Spring seems to
have come early to New York state. As I write this in the early morning the sun
is already shining through my window although it is still rather chilly.
Yesterday we took the pugs for a long walk in the mild weather. Winter has been
short this year. The grass is green. Tiny shoots can be seen at ground level .
. . the anticipation of what is to come.
Today’s
lectionary reading is full of anticipation. Mary anoints Jesus in anticipation
of his death. Once again the author of John has portrayed a woman in a strong,
prophetic role.
A few weeks ago
I wrote about Mary, the mother of Jesus, being used in a prophetic role. In
that story, of the wedding in Cana, Mary revealed to Jesus that it was time for
the public ministry to begin. It was a significant moment.
Here is another
significant moment. Another Mary. This time revealing that the journey to death
was starting. It wasn’t portrayed as a rash or careless moment. Jesus
recognized that it was a planned moment, it was a prophetic moment: “She bought
it so that she may keep it for the day of my burial.” Jesus knew, this was the
beginning of the journey to death.
So another women
playing a key, prophetic role in the story of Jesus. A women anointed Jesus for
his death. A women anointed. Let those words reverberate today . . . a women
anointed. This is a key phrase, a key verse, a key happening, a blow to male
domination in the patriarchal society of the day.
Yet, if the
story is unpacked the significance is even more startling. Not only did Mary
anoint but she understood what was about to happen. The disciples who had been
Jesus’ companions still did not understand. In the gospel of John this is represented
by Judas question, “should the nard not have been sold and given to the poor”.
In the gospel of Matthew, Judas is not singled out, the text comments that the
disciples were angry and said, “Why this waste?”
It is quite sad,
that what should have been an amazing and poignant moment was belittled by the
male disciples. I wonder if it would have read differently if it had been John
or Peter who had done the anointing. I wonder if a male name would have made
the action more acceptable to the disciples.
Read it again, note
the male bias in the text, Lazarus’ house, Martha served.
However, I want
to focus mainly how making John anoint Jesus changes the story. (Certainly
brings it in line with the Old Testament where male prophets anointed kings)
Try reading
the story this way . . .
Six days before
the Passover Jesus, came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised
from the dead. There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was
one of those at table with him. The disciple, John, took a pound of costly
perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet and wiped them with his own
hair.
So here are some
hypothetical questions to ponder.
How does the
insertion of John’s name change the story?
Would the other
disciples have still cried, “Why this waste?”
Or would they
have recognised it for what it was . . . a prophetic anointing signifying the
beginning of Jesus’ journey to death.
Maybe the
comment “Why this waste” should not be applied to the anointing oil, but
applied to the centuries of women who have been ignored and bypassed in their communities of faith.
Footnote:
Nard (or
muskroot) is an amber-coloured essential oil which is derived from a plant
(pictured above) found in the Himalayas in Nepal, China and India.
