Lectionary Reflection: Lent 5 - 2013

The Lectionary Readings for the Fifth Sunday in Lent:

Isaiah 43:16-21; Psalm 126;Philippians 3:4b-14; John 12:1-8

Again, my reflection comes from Ched Myers' Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (20th Anniversary Edition) Orbis Books, 1988, 2008.

Again, I know that we are in the midst of Year B (which has Luke as the dominate Gospel text, with some readings from John), but I think that Myers' reading of Mark's Gospel might shed some light on - or at least conversation with - John's account (in the case of today's gospel reading).

This Sunday's reading is about Mary (of Mary and Martha and brother Lazarus) anointing Jesus' feet with costly perfume. All four gospels have similar passages. Today's blog post is a reflection upon Mark's account (Mark 14:3-11). May Myers comments provide insight when re-reading John's account.

Blessed Be as we enter these last two weeks of Lent.

Joel

Chapter 14 follows Jesus' Temple cleansing, and starts with the phrase "It was two days before the Passover meal." Jesus has been speaking about is inevitable death, but the disciples have yet to understand.

Myers has us note the details, both what is mentioned ("Simon," the value of the oil) and what remains unmentioned (the woman is not named, although "what she has been done will be told in remembrance of her" - although we don't know her name?). Jesus and the discipleship community are still pushing the boundaries, challenging the purity codes (see Mark 1:41f.) by gathering and eating in the house of a "leper." Yet, this meal is interrupted by the bold woman's actions, for which she is praised. Do we have eyes to see and ears to hear? Are we like the disciples who remain "blind" to what Jesus has been talking about?

This is a classic Markan "conflict episode (e.g. the paralytic in 2:1ff., the children in 10:13ff.) in which Jesus' attention shifts from subject to opponents back again to subject. This "anointing" resumes Mark's subversion of messianic ideology[, economic responsibility, and paternalism] ...

      Since the prophet in the Old Testament anointed the head of the Jewish king, the anointing of Jesus' head must have been understood immediately as the prophetic recognition of Jesus. ... [But] it was a woman who named Jesus by and through her prophetic sign-action. It was a politically dangerous story {Schussler Fiorenza, [Elizabeth. "The Phenomenon of Early Christian Apocalyptic: Some Reflections on Method."] 1985:xiv}.

      The story thus further strengthens the "feminist discourse" of Mark. It is not clear who it is that objects to the woman's act (14:4), but the "indignation" (aganaktountes) and Jesus' counter-rebuke ("Let her alone!," aphete, 14:6) recall the disciples' attempt to keep the children from Jesus (10:14). Here, as there, the action of the woman is taken as exemplary; this is yet anther example of the politically "least" (women) assuming the position of the "greatest" (prophetic anointment)." [BtSM:358-9].

     Economic subtext: apparently wealthy woman's actions (perfume is expensive) is objected too on the grounds of helping the poor. "In defending her, Jesus appears to be taking a contradictory position to the already established class bias of the narrative. Was not "giving to the poor" (didomi tois ptochois) Jesus' very command to the rich man (10:21), and was not the piety of the wealthy portrayed unfavorably in 12:42? It may be that here Jesus considers himself one of the poor - the guest of a leper, headed for death. In any case, he affirms that those raising the concern indeed have an ongoing responsibility toward the poor - though he carefully avoids endorsing their claim that alms giving sufficiently fulfills this obligation. His argument distinguishes between the structural issue and the personal gesture (14:6-9). He maintains that the legitimacy of the woman's "task" (ergon ergasato) lies in the fact that it was done to him (14:6). This recalls 2:19f.: just as the community was temporarily excused from fasting there, so can good gifts be reserved for the "bridegroom" here.

      But why should we consider the woman's action a paradigmatic discipleship story, given the absence of any "following" motif? The justification lies in the fact that this messianic anointing is preparation not for the inauguration of a triumphal reign, but burial (14:8). The woman, unlike the disciples, is not avoiding but rather "anticipating" (proelaben) Jesus' "preparation for death" (eis ton entaphiasmon). In this she has done "all she could," and demonstrated her ideological solidarity with the way of the cross. This is why she is eulogized in 14:9: because she understands the "gospel," it will hereafter be identified with her. I suspect that herein may lie the reason she remains an unnamed "heroine": she represents the female paradigm, which in Mark embodies both "service" ... and an ability to "endure" the cross .... Finally, her care for Jesus' body narratively prepares us for the emergence of this body as the new symbolic center of the community in the corresponding "messianic banquet" [BtSM:359].