Near the end of Jesus’s ministry, he came to the town of Bethany where his friend Lazarus had recently died. The dead man’s sister Mary said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died” (John 11:32).
A few months later, Jesus is back in Bethany for a dinner in his honor, with the risen Lazarus sitting next to him. Mary pours out an enormously expensive jar of perfume on Jesus’s feet. When Judas gets upset at the “waste,” Jesus explains that Mary did this to prepare Jesus for his burial (John 12:1-7; cf. Matt 12:6-13).
Putting things together, you see that (1) Mary knew Jesus had the power to prevent Lazarus from dying; (2) Mary knew that the religious leaders wanted to kill Jesus because he raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:45-57); (3) Mary knew that Jesus was going to die.
It seems reasonable to think that if Mary knew that Jesus could keep Lazarus from dying because of illness, she believed that Jesus could keep himself alive by avoiding Jerusalem. Mary knew that Jesus did not come to avoid death, but to endure it.
On the one hand, it should not be surprising that Mary understood a truth that Jesus repeated many times to his disciples (e.g., Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34). On the other hand, none of the apostles seemed to understand, judging from the way they responded to his arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Even after his resurrection, two of his disciples were distraught because they believed Jesus was a failure because he had been killed (Luke 24:17-18).
Mary not only understood, but she believed, pouring ointment upon Jesus that cost the equivalent of one year’s wages. Perhaps we haven’t given her enough credit.
Amen and amen! I cannot find anyone else in the narrative who acknowledged the reality that Jesus was moving toward His death. Mary’s insight is absolutely stunning, the more so against the backdrop of the inability (refusal?) of those closest to Jesus to accept that reality even though for the last six months of His mortal life He had foretold His death – and resurrection – explicitly and repeatedly (Mt 16:21; Lk 18:31-34). Now the incendiary proposal – could it be that Mary’s gender somehow advantaged her in coming to (submitting to?) that understanding? Could there be in that element of the narrative the suggestion that women – properly submissive but genuinely engaged and creatively pondering – have something truly meaningful to bring to the theological endeavor? Might this scene teach us that woman was made as a help perfectly suited to address the weakness of man in ways that extend beyond the kitchen? Just a thought. I don’t mean to hi-jack the discussion,Todd. But I have long been drawn up very short by the epiphany-like grasp that Mary alone has on this most dramatic situation.
Very interesting observation, Todd. Thanks for sharing it
Dr. Bookman – it is very likely that I’ve heard you teach this (and on more than one occasion). The blessing of a bad memory is the joy of discovery again and again! I think that Simeon (and probably Anna) understood about his death, but they’re not around during the time of his ministry. And John the Baptist must have understood, at least when he introduced the “Lamb of God,” though his later doubts suggest that he may have forgotten. But none of his immediate and selected apostles understood, despite his clear explanations. Whatever they believed before, the welcome into Jerusalem on Sunday may have led them to wrong conclusions.