we’re talking about
people; people trying to be faithful to the whole Gospel and poor people trying
to stave off death. If the decision is between maintaining your Christian
integrity and saving the life of a child, which would you choose? Not so easy
now is it? You see, the hardest decisions we will likely have to make in our
lives are not having to choose between right and wrong but Choosing Between Better And Best.
[1]
Robert H. Stein, Mark—Baker
Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2008), p. 633.
[2]
Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III, gen. eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 604.
[3]
James R. Edwards, The Gospel According To
Mark—The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), p. 415.
[4] W.
Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s
Greek Testament, Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1983), p. 435.
[5]
David E. Garland, Mark—The NIV Application
Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), pp. 520-521.
No comments:
Post a Comment