Lectionary Reflection: Maundy Thursday, 2013

Happy Maundy Thursday.

Lectionary Readings for Maundy Thursday:

Exodus 12:1-4, (5-10), 11-14; Psalm 116:1-2, 12-19;
1 Corinthians 11:23-26; John 13:1-17, 31b-35

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 - Luke's account (or in the case of Maundy Thursday, John's account).

In addition, I think that Myers has some important words to share regarding the ending of Mark's Gospel that make sense to break into readings for today and Good Friday.

I'm going to expand the reading a bit to include the situation just before the Passover Meal. As a consequence, we will be reading and reflecting upon Mark 14:1-25: which Myers titles: "Intimacy and Betrayal: The Last Days of the Community" [see BtSM:358f.]

Blessings on your journeys this Holy Week,

Joel

Part 1 of this grouping: A Messianic "Anointing:" "My Body To Be Buried"

Chapter 14 starts with a Messianic Anointing while we are reminded that those in power still wish to murder Jesus. Myers starts by pointing out the interesting details and lack-there-of. On the one hand, we have the name of the "leper" ("Simon") and the value of the oil (three hundred denaria; a denarion was equivalent to a day's pay, so three year's day labors pay), while we are never told the woman's name (although what she has done will always be told in memory of her). Notice, too, that once again the community is breaking down/challenging the social boundaries and purity code (they are eating at Simon's house (who has a skin disease, therefore is "unclean"). Of course the meal is interrupted by the actions of an "implicitly bold" woman. Myers points out that this is a classic Markan "conflict episodes (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 ...

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].

There is an economic subtext here: 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].

Part 2 of this grouping: "Fugitive Jesus: Authorities Undercover, Community Underground"

     High Holy Days bring us back to the conspiracy narrative that began in 3:6, that Jesus alludes to in his three "portents" and that he reiterates in the "Jerusalem narrative (11:18; 12:12)." Just as in 3:6, the authorities are "seeking" to "seize" Jesus (14:2), but now they are willing to resort to "covert means."

This covert strategy is intelligible only if the community has gone underground, an implication suppressed by commentators, but confirmed by virtually every element in the ensuing narrative. There is no reason why the authorities would have needed "inside help" to achieve their goal, except to monitor the movements of the community. In 14:10, just such a collaborator is recruited. Judas is to help them arrest Jesus and take him away from the possibility of public protection or response, at the "right moment" ... - when the community can be caught unawares. Gethsemane in the dead of night, as we shall see, will meet all these requirements - an ironic contrast to the "moment" of vigilance enjoined by Jesus in the apocalyptic sermon.

Judas's switch of loyalties shoud come as no surprise to the reader; we were warned back in 3:19 about him. But Mark does not invoke a theory of "satanic inspiration" to explain it, as do Luke and John; the transaction is stated matter of factly in monetary terms. Perhaps now we understand why Jesus was so unimpressed by the economic argument in the anointing episode we have just looked at. At the point in the mission of the community where the deepest personal trust and loyalty are required, the woman's solidarity with Jesus and his way has no price, whereas Judas "sells out" for silver. The tragedy above all, repeated again and again, is that Judas was one of the twelve (three times: 14:10,20,43); it is from within the community that "betrayal" (paradidomi, seven times) comes [BtSM:360ff.].

Jesus' community prepares to celebrate the Passover meal in Jerusalem. Notice the ways in which Jesus gives pointers to who to trust (who is already working as part of an underground movement). "The man carry a pitcher of water (14:13f.) connotes a "signal," just conspicuous enough (carrying water pitchers was the work of women) in a crowded city to draw only the attention of those watching for it. This "runner" leads the disciples to a "safehouse," in which they find the attic room already prepared. There the community will celebrate the meal after the manner of the original Passover: eating "as those in flight" (Ex 12:11)" [BtSM:360-1]. 

One might well ask, why does Jesus, who has reputedated the Temple, participate in this central feast of the Temple cult? Myers points out that it is important to see how Jesus celebrates this meal (below).

Park 3 of this episode: A Messianic "Banquet": "My Blood To Be Spilled"

Jesus and all twelve disciples (including Judas) enter the safehouse under the cover of darkness. While there is no description of the preparation, we do find ourselves sitting in the midst of the conversation. The Supper narrative is divided into two parts, Myers argues, showing the "lack of, and reassertion of, solidarity between Jesus and his followers." Myers explains:

In the first part, the "undercover" and "underground" subplots converge with Jesus' revelation that he is aware of the infiltration. His announcement (14:18) emphasizes that seriousness of the breach by citing the lament of Psalm 41:9:

           Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted

           who ate of my bread has lifted his heel against me.

If the common meal represents the most intimate form of fellowship (underlined by the euphemism "the one dipping in the same dish," 14:20), then to participate as an "agent" represents the deepest violation.

"The community's faltering solidarity is indicated by the disciples' response to Jesus' charge. First they are dejected (lupeisthai, the response of the rich man as he turned away from Jesus!, 10:22), then self-incriminating (14:19). Jesus' concluding double pronouncement about the destiny of the Human One (14:21) is a statement of neither resignation nor predetermination, but simply a consequence for one's choices. For Jesus, the cost of fidelity to the scriptural tradition of biblical radicalism ("as it is written") is the official conspiracy against him. For Judas, under a lucrative contract to betray Jesus, the cost is truly staggering. "It would have been better not to have been born" (14:21b) recapitulates Jesus' earlier warning: "What profit is there in a return of the whole world if one forfeits one's soul? And at what price will one buy back one's soul?" (8:33f.).

"The meal episode moves from profound betrayal to profound intimacy in the second part, the "eucharistic" tradition. J. Jeremias's classic study of this tradition explains the more formal tone of 14:22-25:

When Mark's plain narrative style gives place to a solemn, stylized language which piles up participles and finite verbs; when words and constructions which Mark never uses elsewhere occur frequently - all this is to be explained quite simply by the fact that any account of the Last Supper had to revert at this point to the liturgical formula, the wording of which had long been fixed and everywhere established by its use in the cult {[The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. SCM,] 1966:97}.

However institutionalized this formula may have been, Mark fully integrated it into his own narrative symbolics.

Both Jesus' gestures and words are important. The double blessing is roughly parallel in form:

           took bread / blessed / gave / said

           took cup / gave thanks / gave / (they drank) / said

This act of blessing and sharing was not in itself extraordinary, being the normal symbolism of table fellowship at mealtime:

when at the daily meal the paterfamilias recites the blessing over the bread ... and breaks it and hands a piece to each member to eat, the meaning of the action is that each of the members is made a recipient of the blessing by this eating; the common "Amen" and the common eating of the brad of benediction unite the members into a table fellowship. The same is true of the "cup of blessing," which is the cup of wine over which grace has been spoken, when it is in circulation among the members: drinking from it mediates a hare in the blessing (Jeremias, 1966:232).

In the narrative world of Mark this breaking and blessing of bread is strongly analeptic, recalling the earlier feedings in the wilderness (6:41, 8:6). But here these is a conspicuous difference. The disciples are not commanded to "pass on" this bread to the crowds as before: this is a meal for them.

The cup, too, is for them. We remember that Jesus had promised a cup to his disciples (10:39), which he identified with a "baptism" (the "baptism" promised by John, 1:8). Mark will soon make it clear (14:36) that this "cup" refers to the witness of suffering at the hands of the powers. This "one cup" becomes the center of the community's new symbolic life. Baptism and eucharist both have the same meaning: solidarity with and participation in the way of the cross, embodied in Jesus. Mark says they all drank it (14:23) - ironic in that none of the disciples will share Jesus' suffering in story time. Yet as we have seen the story promises that they will share it in their own historical practice (13:9-13).

The extraordinary meaning to this meal comes out rather in Jesus' interpretation of it. Jewish readers would have expected in Jesus' words following his blessing some kind of traditional Passover homily:

The kernel of which was the interpretation of the special elements of the meal in terms of the events of the exodus from Egypt: the unleavened bread was usually explained as a symbol of the misery that was endured, the bitter herbs as representing the slavery, the fruit-puree which resembled clay as recalling the forced labor, the passover lamb as a remembrance of God's merciful "passing over" Israel. At the same time there were other interpretations, especially eschatologial interpretations, of these elements (Jeremias, 1966:219; see also 84ff.; 206f.).

But Jesus' homily is quite different. He boldly interprets the symbols in terms of himself and his vocation. The bread that sustained the hungry masses "on the way" (8:2f.) has now become Jesus' "body" - which body has just been "prepared" for death. The cup symbolizes a new "covenant" (diatheke, only here in Mark) to be ratified in the shedding of Jesus' blood (14:24).

"Intertextually, the allusions are to Isaiah 53:12 and the "blood of the covenant" in Exodus 24:8 (see Zec 9:11). Within the story we think of the "ransom" of the Human One (10:45). Both make the conclusion unavoidable that Mark is portraying Jesus as the"eschatological paschal lamb":

His death is the vicarious death of the suffering servant which atones for the sings of the "many," the people of the world, which ushers in the beginning of the final salvation and which effects the new covenant with God (Jeremias, 1966:231f.).

Belo complains that in this new metaphor the political narrative is being compromised here by "past paschal theological discourse" (1981:210). He has missed the fact that this is Mark's final assault upon the Jewish symbolic field.

"For suddenly we realize that Jesus is not after all participating in the temple-centered feat of Passover (note that Mark never mentions the eating of the lamb). Instead he is expropriating its symbolic discourse (the ritual meal) in order to narrate his new myth, that of the Human One who gives his life for the people. Moreover, he is delivering yet another blow to the purity system:

His blood is atonement blood which is "poured out for many" (14:24); it takes away uncleanness. The final irony is that death, the ultimate pollution, serves as the very source of purity for Jesus' followers (Neyrey, [J. "The Idea of Purity in Mark's Gospel" Semeia, 35,] 1986:115).

We will see this reversal of the symbolic field in Mark's account of Jesus' dead body at the end of the story ... .

This subversive purpose is confirmed by the amen saying of 14:25: Jesus turns the feast into a fast. He solemnly forswears the "fruit of the vine" (a common Jewish euphemism for wine) "until that day" ... when he would drink the "new" ... in the kingdom of God. This recalls the earlier saying on the new cloth/wine (2:21f.): the "day for fasting" that accompanies the departure of the "bridegroom" appears now to have come - and the bridegroom himself is inaugurating the fast. Jeremias argues that Jesus' vow stands within a tradition of Jewish dissent, which consisted of abstinence and intercession on behalf of those who are in error (he finds such a prayer in Gethsemane). He cites as evidence the fact that he primitive church fasted on Passover, in order to pray for the Jews; hence the command of the early catechism, the Didache: "Fast for those who persecute you" (Jeremias, 1966:218). Whether or not this hypothesis is correct, it indicates the protest nature of Jesus' vow. On the occasion of the great Jewish feast day remembering emancipation from Egypt, Jesus calls for abstinence. The struggle for liberation is not a past memory, but a task that ever binds us to the future.

I think Myers raises an important point here: "a task that binds us to the future" and just below "this 'eucharist' is not a memorial."

 It is important for Christian readers to recognize that in Mark this "eucharist" is not described as a "memorial"; it is not backward-looking for forward-looking. Through the symbolic action of table fellowship, Jesus invites the disciples/reader to solidarity with his impending arrest, torture, and execution. In this episode, Mark articulates his new symbolic center, and overturns the last stronghold of symbolic authority in the dominant order, the high holy feast of Passover. In place of the temple liturgy Jesus offers his "body" - that is, his messianic practice in life and death. It is this very "sanctuary/body" opposition that will shape Mark's narrative of Jesus' execution" (BtSM:361-40).