Does John 12:5 suggest a conflict between charity and worship? I. Text of John 12:5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” II. Immediate Historical Setting The words are spoken in Bethany, likely on the Saturday evening before the triumphal entry (≈ Nisan 8, AD 33). Mary of Bethany pours about a Roman pound (≈ 0.5 liters) of imported nard on Jesus’ feet (John 12:3). Judas Iscariot voices the objection in v. 5 while secretly pilfering the common purse (v. 6). The house is that of Simon the leper (Matthew 26:6), placing the scene on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives—verified by first-century tomb inscriptions and ossuaries unearthed in modern-day al-Eizariya, the Arabic name that preserves “Lazarus’ Place.” III. Lexical and Economic Background • “Denarius” (δηνάριον) equaled a day laborer’s wage (Matthew 20:2). Three hundred denarii therefore approximate a full year’s salary after Sabbaths and festivals, an extravagant sum corroborated by papyri pay-records from Alexandria (POxy 42.3021). • “Nard” (νάρδος πιστικῆς) is spikenard from the Himalayan plant Nardostachys jatamansi. Roman author Pliny (Nat. Hist. 12.26) lists it among the costliest fragrances, matching the Gospel valuation. IV. Comparative Gospel Accounts Matthew 26:8-13 and Mark 14:4-9 mention “some” disciples protesting, indicating Judas’ remark gained brief traction. In all three accounts Jesus highlights the permanence of His coming burial and the ongoing duty to the poor: “You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have Me” (John 12:8; cf. Deuteronomy 15:11 LXX). V. Judas’ Motive and Narrative Function John explicitly ascribes the protest to greed, not altruism (12:6). By exposing Judas’ theft, the evangelist clarifies that the supposed tension between generosity and devotion is contrived. The verse is therefore a rhetorical foil; it does not record a genuine ethical dilemma but a hypocrite’s pretext. VI. Worship and Charity in the Broader Canon Scripture presents worship of God as first-order duty (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37-38), and care for neighbor—including the poor—as its necessary corollary (Leviticus 19:18; James 2:15-17). Acts 2:45 and 4:34-35 describe post-resurrection believers selling property for the needy, demonstrating that adoration of Christ fosters, rather than hinders, benevolence. VII. Old Testament Precedent The dedication-versus-benevolence question echoes 2 Samuel 24:24, where David refuses to offer to Yahweh “that which costs me nothing.” Costly offerings were an accepted expression of covenant loyalty (Exodus 35:22-29). Mary’s gift reenacts such wholehearted devotion on the eve of the once-for-all Passover Lamb (John 1:29; 19:36). VIII. Jesus’ Consistent Teaching on Caring for the Poor Jesus commands almsgiving in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:2-4), instructs the rich ruler to give to the poor (Luke 18:22), and commends Zacchaeus’ fourfold restitution (Luke 19:8-9). His defense of Mary, therefore, must be interpreted as temporary prioritization in light of His impending crucifixion, not a demotion of charitable duty. IX. Harmonizing Principle: Hierarchy, Not Conflict Biblical ethics employ ordered loves (ordo amoris). Love of God with heart, soul, mind, and strength precedes and empowers love of neighbor (Mark 12:30-31). When finite resources appear to force a choice, honor to God—especially in unique historical moments—takes precedence without abolishing later obligations to the poor. Jesus’ statement “you can do good to them whenever you wish” (Mark 14:7) underscores continuing responsibility. X. Manuscript and Historical Corroboration John 12 appears intact in Papyrus 66 (c. AD 175) and Papyrus 75 (c. AD 200), both housed at the Bodmer Library, confirming textual stability. No extant variant in v. 5 alters the wording that raises the charity question. Archaeological recovery of first-century alabaster ointment flasks in the Jerusalem necropolis (e.g., Tomb of the Shroud, Akeldama) affirms the plausibility of the event’s material culture. XI. Early Church Interpretation • Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.18.6) cites the anointing to illustrate Christ’s acceptance of wholehearted devotion. • Origen (Commentary on Matthew 26) distinguishes between “present necessity” and “perpetual duty,” aligning with our hierarchical reading. Neither father perceives an ethical clash; both treat the passage as an exemplar of proper priorities. XII. Philosophical and Behavioral Implications Behavioral economics notes that moral licensing can mask self-interest beneath prosocial rhetoric. Judas’ protest exemplifies this phenomenon two millennia before it was named, confirming Scripture’s psychological acuity. True worship reorients the heart, producing authentic generosity (2 Corinthians 8:5). XIII. Practical Application for the Church 1. Honor Christ supremely through corporate and private worship—including costly expressions of time, talent, and treasure. 2. Maintain sustained, organized care for the poor (Galatians 2:10), resisting the false dichotomy Judas proposes. 3. Discern motives: questions about resource allocation must be asked in a spirit of stewardship, not concealed self-interest. XIV. Conclusion John 12:5 records a hypocrite’s pretext, not an inspired tension between charity and worship. Scripture consistently unites love for God with love for neighbor, giving the former logical and motivational priority. The passage teaches that lavish, Christ-centered worship rightly ordered will overflow into, not compete with, care for the poor. |
    |