Before
\nwe can examine this story of a woman anointing Jesus’s head, we have
\nto separate out what the story is from what it isn’t. \u00a0Much like the
\nChristmas stories of Luke and Matthew being subconsciously melded
\n(FYI: Luke has shepherds, Matthew has magi, no one has both!), the
\nmultiple versions of this story have been conflated into a rather
\nconfusing whole. \u00a0Each gospel tells of Jesus, at a meal, interrupted
\nby a woman giving him an extravagant gift. \u00a0Each gospel indicates
\nthat someone(s) is horrified by it, and leads to Jesus responding,
\n\u201cThe poor you will always have with you\u201d and informing us that
\nher story has now become an intricate part of his story.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Matthew
\nand Mark tell the same story, so there are three stories get
\nconflated. \u00a0Here are the relevant pieces: \u00a0in LUKE, and only in Luke,
\nthe woman is named as a sinner; in JOHN, and only in John, the woman
\nis Mary (sister of Martha and Lazarus); in Luke and John Jesus’ feet
\nare anointed whereas in Matthew and Mark his head is anointed; the
\nwhole wiping his feet with hair and tears thing is unique to Luke;
\nthe objector is Judas in John while it is the pharisees in Luke, some
\npeople in Mark, and the disciples in Matthew; and in Luke an extra
\nparable is thrown in as part of Jesus’ counter objection.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
As <\/p>\n Which <\/p>\n In <\/p>\n Now, <\/p>\n As \n<\/p>\n They \n<\/p>\n \nThey suggest that the vial The \n<\/p>\n \nIt is a profound gift. \u00a0Selling \n<\/p>\n The <\/p>\n Now, \n<\/p>\n \nI’ve \n<\/p>\n \nTo \n<\/p>\n \nI \n<\/p>\n \nShe 1<\/a>Robert 2<\/a>Funk 3<\/a>The 4<\/a>The 5<\/a>Pheme 6<\/a>Perkins, 7<\/a>The 8<\/a>Funk 9<\/a>Perkins, <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Rev. Sara E. Baron<\/p>\n First United Methodist Church of Schenectady<\/p>\n 603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305<\/p>\n Pronouns: she\/her\/hers<\/p>\n http:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nthe Jesus Seminar puts it, \u201cIn all probability, the story of a
\nwoman intruder anointing Jesus during a symposium (dinner or males)
\ntook various forms as it was related in the oral tradition,\u201d1<\/sup><\/a>
\nand \u201cThe Fellows of the Jesus Seminar were of the opinion that the
\noriginal form of the story is beyond recovery.\u201d2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n
\nis to say, there are three stories based on something that might have
\nhappened, which are each told to make their own points. \u00a0Today we’re
\nlooking at Mark’s story, and we’re going to derive meaning from
\nMark’s story. \u00a0One of the great benefits of having various versions
\nof a story is that we can assume they’ve each developed to offer us
\ndifferent \u2013 and necessary \u2013 points of view and lessons.<\/p>\n
\nMark, Jesus’ head is anointed. \u00a0According to The Jewish Annotated New
\nTestament, \u201cJesus is anointed; the
\naction could be either that of anointing a king or of preparing a
\nbody for burial. \u00a0Mark’s principle of irony would suggest both.\u201d3<\/sup><\/a>
\n The story comes 2 days before Passover in Mark, giving an easy
\nconnection to the need to anoint his body before his burial
\n(especially since it wouldn’t be anointed after his burial).
\nHowever, that also means that it comes after the Palm Sunday parade
\nin which Jesus’ actions claim the kingship of Israel. \u00a0Thus it fits
\nwell as an affirmation of his role as Messiah, a symbolism very
\nimportant to the early Christians who would have passed this story
\nalong. \u00a0I agree with the Jewish Annotated New Testament, I think the
\nimplication is very intentionally both and: kingship and burial.<\/p>\n
\nthis unnamed subversive woman broke into an all male dinner party,
\none to which she was inherently not welcome. \u00a0She broke in to offer
\nan extravagant and intimate gift to Jesus. \u00a0The alabaster jar of a
\nvery costly ointment of nard was likely imported from the Himalayas,4<\/sup><\/a>
\nand was more commonly used a few drops at a time. \u00a0I’m guessing, sort
\nof like a new car, that once the jar was opened the value decreased
\nsignificantly. \u00a0This unnamed woman opened the jar and poured it ALL
\nonto Jesus’ head. \u00a0Mark says that this is a gesture made with
\nfragrant ointment worth about $15,000.<\/p>\n
\nPheme Perkins puts it in the New Interpreter’s Bible<\/i>,
\n\u201cThe
\nexpansive gesture, breaking and pouring out the entire vial of
\nexpensive ointment rather than using a few drops, forms a foil to the
\ncheapness of Jesus’ life in the eyes of those who seek to destroy
\nhim.\u201d5<\/sup><\/a>
\n SNAP. Wow. This unnamed woman is presented as understanding Jesus’
\nministry, passion, purpose, and value. \u00a0In particular, she’s
\npresented as understanding what the disciples do not. \u00a0Perkins says,
\n\u201cThe
\nnameless woman’s gestures shows that Jesus’ followers still do not
\ngrasp the necessity of his passion.\u201d6<\/sup><\/a>
\n (The passion in this case being the more formal definition of his
\nsuffering and death.) She stands in contrast to the men. \u00a0Her action
\nindicates a profound understanding of what is happening, while they
\nremain in denial. \u00a0Their RESPONSES to her action indicate exactly how
\ndeep that denial runs.<\/p>\n
\nrespond with objections, suggesting that her action was an
\ninappropriate use of resources. \u00a0I don’t believe them. \u00a0I think they
\nwere jealous of her wisdom, or infuriated at \u00a0her audacity in
\nbreaking into their dinner, or ashamed they hadn’t thought to respond
\nwith such vulnerability, or just annoyed with the drama, or maybe all
\nof it. \u00a0I think they were displeased with this woman, and her
\npresence at their dinner, and her grand gesture and they found some
\njustification from their displeasure and projected it. \u00a0I think this
\nbecause I’ve been human for a while now, and I know that’s how I
\nwork, and my reading suggests I’m not alone! \u00a0We feel things, and
\nthen we justify them. \u00a0The disciples with Jesus that night did it.
\nThey felt annoyed, jealous, ashamed, or something uncomfortable and
\nthey justified it by condemning this woman’s profound and generous
\ngesture and proclaiming that she was acting unrighteously.<\/p>\n
\nshould have been sold and the money given to the poor. \u00a0This is how
\nwe know they really didn’t get it. \u00a0Jesus has been teaching them
\nabout kin-dom values for quite a while, but they still stand in the
\nnormal values of the world. \u00a0They see the expensive ointment and
\nassign to it a monetary value. \u00a0The woman looked at resource she had,
\nand used it for the best possible use. \u00a0Here’s the thing, at some
\npoint, if it is not to be wasted, an expensive container of perfumed
\nointment will be used, right? \u00a0I mean, it is possible that it could
\nbe bought and sold for years or decades on end, and I suspect it
\nwould eventually even lose value in aging (who knows, I could be
\nwrong), but in the end the purpose of it is to be USED. So, if it was
\ngoing to be used someday, what better day and what better person than
\nJesus?<\/p>\n
\nunnamed woman uses what she has to acknowledge his importance
\n(anointing of kings), to respond to his faithfulness (which would get
\nhim killed), and to prepare him for burial (a gift he received only
\nfrom her). \u00a0By using it on Jesus, she implies that there is no higher
\npurpose for this gift than to anoint Jesus. \u00a0By using on Jesus, she
\nimplies that she understands that the time of his death was
\nimpending, and she wanted to ease his terrible journey.<\/p>\n
\nthe ointment so that someone else had it and could use it some other
\nday for some other person, even to give the proceeds to the poor,
\nwould have valued Jesus less.<\/p>\n
\ndisciples were still in denial about the imminent death of Jesus, I
\nthink that’s the core of why they responded so poorly to her action.
\nThey didn’t want it to be true. \u00a0However, this woman \u2013 whoever she
\nwas \u2013 was willing to face reality. \u00a0When Jesus speaks of her, and
\nsays her action will be told, there is another irony. \u00a0Her action is
\ntold, but her name is not. \u00a0As The
\nJewish Annotated Bible<\/i>
\nputs it, \u201cThe
\nanointing will be told in remembrance of her<\/i>,
\nbut her name is not given. \u00a0Perhaps the omission of her name is
\nironic: the unnamed ‘everywoman’ understands him, while the named
\ndisciples, the authority figures of old (from the author’s point of
\nview), do not.\u201d7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n
\nthe named objection
\nto her action is in the care of the poor, and commentators believe
\nthat Jesus’ answer was a reference to Deuteronomy 15:118<\/sup><\/a>,
\na portion of the text we read this morning about the Sabbatical year
\nwhich was aimed to prevent generational cycles of poverty. \u00a0It says,
\n\u201cSince
\nthere will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore
\ncommand you, \u2018Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your
\nland.\u2019\u201d \u00a0Perkins takes this a bit further, saying, \u201cJesus
\npoints out that the Law (Deut 15:11) makes everyone responsible for
\nhelping the poor. If the poor are in desperate need, then this
\nwoman’s failure to donate the cost of the ointment is neither the
\ncause nor the cure.\u201d9<\/sup><\/a>
\n I would agree. \u00a0The whole of society was aimed at enriching the
\nalready wealthy and powerful on the backs of the poor and powerless.
\nOne charitable action would not have transformed that system. \u00a0On the
\nother hand, she guided Jesus on his way to death, and his death and
\nresurrection have been significant in transforming society (even if
\nthe process is still ongoing).<\/p>\n
\nalways struggled with that one line in this story, about the poor
\nalways being with us. \u00a0It has felt like a contrast to the vision of
\nthe kindom, and the values of the Sermon on the Mount. \u00a0It has felt
\nlike giving up on the world as it should be. \u00a0However, the referenced
\nverse, in context, sounds much different. \u00a0Instead of passively
\naccepting poverty as a part of the economy of the world, the
\nDeuteronomy passage aims to minimize extreme poverty, AND AT THE SAME
\nTIME admits that no system will be perfect. \u00a0Thus it calls for
\ncompassion and generosity as well. \u00a0The whole of the Torah seeks to
\ncreate a just society, in particular by giving each family access to
\nland the freedom to benefit from its wealth. \u00a0However, it knows that
\nwidows, orphans, and foreigners will not benefit like everyone else,
\nand so it finds ways to care for them too. \u00a0In this context, it
\nsounds more like Jesus saying, \u201clife will never be totally fair,
\nand some people will always be on the bottom, but create a fair
\nsystem anyway and take care of those who struggle in that system
\ntoo.\u201d \u00a0Its a bit different than the verse I’ve tried to make sense
\nof for all these years.<\/p>\n
\nreturn to this profound, subversive, audacious, and compassionate
\nwoman, I wonder what it would be like to follow in her footsteps.
\nShe listened well, and maybe not even to Jesus. \u00a0We don’t know that
\nthey’d met. \u00a0It may simply be that she knew the ways of the world and
\ncould read the signs of the days and could tell what was coming. \u00a0But
\nshe listened, even to the unpleasantness, and she found a way to
\nrespond.<\/p>\n
\nthink some of us are more like this woman than we are like other
\nBiblical characters. \u00a0The most likely explanation for her having a
\nvery expensive container of perfumed ointment is that she was
\nwealthy. \u00a0Like many generous donors around here, she choose to use
\nsome of what she had because it was exactly what was needed at that
\nmoment. \u00a0Unlike in his response to the \u201cwealthy young man,\u201d Jesus
\ndoesn’t ask for all that she had, he simply accepts the gift that she
\ngives. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\nuses what she has for the kindom of God, and the vision of Jesus.
\nIts value in her eyes is its usefulness to Jesus, not the resale
\nvalue! \u00a0What a wonderful way to think of our resources \u2013 both the
\nphysical ones and time, energy, passion, and labor we have to give.
\nWhatever the market value of them may be, the most important
\nusefulness of them is in loving God and loving our neighbors.
\nFiguring that out may not be simple, linear, or obvious, but will
\nalways be wonderful. \u00a0May we figure it out! Amen<\/p>\n
\n\tW. Funk, Roy W Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar The Five Gospels:
\n\tThe Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus <\/i>(HarperOneUSA,
\n\t1993), 115.<\/p>\n
\n\tet al, \u00a0116.<\/p>\n
\n\tJewish Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard Version Bible
\n\tTranslation<\/i>,
\n\tedited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford: Oxford
\n\tUniversity Press, 2011), 88.<\/p>\n
\n\tJewish Annotated New Testament, <\/i>88.<\/p>\n
\n\tPerkins \u201cMark\u201d in The New Interpreter’s Bible Vol. 8
\n\t<\/i>(Nashville: Abingdon Press,
\n\t1995), 698.<\/p>\n
\n\t698.<\/p>\n
\n\tJewish Annotated New Testament, <\/i>88-89.<\/p>\n
\n\tet al, 116.<\/p>\n
\n\t699.<\/p>\n
https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FUMCSchenectady<\/a><\/p>\n