Both gospels said the indignation was owing to their assertion that the ointment could have been sold, even though as has been previously stated there is discrepancy as to the exact cost of it. Both gospels assert that the proceeds of such a sale could be given to the poor. Mark in particular adds that the indignant people murmured at the woman. Both accounts state that Jesus came to the woman’s defense, insisting that her actions were good, and that she was preparing him for his burial. He also reminds her critics that the poor are around all the time, but he was not going to live long among them. And he prophesied that the woman’s deed would make her memory endure (Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9).
The statement by Jesus that the woman was preparing him for burial is typical. The gift of myrrh by one of the wise men at Jesus’ birth is of similar strain. Mary Magdalene also came to the tomb with ointments, which certain commentaries say was left over from what she poured over his feet earlier in Bethany, and which is justification that she was the woman that Mark, Matthew and Luke omitted to name, but which John did. And perhaps Jesus’ prophecy of ensuing notoriety for the woman underpins the presence of the story in all four gospels, in addition to the theories earlier floated in this paper.
A central strain of both Matthew and Luke’s account of the Bethany anointing makes reference to money and the poor. Both gospel accounts insist that the ointment could have been sold, and for a great price. This price was equivalent to the wages of laborers for an entire year. Think for example of the minimum wage for an entire year here in our land. This amount could come to about twenty thousand dollars, and this is a low estimate. Other estimates place the amount at twenty-five thousand dollars. Now, imagine that someone went ahead and bought a bottle of ointment for twenty-five thousand dollars and simply poured it on someone else. It would certainly be a scandalous affair.
But it was not just that the perfume was very costly. It was also the fact that there were poor people that might have benefitted from the money it could have been sold for. In our world today as well, it remains a classic sociological problem that side by side affluence and waste exist populations of indigent and deprived people. In a wealthy country like ours for example, there are still bread lines at charity homes; there are still homeless people roaming the streets, and there are still millions of people destitute and unemployed, or at least underemployed. A huge percentage of these people are dependent on welfare programs without which they could barely survive. According to the latest statistics from the Department of Commerce, nearly thirteen million of us are on welfare; about forty-eight million are on food stamps; and nearly six million are unemployed. These numbers are alarming, especially considering that ours is the wealthiest nation in the world. It forces one to imagine what the case would be in developing countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The statement by Jesus that the woman was preparing him for burial is typical. The gift of myrrh by one of the wise men at Jesus’ birth is of similar strain. Mary Magdalene also came to the tomb with ointments, which certain commentaries say was left over from what she poured over his feet earlier in Bethany, and which is justification that she was the woman that Mark, Matthew and Luke omitted to name, but which John did. And perhaps Jesus’ prophecy of ensuing notoriety for the woman underpins the presence of the story in all four gospels, in addition to the theories earlier floated in this paper.
A central strain of both Matthew and Luke’s account of the Bethany anointing makes reference to money and the poor. Both gospel accounts insist that the ointment could have been sold, and for a great price. This price was equivalent to the wages of laborers for an entire year. Think for example of the minimum wage for an entire year here in our land. This amount could come to about twenty thousand dollars, and this is a low estimate. Other estimates place the amount at twenty-five thousand dollars. Now, imagine that someone went ahead and bought a bottle of ointment for twenty-five thousand dollars and simply poured it on someone else. It would certainly be a scandalous affair.
But it was not just that the perfume was very costly. It was also the fact that there were poor people that might have benefitted from the money it could have been sold for. In our world today as well, it remains a classic sociological problem that side by side affluence and waste exist populations of indigent and deprived people. In a wealthy country like ours for example, there are still bread lines at charity homes; there are still homeless people roaming the streets, and there are still millions of people destitute and unemployed, or at least underemployed. A huge percentage of these people are dependent on welfare programs without which they could barely survive. According to the latest statistics from the Department of Commerce, nearly thirteen million of us are on welfare; about forty-eight million are on food stamps; and nearly six million are unemployed. These numbers are alarming, especially considering that ours is the wealthiest nation in the world. It forces one to imagine what the case would be in developing countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Before we explore this concern in further detail, let us examine Luke’s account of it, as contained in Luke 7:36-50. The Gospel of Luke’s account of the event records that a Pharisee invited Jesus to dinner, and the savior went and reclined at table in the Pharisee’s house. The account further details that a woman with a sinful reputation came with an alabaster jar of perfume, and poured its contents on Jesus’ feet – not head. This time around it was neither the disciples nor the guests at the house that complained, but only the Pharisee himself, Simon – not Simon the Leper neither, but only Simon. And the Pharisee’s concern in this case was not so much that the perfume was wasted, as it was that Jesus allowed an otherwise awful woman – a woman with a bad reputation – to touch him, a prophet.
So we observe that the concern shifts a bit from finance to propriety. This point is similarly noted in the fact that Luke’s account makes the woman’s behavior appear more sexually explicit than in Mark and Matthew, for here she weeps over, kisses, and caresses Jesus’ feet with her hair. Jesus notices that Simon is offended, and so proceeds to tell the Parable of the Two Debtors. It is a story wherein two people owe money to a creditor. One owes more than the other, and when the creditor forgives them both, the one who owed more to begin with is forced to love the creditor more. Having so told the parable, Jesus proceeds to show how Simon, the apparently better person – the one with fewer sins or debts – loved less in comparison to the woman, the apparently worse person, the one with greater sins or debts. For, Simon did not tend to Jesus as hospitably as the woman did: he did not kiss, or wash or anoint Jesus.
So we observe that the concern shifts a bit from finance to propriety. This point is similarly noted in the fact that Luke’s account makes the woman’s behavior appear more sexually explicit than in Mark and Matthew, for here she weeps over, kisses, and caresses Jesus’ feet with her hair. Jesus notices that Simon is offended, and so proceeds to tell the Parable of the Two Debtors. It is a story wherein two people owe money to a creditor. One owes more than the other, and when the creditor forgives them both, the one who owed more to begin with is forced to love the creditor more. Having so told the parable, Jesus proceeds to show how Simon, the apparently better person – the one with fewer sins or debts – loved less in comparison to the woman, the apparently worse person, the one with greater sins or debts. For, Simon did not tend to Jesus as hospitably as the woman did: he did not kiss, or wash or anoint Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment