Between indebtedness and charity is exchange. It is an exchange of that which is material for that which is spiritual. It is a realization that we need to place our material gifts in perspective; a reminder that there is a teleological underpinning to charity, especially the charity that is displayed in corporal works of mercy. We are not to be so involved in engaging in corporal works of mercy that we forget spiritual ones. Christian ministers are not government workers or social workers. A priest is not primarily a social worker or a community organizer. The primary duty of the priest is to pray. In the evangelistic call to serve the needy, which in any case is part of prayer and is efficacious in bringing people closer to Christ, the priest should recall that his charity is corollary to his first call to prayer. He cannot delve ever so deeply into the mission of charity and corporal works of mercy that he forgets Jesus. To put it in the words of a theologian, the priest is not supposed to be so wrapped up in the work of the Lord that he forgets the Lord of the work.
Between indebtedness and charity is also sacrifice. Christian ministers as “other Christs” participate in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, a sacrifice that God designed for the salvation of souls; a sacrifice initiated by an exchange of our humanity for the divinity of Christ, who in his great humility deigned to come and participate in humanity, even though he was God. This sacrifice is of the innocent savior assuming responsibility for the sins of the whole world and suffering the punishment meant for the world. It is a sacrifice that shows the mercy and fullness of God’s love for us. “Greater love has no one than this; that one lay down his life for his friends.” It is a sacrifice that removes all the guilt and sorrow that sin plunges humanity into; it is a sacrifice that we remain indebted for, whenever we realize how much it has done for us, and the fact that we are underserving of it and can never repay Jesus for making it. It is a sacrifice that is expressed in Catholic liturgy and celebration, one that we hold dear as Christians who share the rhetoric vision of salvation.
In conclusion, this paper has dealt with the event of the anointing of Jesus by a (sinful) woman, or Mary, in Bethany. This woman felt that she owed Jesus a debt of gratitude because she claimed in faith as reality that he had forgiven her many sins, even before he actually spoke the words of absolution. (Recall in this regard that faith has been described as “the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not yet experienced.”) She poured costly ointment on Jesus and drew criticism from those around who claimed she was being wasteful; but Jesus claimed she was doing good, and preparing him for burial; and that she would be well known because of her action. In the course of this paper, we have shown the literary similarities and differences in the different gospel accounts of the event; how for example Matthew and Mark tell the story in pretty much the same way, but Luke and John tell it a tad differently.
We have in this regard shown how Matthew and Mark state that the woman poured the costly ointment on the head of Jesus, whereas Luke and John state that she poured it on his feet. Luke in particular talks about the woman kissing and weeping over his feet, and with John mentions her drying Jesus’ feet with her hair. We have shown as well how John edited the story to include the names of Jesus’ friends, Lazarus, Mary and Martha. John it was that specifically named the woman as Mary, unlike in the three other gospels, where she is simply called woman, or sinful woman, as is the case in Luke’s Gospel.
We have shown as well that the fact that this event is recorded in all four gospels may be because it was considered important in the early church; was probably a feminist rhetoric powerful for the times and its qualitative message, or simply because of the prophecy of notoriety Jesus made concerning the (sinful) woman, or Mary. We further mentioned that Mark may have written his account of the event first, and Matthew may have copied him in all essential points pertaining thereto, and then Luke and John copied from either or both Mark and Matthew, and edited details in different ways. But the fact that all accounts are similar indicates a common source for all accounts thereof.
We also mentioned that a central motif in the event as recorded in all the gospels is one of money. Mark, Matthew and John treat this issue from the point of view of waste when viewed against the backdrop of need. In Mark and Matthew, individuals in the house of Simon the Leper complain bitterly that the costly ointment could have been sold and its proceeds given to the poor and the needy. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus is concerned that the woman shows greater love to him than Simon the Pharisee does, very likely because the sinful woman is more convicted of her sin and her indebtedness to God than Simon is. She as the greater sinner, the one with the greater debt to God, is drawn more to Jesus in her realization of his forgiveness of her great amount of sin than Simon is, because his indebtedness (sinfulness) is apparently less. It is in this regard that Luke mentions the Parable of the Two Debtors.
We used the Greek word, ὤφειλεν, as a signpost in this paper, and it hints at our universal indebtedness to God, especially because all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. Unlike the Pharisee in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, our realization that we have sinned and so owe God a significant debt should make us feel a sense of gratitude to him when through faith we realize that he has forgiven us, in other words has let go of the debt that we otherwise could not pay by ourselves. Unlike the nine healed lepers similarly, but like the one that returned, we should be moved to return an attitude of gratitude to God.
This attitude of gratitude in any case should not be limited to material gifts to the poor, but also to devotional acts, as expressed in spiritual works of mercy. These spiritual works of mercy may even be seen to be higher in value than the corporal works of mercy we show to the less fortunate. In other words, we have shown that between indebtedness and charity is exchange of our material possessions for spiritual capital. We similarly see that between indebtedness and charity is the concept of Christian sacrifice done in imitation of the savior, Jesus Christ.
Between indebtedness and charity is also sacrifice. Christian ministers as “other Christs” participate in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, a sacrifice that God designed for the salvation of souls; a sacrifice initiated by an exchange of our humanity for the divinity of Christ, who in his great humility deigned to come and participate in humanity, even though he was God. This sacrifice is of the innocent savior assuming responsibility for the sins of the whole world and suffering the punishment meant for the world. It is a sacrifice that shows the mercy and fullness of God’s love for us. “Greater love has no one than this; that one lay down his life for his friends.” It is a sacrifice that removes all the guilt and sorrow that sin plunges humanity into; it is a sacrifice that we remain indebted for, whenever we realize how much it has done for us, and the fact that we are underserving of it and can never repay Jesus for making it. It is a sacrifice that is expressed in Catholic liturgy and celebration, one that we hold dear as Christians who share the rhetoric vision of salvation.
In conclusion, this paper has dealt with the event of the anointing of Jesus by a (sinful) woman, or Mary, in Bethany. This woman felt that she owed Jesus a debt of gratitude because she claimed in faith as reality that he had forgiven her many sins, even before he actually spoke the words of absolution. (Recall in this regard that faith has been described as “the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not yet experienced.”) She poured costly ointment on Jesus and drew criticism from those around who claimed she was being wasteful; but Jesus claimed she was doing good, and preparing him for burial; and that she would be well known because of her action. In the course of this paper, we have shown the literary similarities and differences in the different gospel accounts of the event; how for example Matthew and Mark tell the story in pretty much the same way, but Luke and John tell it a tad differently.
We have in this regard shown how Matthew and Mark state that the woman poured the costly ointment on the head of Jesus, whereas Luke and John state that she poured it on his feet. Luke in particular talks about the woman kissing and weeping over his feet, and with John mentions her drying Jesus’ feet with her hair. We have shown as well how John edited the story to include the names of Jesus’ friends, Lazarus, Mary and Martha. John it was that specifically named the woman as Mary, unlike in the three other gospels, where she is simply called woman, or sinful woman, as is the case in Luke’s Gospel.
We have shown as well that the fact that this event is recorded in all four gospels may be because it was considered important in the early church; was probably a feminist rhetoric powerful for the times and its qualitative message, or simply because of the prophecy of notoriety Jesus made concerning the (sinful) woman, or Mary. We further mentioned that Mark may have written his account of the event first, and Matthew may have copied him in all essential points pertaining thereto, and then Luke and John copied from either or both Mark and Matthew, and edited details in different ways. But the fact that all accounts are similar indicates a common source for all accounts thereof.
We also mentioned that a central motif in the event as recorded in all the gospels is one of money. Mark, Matthew and John treat this issue from the point of view of waste when viewed against the backdrop of need. In Mark and Matthew, individuals in the house of Simon the Leper complain bitterly that the costly ointment could have been sold and its proceeds given to the poor and the needy. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus is concerned that the woman shows greater love to him than Simon the Pharisee does, very likely because the sinful woman is more convicted of her sin and her indebtedness to God than Simon is. She as the greater sinner, the one with the greater debt to God, is drawn more to Jesus in her realization of his forgiveness of her great amount of sin than Simon is, because his indebtedness (sinfulness) is apparently less. It is in this regard that Luke mentions the Parable of the Two Debtors.
We used the Greek word, ὤφειλεν, as a signpost in this paper, and it hints at our universal indebtedness to God, especially because all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. Unlike the Pharisee in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, our realization that we have sinned and so owe God a significant debt should make us feel a sense of gratitude to him when through faith we realize that he has forgiven us, in other words has let go of the debt that we otherwise could not pay by ourselves. Unlike the nine healed lepers similarly, but like the one that returned, we should be moved to return an attitude of gratitude to God.
This attitude of gratitude in any case should not be limited to material gifts to the poor, but also to devotional acts, as expressed in spiritual works of mercy. These spiritual works of mercy may even be seen to be higher in value than the corporal works of mercy we show to the less fortunate. In other words, we have shown that between indebtedness and charity is exchange of our material possessions for spiritual capital. We similarly see that between indebtedness and charity is the concept of Christian sacrifice done in imitation of the savior, Jesus Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment