NOW THE PASSOVER and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. 2“But not during the Feast,” they said, “or the people may riot.”
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.”
10Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them. 11They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
Original Meaning
MARK BEGINS THE countdown to Jesus’ death by telling us that the Passover will arrive “after two days” (lit.). In Jewish time reckoning, this could mean “the next day” (today counts as one day, the next day as the second day; see 8:31); and everything that Mark narrates could be compressed into a forty-eight-hour time span. The NIV chooses a better option and has the anointing take place two days before the Passover. Jesus is killed on the third day after the plot and his anointing.
During the Passover festival, an estimated 85,000 to 300,000 pilgrims flocked to the city of Jerusalem, which had a population estimated at 60,000 to 120,000.1 The sounds and smells of hordes of people and animals filled the city. The story of Jesus’ being left behind by his parents in the temple (Luke 2:41–44) shows the chaos that resulted from the crush of people. Most of these pilgrims slept in tents or boarded in the towns of the surrounding countryside. The atmosphere may have been much like a state fair.
The celebration of appointed times reminded Israel of its inheritance. Passover commemorated the liberation of the nation from Egypt, when God sent a plague that took the lives of the Egyptians’ firstborn. The Israelites were spared by dabbing their doorways with the blood of a slaughtered lamb. Many in Jesus’ day saw this first deliverance as the model for their final liberation. Pilgrims came to commemorate this event filled with hopes and expectations that the Messiah would eventually come to deliver Israel from foreign oppression and economic misery during the night of Passover.2
It was a particularly nervous time for the high priests and their police force since the chance for an outbreak of riots increased dramatically during this time. The Roman governor usually moved to Jerusalem from his headquarters in Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast to monitor the volatile mobs of fervent pilgrims. The slightest provocation could set them off, and Josephus duly records the disturbances that broke out during a festival.
Each scene in this section—the plotting by the Jewish leaders, the anointing, and the betrayal contract—foreshadows Jesus’ death. The Jewish leaders, identified by Mark as the chief priests and the teachers of the law, are agitated both by Jesus’ threatening actions in the temple and the acclamation from the crowd. They begin to make good on their determination to do away with a dangerous rabble-rouser (11:18; 12:12; see 3:6), who menaces the temple and their priestly class. Because of his popularity, they plot to arrest him by stealth and to kill him.3
The conspirators do not want to kill Jesus “in the feast” (lit.). The word “feast” can have two different meanings. It may refer to the festival crowd (see John 7:11) or the time of Passover. If it means the former, then the leaders fear seizing Jesus before all the people because it might precipitate a riot (see Luke 22:6). If they are going to retain their position of power as puppets of the Romans, they need to keep the streets peaceful and to suppress quickly any disturbances. That is why they arrest Jesus in the dead of night in the more secluded Gethsemane. If “in the feast” means “during the Feast of the Passover,” then the authorities do not want to kill Jesus at this season. Judas’s treachery, however, causes them to change their minds and expedite Jesus’ arrest.
Either way, the furtive plotting of the temple leaders on how best to handle the Jesus problem is filled with irony. If they do not want to seize Jesus during the Feast, then the very thing they desire to prevent happens, for Jesus is executed during the Feast.4 His death transforms the meaning of Passover for Christians, for they do not remember Passover as the time when God struck down the firstborn in the land of Egypt and liberated Israel from the bondage. Instead, they associate it with God’s beloved Son being struck down to deliver all humankind from the bondage to Satan and sin.
If these Machiavellian masterminds have plotted to seize Jesus apart from the excitable festal crowd, they succeed. They arrest him as he prays in private and thus successfully avoid any tumult. The web of intrigue proves ultimately futile, however. Everything goes according to plan, but little do they know that “killing Jesus was like trying to destroy a dandelion seed-head by blowing on it.”5 They may attribute their failure to the law of unintended consequences, but the reader knows that divine forces are working unseen. The Jewish leaders may think that they are in control; but God’s will, not theirs, is being accomplished.
The next scene finds Jesus dining at the home of Simon the leper. Mark gives no details about who this Simon is or how Jesus happens to be in his house. He is only interested in what happens when an anonymous woman breaks into the company of men and pours precious perfume over Jesus’ head. She breaks a costly jar containing pure nard, and the even more costly perfume streams out.6 Mark pegs its value at three hundred denarii, almost a year’s wage for a day laborer (see Matt. 20:4, 10). According to Mark 6:37, two hundred denarii would have been sufficient to provide a meal for five thousand people.
This woman’s act of extraordinary adoration is sandwiched between extraordinary malice and betrayal. We have already noted the machinations of the temple hierarchy, “looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him” (14:1). Immediately after the anointing, we learn of Judas’s duplicity as he offers to betray Jesus to the chief priests: “So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over” (14:11). Traps have been set for Jesus, whose doom is sealed.
This woman’s devotion stands in stark contrast to Judas’s disloyalty. Except for a kiss from Judas in Gethsemane, Jesus receives no other expression of love from anyone else during his Passion. Judas is looking for the appropriate opportunity (eukairos, 14:11) to betray Jesus, and his treachery will never be forgotten.7 He is willing to sacrifice Jesus to obtain material rewards for himself. The woman, on the other hand, seizes an opportunity to show love to Jesus and sacrifices her precious gift for him. Her act will never be forgotten either.
What is going on in this woman’s mind as she pours out the precious contents of the jar on Jesus’ head? Anointing was common at feasts in the ancient world.8 Is she extending to him customary courtesy with uncustomary extravagance? Or does she think she is anointing a Messiah (the anointed one) with the oil of crowning to set him apart for his office? In the Old Testament, kings were anointed in private, and it sometimes signaled a revolt (see 1 Sam. 10:1; 16:12–13; 1 Kings 1:38–39, 45; 2 Kings 9:1–13; 11:12). Maybe she hopes it is time for God to intervene in the affairs of Israel with this king. If this is her intention, how ironic the situation is. A woman, not a priest or an authorized prophet, anoints Jesus in the home of a leper.
In any case, Jesus must gently correct the woman and declare that her action prepares him for burial. He is not a king who will ascend a temporal throne and crush his enemies by temporal means. She anoints a king who is going to die, and he is the true Anointed One of God precisely because he is going to die. Some contend that this woman is the only follower of Jesus who understands the implications of his teaching. She knows that he is destined to die and seizes this last opportunity to express her love.
We may not know what this woman was thinking, but Mark does tell us exactly what is going on in the minds of the bystanders who witness this scene. They complain about the waste of something so expensive. “They rebuked her harshly” translates embrimaomai (14:5), a verb that means to snort or roar and is used, for example, of horses. Caring for the poor was central in Judaism, and it was customary to remember the poor on holy days (Neh. 8:12; Est. 9:22). The complainers, as pious Jews, naturally think that giving something so valuable to care for the poor would be far better than pouring it down the drain; moreover, it would earn one a reward from God (Prov. 19:17; see Luke 14:14).
But Jesus cherishes this woman’s devotion and defends her as having done “a beautiful thing” (lit., a “good work”). Daube has suggested that the phrase “good work” has a technical sense here, referring to what the later rabbis listed as good works: almsgiving, putting up strangers, visiting the sick, and burying the dead.9 In rabbinic logic, almsgiving was considered to be less praiseworthy than burying the dead because the former was done to the living while the latter was extended to the dead.10 Almsgiving could be done any time; preparing a body for burial had to be done when the need arose. Therefore, one can conclude that what this woman did was better than almsgiving because it was done to one who was as good as dead.
After Jesus’ death, where are these complaining followers when he needs to be buried? Unlike the disciples of John the Baptizer, who claimed his body after his execution and buried it (6:29), Jesus’ disciples are missing in action. According to Mark, Jesus is hurriedly buried by a stranger in a borrowed tomb, with no mention of any anointing of the corpse. This anointing before his death will have to suffice. The later attempt by other women to anoint the body after Jesus’ burial (16:1) is not realized because he receives a greater anointing from God.
The anointing reveals that Jesus has prophetic knowledge both of his death and of his ultimate triumph. Good news pierces through the tragedy. Jesus announces that this woman’s devotion will be remembered wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world. People will understand more clearly what her act of pouring out precious perfume on Jesus’ head means when they recognize that he poured out his blood for the many (14:24). Jesus’ announcement also affirms that the gospel will be preached to all the nations (14:9; see 13:10). In other words, this story is not a tragedy; it is good news. Faithful and loving actions toward Jesus will not be forgotten; for that matter, neither will acts of foul play. Humans will scheme to deliver him up, but they do not know that God also delivers him up (14:21). They deliver him up to death; God will deliver him up from the grave.
Bridging Contexts
A SIMILAR ANOINTING scene is found in Luke 7:36–50, in the house of Simon the Pharisee, earlier in Jesus’ ministry. One must be careful not to import details from that scene into this anointing in the house of Simon the leper. Ancient custom suggests that Jesus would have been anointed more than once as a guest. The most dramatic instances were remembered and recorded. There is no indication that the woman in Mark 14:3–9 is a sinner plying her trade in the city and that her act of love is a sign of repentance. All attention is drawn away from her circumstances to focus on her extravagance, the bystanders’ disapproval, and Jesus’ interpretation of her action in terms of his death and vindication.
The woman’s extravagant devotion exhorts devotion and love for Christ. Her gesture displays the proper personal devotion of the disciple toward Jesus, and he comes to her defense. The text prompts us to ask: How much is too much devotion to Christ? A little oil, even expensive perfume, is fine; but to break open a whole jar seems too extravagant.
Comparing this incident with the widow and her two copper coins (12:41–44) may help clarify things. The NIV translates the beginning of verse 8: “She did what she could.” Literally, it reads, “What she had she did.” The parallels between the two women become clearer by translating it literally. The widow threw everything she had (lit., “all things whatsoever she has, the whole of her living,” 12:44) into the treasury. Now this woman pours out everything she has on Jesus. Both women stand in contrast with men. The widow is an antithesis to the teachers of the law, who plunder widows’ houses, and the prosperous, who give only from their abundance (12:39–44). The anonymous woman is the antithesis of the disciple who will betray his master for whatever money the priests will give him and those tightfisted bystanders who mouth pious clichés about giving to the poor but take no action.
Both women serve as examples of total commitment that holds nothing back. Their deeds do not bring them fame. Their names have been lost in the mists of time. We only “memorialize the anonymity of loving kindness.”11 The bystanders might have commended the widow who sacrificed her whole living had they witnessed her donation. It was just a pittance, although it was all she had. But they sneer at the misuse of something valuable: “Why this waste?” This reflects a crass utilitarian concern over the waste of something precious that can be turned into cash.
The disciples in Mark have been very adept at counting the cost of things. In 6:37, when Jesus tells them to feed the crowd, their mental cash registers ring up two hundred denarii worth of bread. Here they see three hundred denarii going down the drain and a royal opportunity to do a good work wasted. They do not understand, however, that if anything was a waste, it was the widow’s copper coins donated to the bulging coffers of a flourishing but spiritually destitute temple. The widow’s gift ultimately lined the pockets of the rich temple hierarchy. The woman who anoints Jesus sacrifices her wealth to do service to one who is poor.
Mark’s readers can understand the indignant question, “Why the waste?” (lit., “To what purpose this destruction?”), in a different sense. Something of great value was poured out in 14:3. Jesus ties this act to his upcoming death. In 14:24, in the words of institution, Jesus says that his blood is poured out for the many. It is of inestimable value; no price can be put on it. In other words, the woman’s pouring out of costly perfume foreshadows the costliness of the pouring out of Jesus’ blood. Why waste Jesus on a cross? The answer to this question is to be found in the very attitudes of the indignant grumblers, the treacherous leaders of the nation, and the traitorous false disciple. The world needs saving. The text resounds with the affirmation that neither the pure nard poured out for Jesus nor his blood poured for the many is a waste. It is all connected to the good news that will be preached to the whole world.
The story places an emphasis on love and adoration of Christ and may seem to downplay the significance of almsgiving. One can easily misinterpret Jesus’ statement, “The poor you will always have with you,” to mean that there is nothing that can be done about the poor. One rabbi interpreted Deuteronomy 15:11, “There will always be poor people in the land,” to mean what it says—always. Consequently, he concluded, “there is no difference between this world and the world of the Messiah except that there will be no bondage of foreign powers” (b. Ber. 34b).
In quoting from Deuteronomy, however, Jesus does not subscribe to a view that poverty is somehow divinely ordained to continue forever. Jesus was not implying that nothing could be done to eliminate poverty, even though calloused interpreters may misinterpret his words to justify their neglect of the poor. Jesus himself felt a deep concern for the poor and exploited (see 10:21). No Christian blessed with this world’s goods may tell others to accept their poverty as inevitable, as God’s will, or as their own fault (see James 2:15–16; 1 John 3:17). If the shoe were on the other foot, we would find it much harder to accept our condition as God’s will. The gospel calls Christians to help those in need; it also calls for unrestrained adoration of Christ.
The text underscores the need for total devotion to Jesus. But if we respond to Jesus properly, we will take care of the poor. Remember that this woman does not anoint just any individual; she anoints the Son of God, who demands total commitment. Had she done this for any other person it would have been wrong.
It is possible to read Jesus’ statement about the poor as an ironic rebuke. In the context of Deuteronomy 15:11, God commanded Israel about the sabbatic release of debts and said that if they obeyed, there would be no poor in the land:
However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. (Deut. 15:4–5)
God admonished the Israelites that if they hardened their hearts, their eyes became stingy, and greed and selfishness consumed them, there would indeed be poor among them. Jesus’ citation of Deuteronomy 15:11, then, is perhaps not a candid perception about the way things are and always will be but is a rebuke. If God’s people were obedient to God, there would be no poor. The presence of the poor is an indictment of all. It is not enough to talk about what can be done for the poor (by others). We need to take concrete action ourselves. But those willing to take such actions are those who are ready to make radical sacrifices for Jesus.
Three of Jesus’ statements confirm this interpretation. Jesus says, “You can help [the poor] any time you want” (14:7). Our generosity need not be confined to certain seasons of the year; it depends simply on our willingness. Those who will not wish to help people in need will not do much for Jesus either (see Matt. 25:31–46). If one translates Jesus’ response in 14:8 literally, “What she had she did,” one can infer that helping the poor does not depend on having an abundance. The woman gave all that was in her power to give. Those who will hold back on the poor will hold back on what they will offer to Jesus (10:21–22). Finally, Jesus connects her action to “wherever the gospel is preached” (14:9). What is the gospel if not good news for the poor (see Matt. 5:3, 11:5; Luke 4:17–19)?
Contemporary Significance
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 to ignore the threats from within. Those who hold the reins of power may honestly believe that what they are doing is in the best interests 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?
Caring for the Poor. This text also forces us to decide what is the proper focus of lavish giving to Christ. How do we best show our love for Jesus? Pope Nicholas V advised his successors on his deathbed in 1455 that people’s faith needed to be inspired and strengthened by “majestic buildings, imperishable memorials, and witnesses seemingly planted by the Hand of God.” Mee, who cites this quote, comments acidly: “God’s majesty being, of course, infinite, there was no end of inspiring to be done and no end of the money needed to do it.”12 Elaborate buildings built to the glory of God at sacrificial cost to members may not be appropriate gifts to God. We may be doing these things to feed our own pride. There are times that one should give this money to missions or to help the poor, or at least to open our doors to offer them meals.
Jesus says that what this woman did was good because she was anointing him for his burial. Since Jesus has died and risen again, such gifts should now be directed to the poor. We must remember Jesus’ words from another Gospel, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matt. 25:40). As we relate to the poor, we relate to our Savior. Giving statistics, however, suggest that many in the church do not wrestle with how to use material resources to show their devotion to Christ. According to the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, the total worldwide income of Christians recently was $10.1 trillion dollars, and gifts to Christian causes was $17 billion—less than 2 percent.
Judas’s Betrayal. Modern readers usually want to know more why Judas betrayed Jesus than why the woman was so generous. Mark offers no motive at all for the betrayal. Luke tells us that Satan entered Judas (Luke 22:3). According to Matthew, greed was the chief motive—Judas was the one who introduced the issue of money by asking, “What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?” (Matt. 26:15). In John’s Gospel, Judas is identified as a thief concerned about money (John 12:6) and as one in league with Satan (13:2).
But scholars have not been satisfied with these answers and propose others. Some have contended that Judas was a devoted disciple whose ardor for Jesus cooled for various reasons. The most popular one imagines that Judas was attracted by the objectives of the Zealots and became disillusioned as time went by. He could accept the harsh realities of discipleship since ousting the heathen empire of Rome required sacrifice. But he grew more uneasy when Jesus remained spinelessly inactive and implied he would make a tame surrender without putting up a fight. When Jesus purged the temple instead of the Gentiles and kept military spending down to two swords (Luke 22:38), that was the final straw. Judas had been ready to commit his life to holy war. Jesus turned out to be a charlatan, and Judas took revenge on him for causing his disappointment. Or perhaps he even contacted Jewish authorities in hopes that their action against him would force Jesus finally to set kingdom events in motion. If so, he may have fooled himself into thinking that he was helping God, not betraying Jesus. It is also possible that Judas was cowed by the certain reprisal of the temple power structure. He switched to what he believed was the winning side to save himself from any retaliation.
If one sticks only to the Gospel of Mark, Mark gives no clear motive for the betrayal. This lack of motive has significant implications. If Judas, one of the Twelve, could, without any discernible reason, become the one who betrayed his Master, then every disciple is potentially another Judas.13 Dostoevsky writes in The Idiot: “The causes of human actions are usually immeasurably more complex than are our subsequent explanations of them, and can rarely be distinctly discerned.”14 Attempts to find the reason or reasons to explain why Judas did what he did are diversions that prevent us from looking at our own potential betrayal. If we convince ourselves that Judas acted for this or that reason, we can also convince ourselves that we would not succumb to such perfidy. If no specific reason can be given except greed or Satan, then we all are susceptible. We too can betray Jesus for all the temptations in life that may snare us.