"WASTED PERFUME?

Sermon by Pastor John Hollis,

March 25, 2007

Text John 12:1-8

The scene is just six days before the Passover. The question had been raised by some as to whether or not Jesus would come to the feast. The chief priests had given orders that if any knew where Jesus was they were to report his whereabouts so they could seize him. Jesus was staying at the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. A supper had been made for him, and they were reclining at the table listening to him teach. It is evident that some of the disciples were also present on this occasion.

It was at this time that Mary took some perfume and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped them with her hair. Mary being in the presence of Jesus was led to do this out of her love and appreciation for Jesus. He had been their friend in many ways, one being the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Her reaction at the presence of Jesus was fully justified.

A reaction to what Mary had done came from Judas: "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii, and given to the poor people?" It is noted that he was not concerned for the poor; he wanted to have the money at his disposal so that he could use it for his own desires.

One simple lesson we learn from this is that Mary used what she had for the Lord. We can learn from this that we can use whatever we have - expensive or not - for the Lord. Most likely it was out of gratitude that Mary did this, but whatever her motive, she used what she had.

The question is: How do we use what we have for the Lord? Do we use it for our own benefit? Do we consider the cost before we give it? Do we give it to be seen by others? Are we using things to gain advantage over others?

Sometimes we come to realize that there are people who use other people to gain perishable things. The perfume Mary used was perishable. It would not last forever. She didn't use Jesus to keep her perfume from perishing, but using it as she did, it became imperishable. Jesus warned his disciples about laying up treasures - things - where they would perish. They rather should lay up treasures - their lives - where they would not perish. (See Matthew 6:19-21).

A biblical example of someone using people to gain that which was perishable was King David. We have the record of David using people to fulfill his own selfish interests. First, he took Bathsheba, Uriah's wife as his own. She became pregnant and David used Uriah to try to cover up his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba. He even sent his orders to have Uriah killed and used Uriah to deliver the orders. He used the army of his enemy to make sure Uriah was killed. He used people to gain things that would not last. (See 2 Samuel chapters 11 & 12).

We also think of Herod the king at the birth of Jesus, how he used people for his own personal gain. When the magi came seeking the young Jesus, Herod sought their help in finding Jesus, under the pretense that he wanted to go worship him. When this didn't work out, in anger he used his servants to kill all the young male children. He was using people to gain that which would not last - his own power and prestige.

Joseph Fletcher several years ago, 1966 I believe, published his book entitled Situation Ethics. The book was subtitled The New Morality. His thesis was that if it feels good, and is the loving thing to do, then it is good. The situation determines what is good and what is bad. If it is the loving thing to do, then do it. Dr. Fletcher would argue that, in David's case, Bathsheba was lonely and her husband was away fighting the battles for the king, therefore the loving thing for David to do would be to comforter her. He also refers to the couple who lives together without the benefit of marriage who are very loving and the couple who are married but not very loving: which is the best in this situation?

In the late sixties or early seventies, Dr. Fletcher came to Ball State University to engage in debate with Bill Banowsky on the topic of "Situation Ethics." Dr. Banowsky, at that time, was the executive vice-president of Pepperdine College; he also served a few years as president of Oklahoma State University. I attended that debate and have the tapes of it.

Dr. Fletcher in the debate used what he called sacrificial adultery. This story unfolds during WWII:

"As the Russian armies drove westward to meet the Americans and British at the Elbe, a Soviet patrol picked up a Mrs. Bergmeier foraging food for her three children. Unable even to get word to the children, and without any clear reason for it, she was taken off to a prison camp in the Ukraine. Her husband had been captured in the Bulge and taken to a POW camp in Wales.

"When he was returned to Berlin, he spent weeks and weeks rounding up his children; two (Ilse, twelve, and Paul, ten) were found in a detention school run by the Russians, and the oldest, Hans, fifteen, was found hiding in a cellar near the Alexander Platz. Their mother's whereabouts remained a mystery, but they never stopped searching. She more than anything else was needed to reknit them as a family in that dire situation of hunger, chaos, and fear.

"Meanwhile, in the Ukraine, Mrs. Bergmeier learned through a sympathetic commandant that her husband and family were trying to keep together and find her.

But the rules allowed them to release her for only two reasons: (1) illness needing medical facilities beyond the camp's, in which case she would be sent to a Soviet hospital elsewhere, and (2) pregnancy, in which case she would be returned to Germany as a liability.

"She turned things over in her mind and finally asked a friendly Volga German camp guard to impregnate her, which he did. Her condition being medically verified, she was sent back to Berlin and to her family. They welcomed her with open arms, even when she told them how she had managed it. When the child was born, they loved him more than all the rest, on the view that little Dietrich had done more for them than anybody." (Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics p. 164.)

Dr. Fletcher saw this as a situation where the guard and Mrs. Bergmeier acted in a loving manner to secure her release to become united with her family and where the child was accepted and loved. Dr. Banowsky answered this by pointing out that Mrs. Bergmeier had not acted in a loving manner because she had used the guard to gain her freedom. Regardless of the outcome, the guard had been used for a selfish reason.

Just as there are people who use people to gain perishable things, there are people who use perishable things for eternal gain. We see that in what Mary did when she anointed the feet of Jesus with the costly perfume.

What Mary did she did out of love. Paul emphasizes in First Corinthians 13 the fact that love is always kind. It was out of the kindness of Mary's heart that she was willing to sacrifice costly ointment to prepare, as Jesus said, his body for burial. She used this perishable thing so she could know eternal gain.

This action of Mary was her worship. We call to mind the time and occasion when Jesus came to Jacob's well in Samaria and began a conversation with a woman who had come to the well to get water. We find this story in John 4:20-24. Out of curiosity, the woman said to Jesus, "'Our fathers worshiped in this mountain; and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.' Jesus said to her, 'Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. . . . But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshippers. God is spirit; and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.'" Worship, in reality, is not what we do but what we are.

Children of God are priests. Peter tells us that we are a "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9). John says that God has made us to be "kingdom and priests" (Revelation 1:6). As priests we are to make offerings go God. This is the function of a priest. Do you know what your offering is? Do you know how to make that offering? If our worship is done through our priestly offerings, surely we must know what our offerings are.

Paul helps us to understand what our offerings consist of when he says, "I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship." The offerings we make to God are not dead offerings; they are living offerings. It is in bodies that are dead to sin but alive to God that we make living and holy sacrifices. These offerings are our "spiritual service of worship." Paul continues: "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:1-2). Paul does not deal with reformation but transformation. There is a difference in reformation and transformation. Worship is that which comes out of transformed lives.

Part of the transformation of our lives has to do with the denying of self. Jesus stressed this fact to his disciples. To be true followers, they would have to deny self. This doesn't simply mean that we deny ourselves some things; it means that we deny self. Therefore, we worship with our lives; what we live and how we live gives praise and glory to God.

When I think about this, I think of how the Israelites under the covenant given at Mt. Sinai were forbidden to bring any marred animal to the alter as an offering. The animal had to be perfect as perfect could be determined by the one making the offering. I then look at myself and realize how many times I have brought some pretty ugly and marred things to offer them to God. We all, perhaps, are guilty of doing this. But, God has never sent me away without blessings, when I have brought marred gifts to him. He always tells me that what I have done has not come between me and his love for me and that I am forgiven and can do better the next time. There may be a Judas there to criticize me for what I have done, but God says, as Jesus said to Judas, "Let him alone."

What Mary did in anointing the feet of Jesus did not require her to deny any ethical standard. Even though Judas thought she had wasted the perfume, she had not done so. When Judas complained, Jesus met his complaint with the assurance that what Mary had done was appropriate.

Just as the aroma of the perfume that Mary used spread throughout the house, so our worship spreads to those with whom we come in contact. This is what Jesus meant when he said we do not hide our light under a cover but let it shine throughout the house; we are to let our light shine so that others may be attracted to that light.

From this story we learn that we are to use what we have to secure eternal blessings; and as we use these blessings we worship God, and the aroma of our worship spreads to all those around us.

CLICK HERE TO GO BACK TO THE START OF THE MAIN PAGE OR use the "Back button" on your browser to get back to where you left the main page.