sign in sign up
<<
Home , Anointing, Anointing of Jesus, Simon the Pharisee

Female and Male in Four Stories J. Lyle Story Introduction the text with a specific agenda in mind. Steven Barton notes that such disciplines often deal with the archaeology of the text, but [W]omen in general have the sense of the person much more do not pay sufficient attention to the text as it stands.7 Instead, than men have. This means that they have a special mission, we will attempt to offer a holistic approach in understanding the whichso i t reintroduce love, to give back its humanity to a individual stories. world which remains so glacial when men alone have built Murray Krieger suggests the language of historical “windows” it. —Paul Tournier1 and literary “mirrors,” which function interdependently.8 “The historical nature of the leads one to treat the story as a win- Paul Tournier, the Swiss psychiatrist, suggests some generalized dowo t the event behind the text,”9 oand t relive events with Je- pointsf o tension with respect to women and men. These gen- suss a part of a community of faith. In the four narratives, the eralizations can be applied to the anointing stories in Matthew authors invite readers to experience and feel the various points 26, , , and . Each story revolves around a of tension and to be changed when the readers return to their woman who anoints , male objection, Jesus’ rebuttal of male separate worlds. We are indebted to Seymour Chatman for his objectors, and his explanation for why the woman and her ac- helpful approach of “story” and “discourse,”10 which has been tion o are t be accepted, valued, and appreciated—not rejected. further developed by Rhoads and Donald Michie,11 Nor- For the sake of this article, we will assume that there were two man Petersen,12 and Jack Kingsbury,13 eet al. Th anointing para- original versions of the stories: (1) Matthew, Mark, and John, and graphs tell the event (story), while the discourse reflects upon how (2) Luke, in their oral transmission. the stories are told.14 nI support, Meir Sternberg labels narrative E.. P Sanders contends that “these stories probably rest on asa “ functional structure, a means to a communicative end, a memories though details have been exchanged and possibly con- transaction between the narrator and the audience on whom he fused.”2 eH supposes the oral and written stages, details from one wisheso t produce a certain effect by way of certain strategies.”15 story may have been transferred and vice versa, with overlapping The authors help the readers to relive the event and thereby adopt strandsr o conflations.3 nI one strand, the anointing is symbolic the author’s point of view in changing thoughts, attitudes, and for the preparation of Jesus’ body for burial, while another strand behavior, which reflect upon both genders. understands the anointing as an expression of vulnerable grati- tude for the forgiveness of sin. In the stories, the authors juxtapose Comparison, contrast, and purpose male authorities and disciples and the women who anoint Jesus. Eachf o the four accounts uses three major literary relation- In this article, however, we will argue for a literary approach ships—comparison, contrast, and purpose—to narrate each par- that treats the four pericopes as whole stories with attention to ticular story. broad structure, significant literary relationships (comparison, contrast, and purpose), and the author’s point of view, to be em- Literary and historical context bracedy b the implied readers. The tension between women and Matthew, Mark, and John tell of the anointing in the context of men stands out as a vital component of the anointing stories, passion week—just before Jesus’ crucifixion and burial (compari- which is to be taken seriously by the readers. son). Hostile (male) Jewish leaders are plotting to kill Jesus, in This article presupposes that the four stories are genuine collusion with Judas. In particular, John’s account is the fullest as stories and need to be read as stories. eTh relatively new field of he narrates ’s unwitting prophecy that it is more expedi- literaryr o narrative criticism suggests a careful reading of the ent for one man to die than the nation perish (:49–50). As narratives, including setting, plot, characters, dialogue, events, a f result o Caiaphas’s argument/prophecy, the leaders took coun- pointf o view, time, implied authors,4 and implied readers.5 oT selo t put Jesus to death (v. 53). Supreme irony is expressed by the be sure, these pericopes have been studied from perspectives of narrator in the use of the verb for “gathered together” (sunagō) historical, source, form, and redaction criticism, as well as struc- in 11:47, 52: the religious leaders gather together the (v. turalism.6 However, such disciplines often atomize and control 47), s which i the very means by which Jesus might gather together both the nation and the scattered children of God (v. 52).16 J. LYLE STORY is a Professor of Luke’s account, by contrast, takes place earlier during Jesus’ and Biblical Languages of the School of Divinity Galilean ministry. Jesus tampers with the religious, racial, and of Regent University. He has taught at Regent social taboos of Jewish particularism by healing a Gentile centu- University for the last twenty-five years, pos- rion’s servant (Luke 7:1–10), interrupting a funeral and touching sesses special passion for the message of the a coffin, and raising a widow’s only son (vv. 11–17). Then follows four , and has produced the Greek to Me the critique of and Jesus and Jesus’ indictment of Memory System (textbook, flash cards, and mul- timedia CD-ROM). the present fickle generation (vv. 18–35).

16 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 23, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2009 Setting for the anointing the third day. They also “embark on a journey that may lead to Place: Comparison is evident among Matthew, Mark, and John, the loss of their own lives for his sake.”25 who locate the setting as a house in (near ), All four narratives can be compared in that the woman is whichs i contrasted by Luke’s story, locating the meal in the gen- voiceless;t i is men who speak, become indignant, and verbally eral Galilean area. censure either the woman or Jesus. Further, Luke’s story is unique Time: Matthew, Mark, and John can be compared in that the in that it mentions the woman’s emotion, her tears (7:38). anointing occurs during the Passover week, although the specific Container and value of : The four accounts all refer to details vary (before or after the triumphal entry). This contrasts anointing—the pouring of expensive perfumed oil on Jesus. with Luke’s narrative, which includes no temporal indicator— The container in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is an alabaster flask and is fitted within Jesus’ extensive Galilean ministry. (alabastros), a “vessel with a rather long neck which was broken Host: Matthew and Mark are compared with the identifica- off”26 when the contents were used. John’s story contains no tionf o , who hosts the dinner. John specifically mentionf o the container, but it can be assumed to be a container names Mary, , and Lazarus17 in connection with “Betha- large enough for a pound of ointment. The jar or flask could not ny, where Lazarus was.” The host is not specifically named, but, be reclosed; the contents would be completely poured out. Mark dueo t the activity of both Martha and Mary, it can be argued that says that the woman “broke the jar,” an act that shocked the male the dinner was hosted in their home, thereby making them hosts. guests as well as their host in its lavishness and finality. Luke’s s host i , who is not named in the earlier Verb: Matthew and Mark are compared with respect to the use partf o the story, but is clarified by Jesus’ address to Simon (7:40). of the verb “she poured” (katecheen), while Mark alone uses the Activity: All four gospels can be compared in terms of the verb “to break” with the flask, which occurs prior to the pouring. physical posture of guests’ reclining (in Near Eastern fashion). By f way o contrast, Luke and John use the verb “anoint” (aleiphein). The anointing happens in the context of a dinner. John alone Body part anointed: eTh anointing in Matthew and Mark records Martha’s serving (diakonein) activity, which can also be bears striking contrast to the account in Luke and John. In Mat- compared with her serving role in Luke’s account of Jesus’ visit to thew and Mark, the woman pours oil onto Jesus’ head, and, in Martha and Mary’s home (Luke 10:38–42).18 Luke and John, Jesus’ feet are anointed. Normally, people were anointedn o the head rather than the feet. In ancient Israel, a Anointing event was anointed by pouring oil on the head. Such anointing on the Identity of the anointing woman: The anointing woman is name- head often conveyed the image of Israel’s ancient .27 lessn i Matthew, Mark, and Luke—to be contrasted with John’s ac- Perhaps this is the connotation intended by Matthew and Mark. count, which identifies Mary. John’s literary style throughout the By contrast, in Luke and John, pouring the expensive nard on gospelso i t forge inner links between separate events.19 nI John Jesus’ s feet i not a royal or priestly anointing. In John’s story, the 11:3, the evangelist links the Lazarus story (ch. 11) with Mary’s ideaf o royalty does not fit, for, in the following narrative, Jesus anointing story (ch. 12): “This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now does not accept the royal acclamation of the crowd. Raymond lay sick, was the same one who poured out on , Brown states, “If John meant to signify the as and wiped his feet with her hair.”20 eTh woman in Luke 7 is spoken king, then one would have expected the anointing of the head, ofs a a “sinful woman” (7:37—perhaps a prostitute), also noted by not of the feet.”28 Jesus: “this woman” (7:44) with many forgiven sins (7:47).21 Luke and John both recount the woman’s wiping of Jesus’ feet Thet fac that a woman anointed Jesus is noteworthy. In a simi- with her hair (comparison). Luke also mentions that she wet his lar way, women were the first to receive and were entrusted with feet with tears and kissed them. Scholars point to the woman’s the wonderful witness of the to the male disciples. violationf o Jewish custom that dictated the covering of women’s Nonef o the eleven disciples was first to the tomb. These women hair; letting down of a woman’s hair could well indicate loose met the criteria of apostleship, even though a woman’s witness morals.29 sThi woman could have been regarded by the men at was not accepted in the legal courts, and rabbinic Judaism re- the s dinner a a repugnant social outcast. Even though Mary is no flected prejudicial devaluing of women.22 such person, it is stunning that she lets down her hair, an act fol- The stories do not reflect that the anointing woman fully un- lowedy b the climactic statement that “the whole house was filled derstood the messianic significance of the anointing, although with the fragrance of the perfume.” Craig Keener notes, “The the evangelists doubtlessly understood that the implied readers meal setting is probably a banquet celebrating Lazarus’ resuscita- should feel the significance of the woman’s prophetic sign-action tion but may also foreshadow the implied meal setting of Jesus’ in o contrast t the twelve male disciples. Amy-Jill Levine depicts pre-passion washing of his disciples’ feet in ch. 13.”30 the women as “aware, sympathetic and loyal,”23 contrasted with The positive life-giving action by the women in these stories the male disciples, often characterized by “little faith” (oligopis- stands in stark contrast with the hideous, life-taking, and aggres- toi). Further, “the twelve function primarily to disrupt rather sive posture of the male religious authorities, who plot Jesus’ death than enhance Jesus’ mission.”24 During Jesus’ passion, the women in the preceding narratives, before and after the actual anointing serves a disciples in that they “follow” Jesus and recognize that (Matthew, Mark, and John). Edwyn Hoskyns calls this contrast “a Jesus’ mission includes crucifixion, burial, and resurrection on supremet ac of ignorant unbelief and a supreme act of intelligent

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 23, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2009 • 17 Broad structure of the stories

Matthew 26 Mark 14 Luke 7 John 12 Literary and Religious leaders’ plot to Religious leaders’ plot to Reception of Jesus by the people (29), Unwitting prophecy of Caiaphas historical context kill Jesus (1–5) kill Jesus (1–2) rejection by the and lawyers (John 11:49–50) and plot to kill (30), and indictment for fickleness of Jesus (45–57) this generation (31–35) Setting of the anointing Place House in Bethany (6) House in Bethany (3) House of Simon the Pharisee (36) Bethany where Lazarus was (1) Time After two days, the Two days before Passover During Jesus’ Galilean ministry Six days before Passover (1) Passover is coming (2) (1) Host Simon the leper (6) Simon the leper (3) Simon the Pharisee, others who were Lazarus, Martha who served Jesus, with Jesus (36, 39, 40) Mary (2) Activity Sat at table (7) Sat at table (3) Sat at table (36) Supper, at table (1) Anointing event Anointing Unnamed woman (7) Unnamed woman (3) Unnamed sinful woman (37) Mary (3) woman Container and An alabaster jar of very An alabaster jar of An alabaster flask of ointment (37) A pound of costly ointment of value of oil precious ointment (7) ointment of pure nard, pure nard (3) very costly (3) Verb She poured (7) Broke the flask and she Anointed (37) Anointed (3) poured (3) Body part Head (7) Head (3) Feet (38) Feet (3) anointed Mention of Weeping, she began to wet his feet Wiped his feet with her hair, and weeping, with her tears and wiped them with the house was filled with the wiping, hair, the hair of her head, and kissed his fragrance of this ointment (3) kissing feet feet (38) Male objector(s) Disciples are indignant (8) Some are silently Simon the Pharisee and other , one of his disciples; to anointing indignant, followed with Pharisees at the table (39, 49) he who was to betray him (4) their verbal censure of the woman (4) Reason for male Why the waste? Could Why the waste? For this Accusation of Jesus’ prophetic status. Why was this ointment not sold objection have been sold for a large ointment might have Implication: he should have known for three hundred denarii and sum and given to the been sold for more than the lifestyle of the sinful woman and given to the poor? (5–6) poor (9) three hundred denarii and rejected her anointing. Also noted given to the poor (4–5) is the objection for Jesus’ direct forgiveness (39, 49) Jesus’ rebuttal of male objectors Initial rebuttal Why do you trouble the Leave her alone; why do Simon, I have something to say to Let her alone (7) woman? (10) you trouble her? (6) you (40)—Jesus indirectly affirms his prophetic status by revealing his knowledge of what Simon was saying to himself Explanation She has done a beautiful She has done a beautiful An expression of gratitude—contrast Let her keep it for the day of my for woman’s thing to me . . . to prepare thing to me . . . she between the woman and Simon, who burial (7) anointing— me for burial (10) has anointed my body has neglected the customary tasks purpose beforehand for burying while the woman has gone far beyond (6, 8) the norm (36–46); her extravagant anointing is an expression of gratitude Further For you always have the For you always have Parable of the two debtors—which The poor you always have with explanation poor, but you will not the poor with you, and, supports the woman’s actions as you, but you do not always have always have me (11). whenever you will, you gratitude (41–42). Implication? me (8). Implication? Implication? can do good to them. But you will not always have me. She has done what she could (7). Implication? Climactic Truly I say to you, And truly I say to you, The forgiveness of the woman’s many The house was filled with the statement for wherever this is wherever the gospel is sins issues in such gratitude (loves fragrance of the ointment (3) the woman’s preached in the whole preached in the whole much) (47) anointing world, what she has done world, what she has done will be told in memory of will be told in memory of her (13) her (9) Following context Judas’s agreement with Judas’s agreement with Paragraph filled with the names of Jewish plot to kill Lazarus along high to betray high priests to betray Jesus’ female disciples (8:1–3) with Jesus (12:9–11) Jesus (14–16) Jesus (14:10–11)

18 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 23, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2009 faith.”31 While the religious authorities sentence Jesus in order to in the direct address, “Simon, I have something to say to you” retain their authority, the woman finds the unique opportunity of (7:40). Satoko Yamaguchi says of Jesus’ rebuttal, “‘Let her be’ is pouring out her best for Jesus. In Luke’s story, the context depicts the strongest liberating support a woman could wish to receive in the rejection by the male Pharisees and lawyers (7:30) coupled such a milieu.”35 Jesus’ rebuke virtually strikes at the face of male with the indictment of this fickle generation (7:31–35). aggression. John’s climactic scene is heightened by the imagery— Mention of weeping, wiping, hair, kissing feet: Luke and John the sensual fragrance that permeates the whole house. Luke’s cli- can e also b compared in that both evangelists mention the wom- max comes in the form of a parable and a rebuke that effectively an’s wiping of Jesus’ feet with her hair, while Luke also mentions shuts down the male objector, Simon. the wetting of his feet with tears and Purpose of the anointing kissing Jesus’ feet. By way of contrast, n a united manner, the stories reach out to Matthew and Mark do not mention this Ithe readers (primary and implied) to learn The intended message of the anointing activity, since Jesus is anointed on his the lesson that the woman’s voiceless action stories,s a explained in Matthew, Mark, head with the costly ointment. and s John, i quite different from that in teaches the community about devotion, Luke’s gospel. Matthew, Mark, and John Male objections to the anointing gratitude, vulnerability, and prophetic insight. provide the purpose for the anointing: Mark’s version says, “Some of those “to prepare Jesus for burial.”36 nI these [males] present were saying indignantly to one another, ‘Why this three accounts, the religious leaders make preparation for Jesus’ waste’ . . . ? And they rebuked her harshly.” Matthew states that death while a woman prepares for Jesus’ burial. Jesus’ statement the indignant ones were the twelve disciples. In Luke’s story, Si- makest i clear that her act is prophetic and proleptic, anticipat- mon the Pharisee is identified as the initial critic, rejecting Jesus’ ing his burial.37 John implies that Mary has genuine insight into status as he says to himself, “If this man were a prophet, the f nature o Jesus’ mission, which includes death by crucifixion, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman burial, and resurrection (:38–40).38 tsI i appropriate, there- she is—that she is a sinner.” The reasoning in Simon’s silent objec- fore, for this woman to give this gift to Jesus. Jesus’ time with them tions i based on a conditional proposition in which both halves will soon draw to a close. The woman has seized the moment (kai- are untrue: “If this man were a prophet [which he is obviously ros).n I contrast to the woman’s insight, the male objectors have not], e then h should also know who and what this sinful woman not perceived the once-in-a-lifetime nature of this moment. is e [which h obviously does not know].”32 eTh implication of this Ronald Thiemann notes that Matthew opens up “the category sentences i that, if Jesus were a prophet, he obviously would not of o ‘’ t those who were not originally among the twelve.”39 let this woman anoint his feet. Later on in the narrative, male As Elizabeth Fiorenza notes, “In the passion account of Mark’s objectors raise the accusation of blasphemy for Jesus’ announce- Gospel three disciples figure prominently: on the one hand, two of ment of the forgiveness of sins. the twelve—Judas who betrays Jesus and Peter who denies him— John notes that the male objector is Judas Iscariot, and he andn o the other, the unnamed woman who anoints Jesus.”40 identifies Judas as the one who would later betray Jesus. Judas Jesus says that the woman’s action is to be remembered hand says the ointment should have been sold and the money given in hand with the proclamation of the gospel: “Truly I say to you, to the poor.33 John notes Judas’s hypocrisy in his objection. John wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has makest i clear for the implied reader that Judas was not concerned done e will b told in memory of her” (cf. Matt. 26:13, Mark 14:9). for the poor, but was a thief who often pilfered the community’s Thereso i n such accolade for any other person, male or female, money bank. The woman’s priceless gift of love is contrasted with in any of the gospel narratives. Judas’s selling Jesus’ life for thirty pieces of silver.34 Luke’s story presents a parable coupled with an explanation, teaching that those who are forgiven much will appreciate the Ostensible reason for male objection releaseo t a far greater degree than the one who is forgiven the Matthew, Mark, and John can be compared in that the explana- smaller debt. The use of the parable at this point presupposes tionf o their objection is the costly extravagance of oil used, not that the woman had been forgiven and experienced faith at some the anointing itself; the male objectors initially frame the rhetori- previous time, perhaps through Jesus’ preaching the day before. cal question as “Why the waste?” Ostensibly, Matthew, Mark, and Dueo t her animated expressions of gratitude, it is hard to imag- John provide the reason for the objection that the costly anoint- ine that much time elapsed between her faith experience and her ment should have been sold and the money given to the poor lavish display at Simon’s home; over time, emotional expressions (Matthew—a large sum; Mark—ointment could have been sold tendo t wane in intensity. According to Craig Blomberg, “Jesus for more than three hundred denarii; John—ointment sold for nows i simply making that fact public and assuring the woman three hundred denarii). Luke’s story contains a hidden accusation of the forgiveness which faith brings. It is better, therefore, to in- that Jesus is not a prophet. terpret. v 47a as implying, ‘One can see that her many sins are forgiven, because she loved much,’”41 i.e., was so grateful. Jesus’ rebuttal of male objectors In a united manner, the stories reach out to the readers (pri- In each account, Jesus snaps back at the male objectors, telling mary and implied) to learn the lesson that the woman’s voiceless themo t “leave her alone.” Jesus’ retort in Luke 7 is expressed

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 23, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2009 • 19 action teaches the community about devotion, gratitude, vulner- Matthew highlights the wonder of the woman’s anointing by ability, and prophetic insight. All four gospel writers wish that contrasting her activity with that of the religious authorities, who their readership adopt Jesus’ attitude of sympathy for the vul- are bent upon Jesus’ destruction. They wish to take life, while the nerable expression of a woman. The male/female conflict stories woman gives life—even though her act points to Jesus’ burial. cannote b understood apart from interest in the role played by Elizabeth Ford states, “The disciples see the ointment, not for women in the narratives. whatt i is, but for what purpose it can atthew highlights the wonder of the Fiorenza notes that “while the sto- serve.”45 Jesus’ prophetic awareness riesf o Judas and Peter are engraved in Mwoman’s anointing by contrasting her brings their criticism out into the open the memory of , the story of activity with that of the religious authorities, (“knowing this,” i.e., their sub-verbal the s woman i virtually forgotten.”42 eTh who are bent upon Jesus’ destruction. criticism in 26:10). In Matthew’s story, woman in Matthew and Luke loses her implied readers are to distance them- name, and in the four stories, the woman’s voice is not heard. selves not only from the religious authorities, but also from the However, each time, Jesus notes that this woman is the quintes- disciples and Judas, who all have failed to honor the woman and sential faithful disciple. her activity. At the same time, readers are to feel “close” to the woman.e Th calculated plot of the authorities stands in sharpest The authors’ points of view contrast with the woman’s unstinting and spontaneous giving to The anointing stories infuse a dramatic tension in the interplay of Jesus. Further, in the course of the passion narrative, male dis- female and male characters and Jesus’ response to both genders. ciples recede into the background46 while women are conspicu- Moreover, the interchanges between the female and male charac- ously present at the crucifixion and at the open tomb. ters provide guidelines for the readers as to the meaning of this Jack Kingsbury argues that the “evaluative point of view” is conflict.e Th actions recorded reflect differing points of view of equivalento t “thinking the things of God” and not “thinking the eachf o the four authors as well as differing messages they intend thingsf o humans.”47 Through comparison, contrast, and purpose, to communicate to their readers. Meir Sternberg labels narrative Matthew guides the implied readers to “think the things of God.” asa “ functional structure, a means to a communicative end, a Mark’s point of view transaction between the narrator and the audience on whom he wisheso t produce a certain effect by way of certain strategies.”43 Mark’s anointing story is sandwiched between the premeditated In the four narratives, the authors invite readers into the text- decisionf o male religious authorities to put Jesus to death (14:1–2) worldf o the anointing stories, to experience and feel the various and the plot with Judas (14:10–11). The “sandwich” is a frequently pointsf o tension, and, therefore, to be changed when the readers used literary design in Mark’s gospel.48 Such arrangement leads returno t their separate worlds. As one scholar has said, “the his- the o reader t draw comparisons, note contrasts, and discover im- torical nature of leads one to treat the story as a window portant purpose statements.49 sA the anointing account unfolds, to the event behind the text.”44 the implied readers are encouraged to side with Jesus (and God) eTh gospel writers draw readers into the narrative world of and the unnamed woman (comparison) and to distance them- the anointing stories to relive the event and thereby adopt the selves from the male objectors. The negative portrayal of the male author’s point of view in changing the reader’s thoughts, at- opponentss i used as a foil to highlight the “beautiful thing” that titudes, and behavior. One result may be a change in the read- this woman has done for the purpose of a proleptic anointing for er’s thoughts, attitudes, and behavior toward women and their burial. Her self-denial is parallel to the poor widow who gives all unique contribution. (:41–44), who is likewise contrasted with the male scribes who can only take all (12:38–40).50 Matthew’s point of view Stephen Barton draws links between this dinner setting and Matthew tells the story from the point of view of changing a the ; in each there is a action symbolizing Jesus’ reader’s thinking. Throughout the , the reli- death, reference to Jesus’ body (14:9, 25), and an amen saying.51 gious leaders are relentlessly evil, hypocritical, in error, blind, Through her anointing, she recognizes something of Jesus’ royal malicious, slanderous, and manipulative. Obviously, he intends person and serves as a prophet of the upcoming burial. She un- thats hi readers accept, appreciate, value, and empathize with the derstands the opportunity as “sacred time” (kairos)52 while the unique contribution that this unnamed woman makes, in terms male figures either misunderstand or are ruthlessly hostile: “Her of (1) her recognition of Jesus’ kingship (anointing of his head), openness and willingness to risk conflict for Jesus’ sake contrasts (2) her prophetic insight and purposeful prophetic symbolism of with the priests’ and scribes’ secrecy and fear and conflict.”53 Jesus’ death and burial, (3) the cost of her gift, and (4) the climac- Male aggression is especially evident in Mark’s progression tic declaration by Jesus that the woman’s act will be remembered from the silent indignation of “some” of the male guests to an wherever the gospel is proclaimed. Further, in the ensuing narra- open censure of the woman (v. 5). The verb, “to censure” (em- tive, her prophetic action is fulfilled in the reality of Jesus’ burial. brimasthai),s i a strong verb, meaning “to severely warn”54; the Clearly, the narrator adopts the stance of Jesus’ defense of the inceptive imperfect form reflects the beginning of their harsh woman and wishes to draw others into Jesus’ sympathy for her. warning: “They began to severely warn her.” The narrator sug-

20 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 23, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2009 gests the point of view that readers would distance themselves prophet to proclaim God’s forgiveness, for in Luke’s understanding, from the progressive criticism of the woman by male opponents thiss i indeed what Jesus is—the prophet who proclaims release to and sympathize with the woman in her vulnerable condition. the captives and sets at liberty those who are oppressed (4:18).”61 Through her anointing (not through words), an unnamed Further, the readers are led to adopt Jesus’ inclusive concern woman acts as a confessor and prophet of Jesus’ death while the for a woman who is marginalized in society and who represents males can only misunderstand and criticize; silent indignation other marginalized people (both women and men). Acceptance leadso t verbal censure. In the broader picture of discipleship of the marginalized is central for Luke. The reader is won over to within Mark, both the poor widow of Mark 12 and the unnamed that f point o view in this account through an irony understood woman in Mark 14 also “embody the self-denial of followership.”55 by the reader, but not by Simon. Dramatic irony occurs, accord- Further, the beautiful work that this woman does stands in the ingo t Rhoads, “when there is a discrepancy between what a char- sharpest contrast to the hideous deed that Judas does against Je- acter blindly thinks to be the case and what the real situation is sus. Readers become feeling persons who respond with apprecia- or between what a character expects to happen, and what actu- tion for the woman’s deed or disgust for the male opponents. The ally happens.”62 nI Luke’s account, the author and implied reader narrator also draws an implicit contrast between the near distant share understanding of the woman’s insight and activity, while pronoun “this” (autē) in “this waste” (v. 4) and Jesus’ use of “this” Simon and his male guests are in the dark about the significance (autē) in “this woman,” a contrast between a thing and a person.56 of the woman’s act and Jesus’ divine prerogative of forgiving sins. Through such comparisons and contrasts, the readers are led to John’s point of view be on the “inside track” as they adopt Mark’s point of view. John’s gospel seeks to elicit several responses from the readership. Luke’s point of view First, the account is reported immediately after the death of Mary’s Luke emphasizes Jesus’ acceptance of Gentiles, women, the poor, brother, Lazarus, and amid the ongoing plot to kill Jesus. Read- and the outcast—in which religious and societal divisions are ers thus feel the seriousness of the anointing story in terms of life annulled. Luke’s anointing story is encased in his familiar social and death. Within the story itself, readers are invited to hear Jesus’ contextf o table fellowship of a meal or banquet, which are often statement fully: “You will not always have me.”63 s.A J Ramsay Mi- contextsf o joy, celebration, forgiveness, and acceptance.57 On chaels points out, readers participate in the shared awareness that three separate occasions, Jesus’ host is a Pharisee.58 sThi woman Jesuss i “returning as the divine Son of God to the Father who sent is not “put off” by the imposing presence of all of the males at the him, but from the standpoint of Jesus’ disciples death is still death, banquet.s A a social outcast, her person and action also contrast with all the dread and pain of separation that the word implies.”64 with the socially prominent Pharisees and lawyers who function The readers can sense the pain, and they draw close to Mary in her only within their framework of religious taboos. The woman fits symbolic role of preparing Jesus’ body for burial. in with other unworthy individuals, in the same chapter, who In addition, readers are guided to sympathize with the extent recognize their need for Jesus’ help—a Gentile Roman centurion, of Mary’s love for Jesus even in the midst of male aggression and the f widow o Nain, and tax collectors. Readers are made aware of accusation. Mary is grateful for Lazarus’s new life; the context of the contrasting responses to Jesus in the whole chapter and are the s dinner i a celebratory supper (12:2). In her humble act of de- guidedo t feel sympathy for this unnamed sinful woman in her votiont a Jesus’ feet,65 she pours out her love for him. She senses emotional and vulnerable display of gratitude for what Jesus has that the brief window of time with Jesus will soon close. She seizes done for her—he has forgiven her much (7:47).59 the moment to express her self-giving love for Jesus. Michaels says For Luke’s readership, the three figures in the parable of the that “her reckless act of pouring out a pint of expensive perfume two debtors clearly correspond with the chief persons at table on Jesus’ feet and wiping them with her hair dramatizes for the in Simon’s home. The parable is intended to affirm the woman’s readers—and for us—the truth that love is stronger than death.”66 vulnerable expression of gratitude (greater debt) and to expose Readers are also drawn to Mary with respect to the “sign- the unfeeling attitude of Jesus’ male critic (lesser debt). The par- nature”f o her expensive gift. In the broader context of John’s able presupposes that Jesus has previously forgiven the woman, “Bookf o Signs” (–12), Mary’s expensive gift is also signifi- identifieds a a “sinner.”60 Through the parable and his explana- cant. John makes it clear to the readers that her devotional act is tion,e h honors her lavish display of gratitude for forgiven sin actually a loving preparation for Jesus’ burial.67 tsI i a foreshad- and unmasks the thankless response of his host who offers no owingf o Jesus’ significant washing of his disciples’ feet that fol- customary etiquette (water, kiss of friendship, oil). lows in John’s next chapter (13:1–20). While readers draw near Readers are led to feel Luke’s point of view: they sympathize to Mary, they also distance themselves from the hideous plot of with the woman’s gratitude and vulnerability and they distance male authorities and from Judas, the male objector. The skillfully themselves from the man’s “cold shoulder.” Luke succeeds in put- presented plot of John 11:45–57 reflects the insecure and hateful ting the man’s judgmental thoughts about the woman, along with naturef o the religious authorities who face the powerful, unmis- his doubt that Jesus really could forgive sins, in a bad light. D. A. S. takablen sig of Lazarus’s resurrection. They are even forced to Ravens thinks Simon’s initial and unspoken criticism reveals that admit that “this man continues to do many signs” (11:47), and yet the “real question, therefore, is whether Jesus had the authority of a they are afraid of losing their national status.68

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 23, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2009 • 21 Alan Culpepper69 links the story with events in the follow- viewpoint in Women in the (Cambridge: University ing chapter: Mary’s gift anticipates Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ Press, 1984), 110–16. feet, and both of the scenes take place in the context of a meal, 3. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1965), 171. enveloped within the somber shadow of Jesus’ death. Further, the 4.e Th implied author is the author who has chosen to reveal himself statements of “serving” and “following” (12:26) are positioned in along with his perspectives, concerns, and values. the context of the mini-parable about the necessity of the grain 5.e Th implied reader is the person who can detect the original mes- of wheat falling into the ground and dying if it is to be fruitful sagef o the story, with the potential of reliving the story and embracing (12:24–25). Careful readers take note of the reigning death motif the author’s point of view. 6. Conjectures about the stories abound and are reflected in the in the two chapters. various commentaries and journals. Some authors approach the sto- In the broader context, Mary’s anointing serves to identify ries from (1) source and form criticism: J. F. Coakley, “The Anointing at theef lif o a disciple/servant (female or male). In this account, Bethany and the Priority of John,” Journal of Biblical Literature 107, no. two women serve Jesus: Mary serves by anointing Jesus’ feet, and 2 (1988): 241–56; Robert Holst, “The One Anointing of Jesus: Another Marthas i serving the meal. Jesus links “serving” and “follow- Application of the Form-Critical Model,” JBL 95, no. 3 (1976): 435–46; J. ing” with the promise that God will honor the one who serves. N. Sanders, “Those Whom Jesus Loved,” New Testament Studies 1 (1954): 29–41; André Legault, “An Application of the Form-Critique Method Accordingo t Michaels, “Jesus’ anointing by Mary is needed in to the in and Bethany, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 16 John’s Gospel to put the glorious promises of the farewell dis- (1954): 131–41; (2) redaction criticism: Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In courses in a genuinely human context.”70 Memory of Her (New York, N.Y.: Crossroad, 1984), 128; Joel Green, The Death of Jesus (Tübingen:. J C. B. Mohr, 1988), 225–31; Maurits Sabbe, Summary implications “The Anointing of Jesus in Jn 12,1–8 and its Synoptic parallels,” The Four Gospels (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2051–82; and (3) femi- In f each o the four narratives, the woman is voiceless. It is men nist criticism: Janice Capel Anderson, “Matthew: Gender and Reading,” who speak, become indignant, and verbally censure the woman Semeia 28 (1983): 3–27; also Fiorenza. and Jesus. One might ask, “Are readers to conclude that the wom- 7. Stephen Barton, “Mark as Narrative: The Story of the Anointing an expressed no emotion or said nothing in the four stories?” Woman (Mk. 14:3–9),” The Expository Times102, no. 8 (1991): 231. Still, in all four stories, the woman’s actions speak volumes and 8. Murray Krieger, A Window to Criticism: Shakespeare’s Sonnets and Modern Poetics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1964), 3–70. have a more profound effect on the reader than words ever could. 9. . Grant R Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove, Ill.: In the four anointing accounts, there are conversations be- InterVarsity Press, 1991), 154. tween the author’s world, the text’s role, and the reader’s world. 10. Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell The overall structure of the stories provides a background for University Press, 1980). the contrasts, comparisons, and purpose statements; these liter- 11. David Rhoads and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduc- ary relationships are used by the authors to generate narrative tion to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1982). 12. Norman R. Petersen, Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics wholes, with their intended purposes for the readers. In each sto- (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1978). ry, the authors condition the readers to sympathize, appreciate, 13. . Jack D Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress and value the woman and her behavior while distancing them- Press, 1986). selves from the aggressive, hostile, and unfeeling males. While 14. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 2. the gender issue is not the primary focus of these stories, none- 15. Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, Ideological Lit- erature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University theless, the stories do portray the woman in the all-important Press, 1985), 1. See also R. Alan Culpepper, The Anatomy of the Fourth Gos- and life-giving role, in contrast to the roles of men who act with pel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1983), 6. murderous purpose or negative criticism. 16. For further discussion, see Cullen I. K. Story, The Fourth Gospel: The hideous, life-taking, and aggressive posture of the male re- Its Purpose, Pattern and Power (Shippensburg, Pa.: Ragged Edge Press, ligious authorities stands in stark contrast with positive, life-giving 1997), 249–50. actiony b the woman in these stories. While religious authorities, 17.. J N. Sanders believes that the Johannine expression “beloved disciple” refers to Lazarus. “Those Whom Jesus Loved (Jn. 11:5),” New allf o them male, condemn Jesus in order to retain their authority, Testament Studies 1, no. 1 (1954): 29–41. a woman finds the unique opportunity to pour out her best for 18.n I Luke 10:38–42, Martha’s activity in the kitchen appears to be Jesus.n I all four of these stories, Jesus affirms the woman’s act in trivialized. the f face o her male opponents. Jesus’ response to the anointing 19. See also the link between in John 2:1–11 with Cana (4:46), woman speaks volumes about his liberating love. The four authors (3:1–15, 7:50, 19:39), and Judas (6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:2, 3, 5). 20. Raymond Brown argues that Martha and Mary serve as disciples send the clear message to their readers that the anointing woman in John. “Roles of Women in the Fourth Gospel,” Theological Studies 36, has “a special mission, which is to reintroduce love.” no. 4 (1975): 694. Notes 21. Unconvincingly, Bernard Robinson argues that the sinful wom- an and Mary of John 12 are identified with her attempt to make amends 1. Paul Tournier, The Naming of Persons, trans. Edwin Hudson (New for a sinful life. “The Anointing by ,” The Downside Re- York, N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1975), 86. view 115 (1997): 99–111. 2.. E. P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York, N.Y.: Al- 22. See C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark(Cam - len Lane, Penguin Books, 1993), 127. Ben Witherington shares a similar bridge: University Press, 1972), 464 for rabbinic sources.

22 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 23, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2009 23. Amy-Jill Levine, “John,” Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. . Carol A 52. Barton, “Mark as Narrative,” 233. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1998), 349. 53. Barton, “Mark as Narrative,” 232. 24. Ronald F. Thiemann, “The Unnamed Woman at Bethany,” Theol- 54. See :43. ogy Today 44, no. 2 (July 1987): 180. See Matt. 6:30, 8:26, 14:31, 16:8. 55. Malbon, “Fallible Followers,” 40. 25. Thiemann, “The Unnamed Woman,” 182; see Jack Dean - 56. See Cullen I. K. Story, The Fourth Gospel, 240–41. bury, “The Verb Akolouthein (“to follow”) as an Index of Matthew’s View 57. s Jesus a dinner guest: Luke 5:29 (Levi); 10:38–42 (Mary and Mar- of His Community,” JBL 97, no. 1 (1978): 56–73. tha); 19:5 (); also Luke 15:1–32, 14:7–24. 26. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick 58. 7:36–50, 11:37, 14:1. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (hereinafter 59.n I contrast with Kent A. Van Til’s argument that the anointing BDAG) (Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 34. referso t her plea for forgiveness: “Three Anointings and One Offering: 27. See 1 Sam. 10:1, 16:13; 1 Kgs. 1:39; 2 Kgs. 9:6. The Sinful Woman in Luke 7:36–50,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 51 28. Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John,vol. 1 (Garden (2006): 73–82. City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), 545. 60. See Jeremias, The (New York, N.Y.: 29. See Witherington, Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 55; Leon Mor- Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963), 127. ris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974), 61.. D A. S. Ravens, “The Setting of Luke’s Account of the Anoint- 567–77.n I Num. 5:18, a is to let down the hair of a woman sus- ing,” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 284, emphasis original. pectedf o adultery. See also Sot. 1.5, 8a. See Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women 62. David M. Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie, Mark as & Wives (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 38–39. Story (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1999), 60. 30. Craig Keener, The : A Commentary (Peabody, 63. Similar motif in :33–34 and 8:21. Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003), 862. 64.. J Ramsay Michaels, “John 12:1–11,” Interpretation 43, no. 3 (1989): 288. 31. Edwyn C. Hoskyns and Francis N. Davey eds., The Fourth Gospel 65. Michaels draws attention to the fact that Mary is always at Jesus’ (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1947). feet (John 11:32, 12:3; Luke 10:39). Michaels, “John 12:1–11,” 287. 32. Reference to the prophet motif also occurs in Luke 7:16. 66. Michaels, “John 12:1–11,” 288. 33.e Th term “poor” is used here without detail. Cf. Bruce J. Malina, 67. Charles Homer Giblin notes that both the copious anointing The New Testament World, (Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1981), 84. and the wiping of Jesus’ feet with her hair comprise a prophetic action 34. f Price o a slave accidentally killed (Ex. 21:32). See Rosemary M. declarings hi burial and his rising incorruptible; “Mary’s Anointing for Dowsett, “Matthew,” The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Catherine Jesus’ Burial-Resurrection (John 12, 1–8),” Biblica 73, no. 4 (1992): 564. Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity 68. Cullen I. K. Story, The Fourth Gospel, 252. Press, 2002), 539. 69. Alan Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John (Nashville, Tenn.: 35. Satoko Yamaguchi, Mary and Martha: Women in the World of Abingdon, 1998), 859. Jesus (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2002), 124. 70. Michaels, “John 12:1–11,” 291. 36. Kathleen E. Corley believes that the mention of Jesus’ burial is clearly secondary. “The Anointing of Jesus in the Synoptic Tradition: An Argument for Authenticity,” Journal for the Study of the 1 (2003): 67. 37.e Th difficult expression in John 12:7, “let her keep it for the day of my s burial,” i best explained by Brown as “she was keeping it until now to embalm Jesus.” Brown, The Gospel According to John, 449. 38.ts I i also significant that her open and transparent anointing for burials i contrasted with the secretive action of Nicodemus and . 39. Thiemann, “The Unnamed Woman,” 185 40. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, xiv. 41. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 185. 42. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, xiv. 43. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative,1. See also R. Alan Culpepper, The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1983), 6. 44. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 154. 45. Elizabeth B. Ford, “:6–13,” Interpretation (Oct. 2005): 402. 46. For the male disciples’ failure in the passion story, see also Matt. 26:14–16, 25, 30–35, 36–46, 47–49, 51–53, 56; 27:3–10. 47. Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia, Pa.: For- tress Press, 1986), 33. 48. See :21–24a (Jairus); 5:24b–34 (woman); 5:35–43; 6:6b–12 (mission); 6:14–29 (Herod); 30 (mission). 49. Barton notes, “What for Traditionsgeschichte si a dislocation, for narrative criticism becomes a literary technique, the observation of which adds new meaning to the story.” “Mark as Narrative,” 231. 50. Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, “Fallible Followers: Women and Men in the ,” Semeia, 28 (1983): 38. 51. Barton, “Mark as Narrative,” 233.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 23, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2009 • 23