§32 The Last Passover (John 11:55–12:11)
For the third time in John’s Gospel, the Passover is near (v. 55; cf. 2:13; 6:4), and for the second and last time (cf. 2:13), Jesus travels to Jerusalem to keep the festival. The early visit to Jerusalem involving the cleansing of the temple (2:13–22) had given the impression that Jesus’ Passion was about to begin, but it did not. Now the Passion is soon to begin, and the narrator creates an atmosphere of expectancy for his story. He does not immediately state that “Jesus went up to Jerusalem” (2:13), but says that many (v. 55) did so, and that when they arrived, they looked for Jesus, asking What do you think? Isn‘t he coming to the Feast at all? (v. 56). Jesus first returns to Bethany (12:1), and then triumphantly enters Jerusalem (12:12–19). The suspense builds as the Passover draws ever closer: almost time for (11:55), six days before (12:1), “the next day” (i.e., five days before, 12:12), “just before” (13:1). Jesus’ “assault” on the city, leading to his arrest, death, and resurrection, develops step by step.
Who were the many who went up from the country so as to be in Jerusalem early for the festival and perform the necessary rites of self-purification? Were they Jews from all over Israel, or a more specific group? The fact that the word country in verse 55 is the same word translated “region” in verse 54 suggests that they may have come from the same region where Jesus was staying. That they were looking for Jesus and speculating as to whether he would come to the festival (v. 50) is natural if they were acquainted with him and knew his previous whereabouts. It is not likely that his name was such a household word that people from all over Israel would be asking this question.
At any rate, the worshipers described in verses 55–56 (unlike “the Jews” in 7:11, a similar passage in some ways) are not hostile to Jesus, but neutral (more like the “crowds” in 7:12). If they knew where Jesus had previously been staying, they did not tell the authorities. The identification and continuity of the crowds of people mentioned throughout chapter 12 is a difficult matter, and it is natural to ask whether the large crowd of Jews in 12:9 who came to Bethany to see Jesus and Lazarus can be identified with the group looking for Jesus according to 11:55–56. The crowd in 12:9 was clearly in violation of the command given by the chief priests and Pharisees (11:57) that if anyone found out where Jesus was, he should report it. They learned that he was in Bethany and did not report it, but instead went there themselves to see him. It is perhaps no accident that the command of the priests and Pharisees is first mentioned in connection with the group from the country that was looking for Jesus in the temple (vv. 55–57). Though his transitions are not always smooth or clear, the narrator has left open the possibility (though no more than that) that there was one particular crowd of worshipers (from Ephraim) that looked for Jesus at Jerusalem before the festival (vv. 55–56), found him at Bethany (12:9), and finally bore witness to his miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead (12:17). To some extent, the continuity can be tested as we go along, but there is no way to prove (or disprove) the notion that the crowd came first from Ephraim.
Embedded between the search for Jesus and the finding of him is the story of his anointing at Bethany by Mary (12:1–8). The narrator has already alluded to this incident in introducing Lazarus (11:2), but now recounts it in full and in its proper sequence. It is recognizably the same anointing as the one said to have taken place in Bethany at the home of a leper named Simon, according to Mark 14:3–9 and Matthew 26:6–13. The differences in John’s Gospel are that Simon is not named and that the dinner (in Jesus’ honor) is given probably in celebration of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. If the host is anonymous (v. 2), no one else is. All the familiar faces from chapter 11 are present: Martha, helping to serve (cf. Luke 10:40); Lazarus, reclining at table (v. 2); and Mary, at Jesus’ feet as always (v. 3; cf. Luke 10:39; John 11:32). The only new figure is Judas Iscariot (vv. 4–6), who has been mentioned (6:71) but who has had no role in the narrative to this point.
The story is best understood as a foreshadowing of Jesus’ last meal with his disciples (13:1–30) and the accompanying farewell discourses (esp. 13:36–14:31). It is frequently observed by commentators that the telling of the story has been influenced at certain points by the memory of a somewhat similar incident in Galilee found only in Luke (7:36–50): for example, Jesus’ feet are anointed, rather than his head (contrast Mark 14:3), and Mary impulsively wiped his feet with her hair (for both of these details, cf. Luke 7:38). In Luke an unknown woman used her hair to wipe her tears from Jesus’ feet and only afterward anointed them with perfume; in John, Mary pours perfume on his feet only to wipe it off immediately (v. 3)! It is argued that such details are at home in the Lukan story of an impulsive forgiven prostitute but illogical in John’s account of the devotion of Jesus’ close and dear friend, and therefore that the two situations have merged to some degree in the telling. This may be true, but it should not be forgotten that the washing—and drying—of feet is an act of decisive significance elsewhere in John’s Gospel itself (i.e., 13:1–17). Before coming to the astonishing reversal of a teacher washing the feet of his disciples (13:8), the narrator describes the more normal or natural situation of a disciple anointing the feet of her teacher. What was odd was not the act of anointing as such, but the costly perfume that Mary used and the quantity of it.
Mary is first of all simply a model of servanthood; this role she has in common with Martha (v. 2), but it is Mary’s servanthood that is accented here. She is commended for the reckless extravagance of her devotion—and in this respect she does resemble the woman in Luke 7:36–50. Such a large amount of perfume (v. 3) filled the whole house with a sweet smell. Yet none of this is regarded in the Gospel as an end in itself. It is simply the measure of her love for Jesus and of her commitment to serve him. The main similarity between the present passage and Jesus’ farewell discourse is that in each a symbolic action representing servanthood (cf. 13:1–17) occasions the disclosure that Jesus must go away (vv. 7–8; cf. 13:33; 13:36–14:31). The parallel is strengthened by the presence of Judas in both situations (vv. 4–6; cf. 13:2, 11, 21–30). Here Judas is given the lines that in the other Gospels are assigned generally to “some of those present” (Mark 14:4) or to “the disciples” (Matthew 26:8), protesting the wastefulness of Mary’s action (v. 5). Though not missing the opportunity to comment on Judas’ character and his impending betrayal of Jesus (vv. 4, 6; cf. 6:71), the narrator uses his complaint as the setting for Jesus’ revelation: What Mary has done (whether she realizes it or not) is, in effect, to symbolically embalm his body ahead of time in preparation for burial (v. 7).
The implication is that soon he will be gone (v. 8; cf. 13:33). If the Sanhedrin verdict made his death historically certain, the anointing by Mary dramatizes its certainty to those closest to him. The prospect of Jesus’ absence in his concluding words, you will not always have me (v. 8), remains, for the moment, untempered by any hint of reunion with him or promise of his renewed presence. Only later does he extend a word of hope to servants like Mary, whose love for him is stronger than death: “Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me” (v. 26; cf. 14:3; 17:24). The same issue of Jesus’ absence and how it is to be overcome will dominate the farewell discourses, but for the time being it is left unresolved.
The celebration was interrupted by the arrival at Bethany of the crowd of worshipers from Jerusalem (v. 9). Picking up the thread of the Sanhedrin’s decree in 11:47–53, the narrator adds the postscript that Lazarus, too, was wanted by the authorities. He was the living proof of the miracle; because he was alive many of the Jews had come to believe in Jesus (v. 11; cf. 11:45). The decision to kill Jesus therefore had to include plans to kill Lazarus as well (v. 10). The irony that it was not enough to let “one man die for the people” (11:50), but that there had to be two, was lost on Caiaphas and the chief priests! The narrator adds the postscript about Lazarus at this point because of his earlier statement that the visiting crowd came to see Lazarus as well as Jesus (v. 9). In not going directly to the chief priests, the crowd was defying the Sanhedrin and protecting two fugitives rather than one.
11:55 / For their ceremonial cleansing: It was necessary for those celebrating the Passover to be ritually pure (cf. Num. 9:6–12; 2 Chron. 30:17–18), and it is likely that rites of purification were assumed to be necessary for Jews living among or near Gentiles.
11:56 / Isn’t he coming to the feast at all? The form of the question in Greek indicates that a negative answer is expected. Yet the fact that they were looking for Jesus at all suggests a real possibility that he would be there.
12:3 / About a pint: lit., “a pound” (Gr., litra, the Roman pound of twelve ounces). This was obviously an enormous amount, enough to have lasted for many years; cf. the extravagant amount of spices later used to embalm the body of Jesus (19:39).
Pure nard, an expensive perfume: The verbal agreement with Mark 14:3—extending to the common use of some very rare words—is striking and suggests that the two accounts are not only based on the same incident but on the same narration of that incident. Nard, or spikenard, was a plant, native to India, the oil of which was used as an ointment or perfume. The word translated pure (lit., “faithful” or “trustworthy”; hence “genuine” or “unadulterated”) is used in this way only here and in Mark 14:3. It may have been the trade name under which the product was marketed.
The house was filled: There is a tradition of interpreting this phrase symbolically to mean something equivalent to Mark 14:9: The news of Mary’s good deed filled the whole world just as the sweet smell of the perfume filled the house (the late Midrash on Ecclesiastes 7:1 [Soncino ed., Midrash Rabbah (London: Soncino Press, 1961), vol. 8, p. 166] said, “[The scent of] good oil is diffused from the bedchamber to the dining-hall while a good name is diffused from one end of the world to the other”). It is more likely that the phrase, like the mention of “pure nard” and other such details, simply reflects the vivid recollection of someone actually present at the scene.
12:5 / A year’s wages (NIV margin: “three hundred denarii”): The coin in question was specifically the Roman denarius. A denarius was a laborer’s wage for one day (cf. Matt. 20:2), so three hundred of them would indeed have kept a poor family alive for quite some time.
12:6 / He was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself. That Judas was the treasurer among Jesus’ disciples is noted also in 13:29, but his thievery is mentioned only here. Judas is always seen as the betrayer in John’s Gospel, but without direct indication that his betrayal was for money. The present passage affords a useful glimpse in retrospect of Judas’ character (for a perspective on thieves, cf. 10:1, 10). The narrator introduces the information at this point in order to make it clear that the immediate issue is not right or wrong attitudes toward the poor (an issue that the story in itself might easily have raised), but the presence or absence of Jesus (see note on 12:8).
12:7 / Leave her alone … It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial: lit., “Leave her alone, that she may keep it for the day of my burial.” The purpose expressed in Jesus’ statement is a purpose realized in the present, not the future. Yet the present moment is itself an anticipation of the anointing of Jesus’ body for burial (cf. 19:38–42). Mark’s Gospel brings out the meaning more clearly and in more detail (“Leave her alone!… Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me … She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial,” 14:6, 8; cf. Matt 26:10, 12). It is possible that the terse, almost enigmatic saying in John actually represents the earliest form of the saying, while Mark and Matthew have preserved a slightly later (and correct) clarification of it.
12:8 / You will always have the poor among you. Mark 14:7 has the same statement, but with the additional words “and you can help them any time you want.” Far from encouraging a casual or neglectful attitude toward the poor, Jesus (in Mark) is urging attention to their needs (cf. Deut. 15:11). Matthew 26:11 lacks the additional words, perhaps because he has already emphasized so strongly in 25:31–46 the point that, during the period of Jesus’ absence, good works done for those in need are done for Jesus himself. John lacks them, however, simply because the question of the poor is not the question he is addressing at the moment. He dismisses it as a smokescreen raised by the thief, Judas. Though his suggestion that Judas did not care about the poor (v. 6) has implied in passing that Christians should care, John’s emphasis falls not on the first part of the pronouncement, You will always have the poor among you, but on what it leads up to: you will not always have me. He is concerned with the single question of the impending separation of Jesus from his disciples.
12:10 / So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well. Even though the verb for made plans is a simple past tense, not a pluperfect, it appears that the narrator is providing further information about the Council that met in 11:47–53, not describing a new decision occasioned by the crowd’s present visit to Bethany. (The word so in the NIV translation seems to imply the latter.) If the authorities knew of the visit to Bethany, it is hard to see why they would not simply have arrested Jesus (and Lazarus) at Bethany instead of passing more decrees. A better translation might be: “The chief priests had made plans to kill Lazarus as well.” If the reference is back to 11:47–53, then the “many Jews” who were “putting their faith in him” (v. 11) are those referred to in 11:45, not the group now visiting Jesus in Bethany.