Discussion

1. Mike,

   These are impressive observations of the text. I suggest they are made possible by first giving up on the fundamentalist hermeneutics of objective inspiration and (to some degree) inerrancy. By at least imagining that John brings his own personal spin to the storytelling, a better interpretation of the text is greatly enabled.

   That said, one possibility is that the writer means to suggest that Jesus’ later retort about the poor is not to be taken as an earnest response to a serious question of waste and allocation of funds, but rather a flippant response to what was, in hindsight, a disingenuous comment. That possibility would seriously impair the common conservative reference to this text as proof that social justice need not be the top priority for church (or individual) spending.

   This possibility, however, raises deep concerns about “red letter” proof-texting in general: if Jesus’ recorded words are sometimes sarcastic, flippant, and highly contextual, can evangelicals continue to in their egotistical assumption that all these words are spoken across time, in somber tone, to them?

   Posted at 4:14 pm on March 18th by Benjamin Ries.

2. Hi Mike!
   I like your line of reasoning in the last paragraph about what purpose the anointing could have served at the moment in time that it happened. Occasionally I have experienced feeling needy and vulnerable and someone has shown me an act of kindness that has touched me deeply. Jesus was a human being and I think he must have been feeling the loss of support turned to hostility to murderous intent among the leaders and also the turning of the people who had formerly ‘hung on his words’. He’s described as having compassion on the crowds over and over. The prospect of being handed over to Satan must have been horrifying as well. I think Jesus is basically saying here that he is needier than the physically poor at this moment. Mary had ministered to him by this act of passionate devotion and he had received it from her. Later, it would only be possible to minister to him by helping the poor.

   Posted at 11:04 pm on March 18th by Anne Purvis.

3. Ben: That was sort of where I was heading, but I didn’t want to get too far into it without thinking it over a bit more. On the one hand, it’s a fairly critical pillar of our faith (or… mine, anyway) that we believe the Bible to be the word of God. But on the other, we need to have a reasonable framework for dealing with editorializing on the part of its authors.

   Mom: That’s an interesting take that I don’t think I’d heard before. There’s a temptation to take the fact that Jesus was a man without human failings and extend it to mean he was a man without any human needs at all. But yeah, that interpretation fits in well in a Matthew 25 “least of these” kind of way.

   Posted at 12:18 pm on March 19th by Mike Purvis.

4. Thanks Mike, as always, for your thoughtful analysis and stimulating discussions.

   I agree with Ben that John is bringing his own spin to the storytelling, but I’m not persuaded that by saying this we must give up our belief in objective inspiration. At any rate, when we look at this passage as told in the various gospels, we definitely do see differences in choice of details that have been presented.

   Mark, who almost certainly wrote his gospel first, doesn’t name the woman nor her accusers, but vaguely tells us that “some of those present said indignantly to one another ‘Why this waste of perfume’ ?” (Mk 14:4) Some years later Matthew recorded the same incident in his gospel, wherein once again the woman is left unidentified, but this time he clarifies that it was “the disciples” who were indignant and who accused the woman of the foolish extravagance (Mt 26:8). Since Matthew was one of “the 12″ who were present on that occasion, perhaps it was his own humility that prompted him to say that all of “the disciples” were at least partly guilty of hard-heartedness on that day.

   I think it’s doubtful that the events of Luke 7:36-50 are telling the same story — that event sounds like quite a different occasion.

   Finally, we come to John’s rendition — written last of all — which names Mary of Bethany as the woman who anointed Jesus during holy week, and states that it was Judas who made (or perhaps, initiated) the accusations against her.

   And now, as to your concern that you are “mostly just annoyed at John for attacking Judas’ motives and thus preventing the debate from being more fleshed out in the text”. Basically I agree with Ben’s reply above, ie, that when John identifies Judas as the accuser and expressly tells us about his bad motives, John is making it clear to us that Jesus was not intending to make any timeless universal statements about extravagant devotion, nor about the relative value of offerings given to God vs offerings given to the poor. If all we had to look at was the accounts in Matthew or Mark, we might perhaps interpret “the disciples” as having a sincere concern for the poor and we might infer that Jesus is making a general critique that serving the poor should never be a priority for them. But John, on the other hand, is making it clear that Jesus’ rebuke was a specific response to a particular situation that happened in a unique and unrepeatable set of circumstances.

   But perhaps we are still feeling frustrated. Perhaps we feel that we are left dangling. You ask, why is Jesus or John “preventing the debate from being more fleshed out in the text”? A fair comment. Jesus could have made some definitive statements about whether it’s right or wrong for his followers to own property, or if so what they should do with it. He could have prevented the whole contention that would later arise in the 20th century about “evangelism” vs “social action” if he had simply given us some unambiguous teachings back then and there.

   In fact, there’s a whole lot of other future debates on other issues that could have been prevented by some timely dicta in the 1st century AD. I get frustrated too. Why did God give His people a book that is mostly stories and highly focussed teachings which are directed to specific historical circumstances? Wouldn’t it have been more useful if He had given us an encyclopaedic textbook which systematically addresses all important issues of doctrine & morals? Yet He chose not to give us a textbook and instead He gave us a historical account of His dealings with specific people in particular times and places, and we have to figure out what it means for us today to follow Jesus and be part of His covenant community.

   Here’s an article I found helpful which explores some of these issues:
   http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

   Posted at 1:14 pm on March 20th by Jim Purvis.

5. Dear Mike,

   Interesting note. I only have a few minutes to reply because there is a baby crying in the next room. Irony of ironies, that practical concerns leave me from speaking as much as I would like on the spiritual level, considering the topic!

   I would suggest that Jesus is setting a hierarchy here that we can follow in a very specific manner. It may seem better to give to the poor with all that money on the surface, but I disagree (and so does Jesus, which matters more!). What is our function in this world after all? Certainly, we are to “love our neighbors as ourselves,” but that comes secondly to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.” Therefore, I see no contradiction between this account and Jesus’ other teachings when you compare Scripture with Scripture. Mary is glorifying God with all she has. In fact, she has the phenomenal opportunity to give to Jesus in a physical way- to actually touch his feet! I long to show that kind of sorrow for my sin. I am not covering everything you said above, but knowing that our foremost goal is to glorify God and enjoy him forever makes everything else a means of doing so. Mary made a judgement call here, not on whether or not to help the poor but chose the best means of honoring her Saviour. And the great part is we know, again from other parts of Scripture, that Mary, Martha, and Lazarus all gave to the poor, needy, and wandering souls with all the rest that they possessed. Surely this is a symbol of salvation. We give our utomost and highest to HIM, and then continue to give everything else to those around us, in a model of the great gift that Christ has given for us. Judas had it WRONG! It’s not about some kind of legalistic or even well-meaning giving to the poor- it’s about glorifying God- making our entire universe centre around God- and then we give to the poor as a method of showing thankfulness and because we are commanded to by that great God who saved us. So, glorifying God by our confession of sin must come before we glorify God by following his commands.

   Maybe I am being too superficial here, since I wasn’t able to read carefully enough to catch all the hermaneutical (sp?) elements that you were addressing, but as usual, I always want to say something:-P! Can’t wait to see you in May and learn a few swing dancing tips!

   Posted at 10:49 am on April 14th by Evelyn Fawcett.

6. I have been thinking more about your post, and I found both Matthew Henry and John Calvin’s commentary on the passage to be helpful. I am not sure if I am right in my analysis above, after reading their comments, but they had things that sounded quite sound. I thought Calvin had some very interesting comments on why the thief part is mentioned that would be worth reading. Henry comments more on the action as a whole. Calvin says much, as usual:), but one thing he says is that John uses mentioning the thief to connect with Judas’ upcoming betrayal and his opportunity to regain the loss he sustained by Mary choosing to anoint Jesus instead. He says more, but I thought that was an interesting concept. Henry talks about anointing Christ as he has anointed us, pretty basic, but nicely stated.
   I hope what I wrote isn’t offensive. I am always offending people, and am trying to work on it, but God’s refining is a slow process:(.

   Posted at 12:20 pm on April 14th by Evelyn Fawcett.

7. Well Mike, you know my excuse for this coming completely out of left field…

   I’m curious why you said that the significance of washing feet was just because the disciples were going out on foot. I’ve always heard that given the historical mores surrounding footwashing that this was more signifying that the person washing the feet was serving completely and willingly, and willing to degrade themselves to do so.

   The other thing is that this is John, not one of the synoptic gospels. Wasn’t ‘John’ writing to show the results of debates. I’ve always had a bit of an image of it being a case of “well there’s no need for any more debate after we write this down, because we’ve debated it as much as possible”. I am, however, aware that I tend to be a little cynical…

   I’ll get back to you after I’ve had a chance to look the story up at some point. (I’m assuming you wouldn’t consider what my New American Bible translation to be very appropriate, hence the wait).

   Posted at 10:51 am on May 12th by Christine Steele.

Leave a Reply

Name

Mail (not published)

Website