[...]Sunday School Lesson #10 « Feast upon the Word Blog[...]…

The NET Bible notes say that the Greek word is used in the NT to refer exclusively to wheat; other places the term can mean wheat or barley.

“While the generic term στάχυς (stacus) can refer to the cluster of seeds at the top of grain such as barley or wheat, in the NT the term is restricted to wheat.”

I actually noticed this in Leon Morris’s commentary on Matthew (published by Eerdmans, 1992). I think he nicely handles a potential difficulty in these verses (Matt 11:28-30), the tension between rest and taking up the yoke of Christ. Basically he follows R. V. G. Tasker who translates “rest” as “relief” and explains, “for Jesus rpomises not inactivity and repose but ‘relief from such crushing burdens as crippling anxiety, the sense of frustration and futility, and the misery of a sin-laden conscience (p. 122)’” [Morris p. 297].

Morris also does a nice job talking about the phrase “yoke of the law” that was common among the Jews, referring to the “‘arbitrary demands of Pharisaic legalism and the uncertainties of ever-proliferating case law’ (Anchor Bible p. 146) [that] point to a situation where what was a delight to the legal experts was intolerable to ordianry people” (Morris, p. 296). Interesting cross references listed for yoke that I’d like to study more include: Abot 3:5; Sir 51:23-27; Matt 23:4; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; 1 Tim 6:1.

(I’ll go ahead and make this correction to your post above.)

Good point. I should change “Luke often shows regard for women” to something like “Luke shows regard for women more than other writers.”

Thanks also for your eloquent call for us to look more carefully at the other anointing stories. I’m going to have to use your points to go back and do some re-reading.

Cheryl: Robert’s explained my question. I like the Bloch quotation, but perhaps this wasn’t the best place to use it. His point is, however, a good one: Jesus did not come to teach about a totally transcendent kingdom; his kingdom is also of this world.

Robert C.: I used notes I’d made for the verse to write up my comments. I’ve just spent almost an hour looking through my dictionaries and I can’t find anything that says that elaphros can mean “serviceable” or “useful.” The only meaning I can find is the obvious, first meaning, “insignificant.” Oops!

Like you, I’m fascinated by these Matthew 11:28-30, so I’m interested in any discussion of them that happens here.

Thanks for referring us to Julie Smith’s piece. Julie is very thoughtful about the scriptures. Perhaps after she finishing moving her house, she’ll show up here to help us out.

“If her story is not told, is the gospel really preached? The answer to this question is a resounding ‘no’ on two levels. First, from the mouth of Mark’s omniscient, reliable protagonist, we know that the woman’s story will be told wherever the gospel is preached. And, secondly, without her christological statement, the gospel is not preached. If the audience does not understand that Jesus is both the royal/glorious and the suffering/dying Messiah–a Messiah that transcends yet is still in the context of the Jewish tradition–then Mark’s story has failed. If the audience does not understand that only through complete devotion does one really follow Jesus, that only complete devotion gives one the power and authority to make a proper christological confession, then the gospel has not been preached.”

However, in speaking with my PhD brother Sat. night, we discussed the definition of addiction…something that interferes with your normal life…having to force myself to turn away from THE BLOG! This is a compliment for ya’ll, since your conversation is so stimulating I can’t resist…however, I find I’m spending too much time TALKING ABOUT the scriptures vs. studying the scriptures, which is what I REALLY get into.

So, I’ve decided to “schedule” my blog sessions in order to return to a more “normal,” healthy life. TTFN!

In silence, a nameless woman pours nard on Jesus’ head. In this enigmatic scene, we find many themes that are central to the gospel of Mark: the identity of Jesus, purity and impurity, true discipleship and false, words versus deeds, and the paradox of the glorious yet dying Messiah. In this study, the anointing at Bethany will be explored in its literary contexts in order to show that it is christological material in Mark’s gospel. We will show that the anointing is both a burial and a messianic anointing and that its dual meaning is central to its christological vision. It will be suggested that the anointing encapsulates Mark’s Christology.

I actually like talking about these things as they come in in our regular course of study.

And perhaps that is one of the reasons we don’t read this story – because somewhere in our history and tradition it all got locked up in “secret.”

And also, if the woman performed these things as a . . . dare I say it . . . wife, then again she is discounted, because after all, she was ONLY doing it as a wife.

And it was conjecture. In my opinion, of course. What she did, for whatever reason, was an act of courage and intelligence.

What a shame that we have forgotten.

Joe, I want your take on this topic, but maybe it’d be better at the future post? It is VERY important to me to include faithful brethren in this topic of conversation. *Never* would I want to imply a anti-male spin on the topic.

I think this topic is of utmost importance.

But back TO the topic, I believe the Woman At The Well pericope in John 4, sandwiched between Nicodemus and the Nobleman is another example of women being spotlighted as receptive to the Lord. I would likewise teach this story to my daughters, among so many more. And, oh, the OT…so many beautiful women’s stories there!

Ahhh. Teach it to your daughters.

and now I cannot correct it, having failed to sign in first. Robert or someone, can you correct? [corrected]

I am addressing this issue here because of a couple of things in Jim’s great notes. The two things that are of interest to me in the present discussion is the idea that we have that Luke is the “women’s” gospel, and secondly, the very common conflation of texts regarding the anointing of Jesus, which Jim also mentioned:

“Mark may tell us that it was spikenard, a musky-smelling perfume ointment made from a plant found in India. (This assumes that the incident in Mark and this incident are the same; they may not be.) What is the significance of the woman washing Jesus’s feet? Is it significant that she washes them with her tears? What does anointment suggest? Can we understand what she does symbolically as looking forward to the crucifixion?”

Actually, I don’t think this story looks forward to the crucifixion at all, and I want to address our common error of reading the other anointing stories through the lens of this very dramatic, very poetic, very beautiful story of the sinful woman and the centering parable of the two debtors.

I love Luke, and I love Luke 7:36-50. Great themes are addressed: pride, love, forgiveness, acceptance of the gospel, seeing with Jesus’s eyes, and now . . . the comment that Karld made #2 under Lesson 10, the Parable of the Debtors.

But as much as I love this story, I grieve more for the loss of the other anointing stories, which I think are more powerful, and which I believe we should know better. Yet when I taught them in RS some months ago, not a single woman was familiar with them as I taught them.

It is enough to make me weep.

And this happens in Luke more than once – the power of the writing hides what the stories do to the women in them, and our own perception of what it is to be women in the Gospel.

I’d like to frame this discussion about what we teach our daughters. We have precious few stories of women in the scriptures, and all of them are more or less androcentric – more more than less. So, if you had only one story that you wanted your daughter to know above all the rest, what would it be?

For me, it would be the story of the anointing of Jesus, as told in Mark, Matthew, and John. As beautiful as Luke is, I could do away with it altogether if it meant we would pay more attention to the others.

These are my reasons:

In Matthew, Mark and John, the woman does something significant, something important, in the presence of the disciples and Jesus. She appears to be part of the inner circle – there is no surprise that she is with them.

(Unlike Luke, where everyone is surprised and disgusted.)

In Mark and Matthew, she pours the expensive ointment on Jesus’s head – a real anointing.

In Mark, Matthew and John, the disciples disapprove of her actions, not because she is a sinner, but because she acts in a way they don’t understand – why couldn’t this be given to the poor? They judge her action and condemn it.

In Mark, Matthew and John, Jesus tells the men – his closest associates – to quit criticizing her. She has acted as a prophet(ess) – she has “done what she could”

NIV:
8She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial.”

There is an inference that she knows what is going to happen, and she does the only thing she can do. This is not a spontaneous act, but an act of foreknowledge.

In Matthew, leaning heavily on Mark, there is also the idea that she poured the ointment not only on Jesus’ head but his body.

In John the woman is named: Mary, the sister of Martha, the sisters of Lazarus (John 11:2). We get a repeat here (John 12:1-8) of the feet washing with the hair, but what a different story it is. THe act is performed in front of the disciples, and the “house was filled with the odour of the ointment.”

Then, more profound, significant things happen. Jesus says, “”She hath wrought a good work upon me,” (she has done a beautiful thing to me – NIV) Matt 14:10.

And in Mark and Matthew Jesus says, respectively:

Mark 14:9 – “Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.”

Matthew 26:13: “I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world,, there shall also be this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial for her.”

(So I ask you all parenthetically: is this preached in our church? In our RS? in our SS classes? In conference? IN women’s conference?)

And what happens next in these stories?
In Mark, Judas immediately goes to the chief priests to betray Jesus.

In Matthew, the same.

In John, the chief priests also think of ways to kill Lazarus (Judas comes later, but we are told IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STORY (v. 4) that he was the one who betrayed Jesus.

So with whom is a comparison being made? This woman, this anointer, is being compared to Judas in the most positive way.

And then what happens?

The Passover happens. In John, first there is the triumphal entry, and then the passover.

The anointing by Jesus by the woman is one of the most valuable texts in the NT. But we read it through the story of Luke, if we read it at all. Mostly we don’t read it.

But, if I had one story for my daughter, for granddaughters, for women in young women, for men in young men’s, for talks throughout the church, it would be the anointing of Jesus, and I would tell this story, “in memory of her.”

Well, I have gotten passionate. But this happens in Luke in other ways. For instance, in John, the whole story of the anointing happens in the house of Lazarus, who was raised from the dead, while Martha was serving.

What do we get in Luke? We get Luke 10:38-42, a far inferior story where Mary is praised for being the silent passive receiver of Jesus’ teachings. And while the sinful woman is a powerful story, the actions of the sinful woman do not compare with the actions of the woman who, in the presence of the disciples, anointed Jesus’ body for burying, prior to his death.

In my opinion of course.

There are other instances in Luke that also encourage passive, quiet women. But I have spoken enough for now.

And I do love Luke.

The Greek word translated “light” means “serviceable” or “useful.”

I couldn’t find this idea in any of my dictionaries, can anyone help me with this?

Cheryl #2, I take the “artful dodger” phrase to be referring to a view that Christ’s teaching is one that effectively advocates closing your eyes the real problems of the world. So a “totally transcendent” heavenly kingdom is one that has little to do with this world, perhaps a retreat into an inner world disconnected from the outer world.

If I’m understanding the question (there’s a good chance I’m not!), I think this is indeed a tough question, one that relates to the very reason Christ was not the Messiah the Jews were expecting, i.e. one that would come to establish a worldly kingdom. However, with this question in mind, I think we might read the Sabbath controversy in Matt 12 as an example of how the Pharisaical interpretation of the law was not light, with it’s long list of dos and don’ts. I also think this gets at a deep issue regarding the inner change that Christ is calling for, if one’s heart is far from God, than following the law is truly burdensome, but if one’s heart is pure, then following the commandments becomes easy. That said, I have a ton of follow-up questions regarding this passage, how it relates to the previous passages in Matt 11, how the Matt 12 passages should be interpreted, etc. I find this passage fascinating and provocative, and I love it on many levels, but I also feel I do not understand it’s context and therefore intent very well at all. I would really appreciate more discussion of this “my burden is light” passage.

If not, how do we square these verses with the truth that, as Ernst Bloch says, Jesus “is anything but an artful dodger into invisible inwardness, or a sort of quartermaster for a totally transcendent heavenly Kingdom” (Atheism in Christianity 129-30)?

Regarding vs. 10-13 and Luke in general regarding women . . . in both Luke and Acts more than the usual number of women are mentioned, but not nearly as many as one might think.

For instance, 10 women are named in the Gospel. As characters in the gospel, 39 named men appear but the proper names of 94 more are mentioned – a total of 133 men. So the men outnumber the women (in names) by 13 to 1.

There are 10 unnamed women and 2 groups of women in the gospel – but 40 unnamed men and 27 groups of men occur. So unnamed men outnumber the unnamed women 4 to 1, and male groups outnumber the female groups by almost 14 to 1.

In the teaching of Jesus in Luke, women are mentioned 18 times, contrasted to the 158 times men are mentioned.

So I think the reason we think there are so many women in Luke is because our expectations are so small to begin with.

And, to lay even more of an alternative view on the table, some people conclude that Luke had a particular view of women – that he felt there were things that needed correcting, so that the women are shown primarily as benefactors and/or “hearing” the gospel. receiving it in silence. So the texts about women – seemingly so numerous (in comparison to what?) – actually can be dangerous to women, depending upon how they are read.

Certainly it is a good thing to know that women were a part of the early Jesus movement, even before they were called Christians. But I’m not sure we ever learn the role they played in that movement from Luke.