Spikenard

 In both Mark 14, and John 12 there is a story of a woman who took an ointment called Spikenard and used it to anoint Jesus.  In Mark the woman is unnamed, but in John we learn that is is Mary, sister to Lazarus, that anointed Jesus.  In John, Mary anoints Jesus' feet but in Mark, the woman anoints Jesus' head.  In both cases the apostles are indignant at the service rendered by the woman because Spikenard was very expensive, and it seemed a waste to pour it on Jesus when it could have been sold for a lot of money, and the money given to the poor.  Mark adds the price it could have been sold for, 300 pence, which was roughly a years’ worth of wages for a manual worker. Jesus tells the apostles that the woman has "wrought a good work on me" (Mark 14:6) and not to chastise her.  

I find this a very fascinating story.  It raises so many questions.  I must admit I was a little obsessed with it this week and even ordered some spikenard on Amazon so I could discover how it smells.  It is a pleasant perfume-like smell, nicer, in my opinion, than Frankincense. 

Usually, in these posts, I try to stick to the text and analyze without too much speculation.  But this week I indulged in speculations, trying to guess answers to a bunch of "what" and "why" questions.  Here are some of the things I was thinking.

1. Jesus is called Christ, which means "anointed one".  In the Old Testament men were anointed when they became priests, (Exodus 30:30) and when they became kings, (e.g. 1 Sam 16).  Jesus was definitely ordained to become and priest and a king, but when was he anointed?  Maybe he was anointed by God on the mount of transfiguration.  Maybe he was anointed before his birth to perform the atonement, or maybe the bloodshed in Gethsemane and Golgotha is what anointed him.  This, however, is the only written account of Jesus being anointed.  Could this be the anointing of Jesus that gave him the title of "Christ"? If so, it is interesting that he is not anointed at the temple by a priest, but in a home by a female friend and disciple. 

2. Why did John include this story?  John's gospel, even more than the other gospels, is very carefully written.  Every story, almost every word, is chosen carefully because it has special meaning. What meaning did John want us to understand by recording this event, and why did he particularly note that the oil Mary used to anoint Jesus was Spikenard? Here are some ideas:

   a. John included the story as a way of motivating Judas' betrayal.  Everyone in John's day would have known how expensive Spikenard was.  It is part of his case against Judas, justifying his claim that Judas was a thief and betrayed Jesus for monetary gain.  

  b. John uses this to foreshadow Jesus' death.  "Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this." (John 12:7) This idea is supported with the fact that the next verse mentions Lazarus, whose revival from death John uses to foreshadow Jesus' death and resurrection. 

  c. John uses it to depict Jesus as the Bridegroom of the church:  Spikenard is only mentioned in one book of the Old Testament, the Song of Solomon, where it is associated with marital intimacy.  (S of S 1:12, 4:13-14) If Jesus is the Bridegroom, then it would make sense that he would be anointed with Spikenard before his atonement which symbolizes his marriage to the church. This idea is further supported by the fact John starts his gospel with the story of the marriage of Cana, balancing his narrative with an actual marriage at the beginning of his gospel foreshadowing a symbolic marriage that ends his gospel.  

Another train of thought I had this week about this story is why Mary would have such an expensive ointment, and what does it say about Mary and Jesus relationship that Mary would use all of the ointment she had, literally breaking its container, to anoint Jesus? The scriptures suggest that Mary was saving the Spikenard specifically for Jesus' death. "against the day of my burying hath she kept this" (John 12:7).  If that is the case, when did she buy it?  How long had she known that Jesus would soon die, and where did she come up with a year's worth of pay to purchase it? Here are some possibilities I considered this week: 

  a. It is possible that Mary was pretty well off.  She did act as hostess several times for Jesus and his disciples.  It is totally possible when she realized that Jesus was prophesying his own imminent death she went out and bought the Spikenard just so she could do one last act of service for him before he died.  This is the simplest explanation in some ways, but it is hard to understand how a woman in that culture would have had access to that much ready cash. Also, was Spikenard available for purchase in the markets of Jerusalem, or is it something you would have to special order?  Maybe or maybe not. Spikenard comes from India and has to be imported. 

  b. What if Mary had the Spikenard as part of a dowry?  Since Spikenard is associated with marital intimacy, it would make sense for a woman to have acquired, maybe from wealthy family members, a supply of Spikenard as part of a dowry.  If that is the case, it is even a bigger sacrifice for Mary to have used the oil to anoint Jesus, thus spending assets that could have helped her achieve an advantageous marriage arrangement. 

  c. What if Mary was, as some have speculated, either betrothed or married to Jesus.  If that is the case, this whole scene takes on an even more poignant dimension.  What if she had received the Spikenard as part of a dowry or as a wedding gift, to be used as part of intimacy throughout years of marriage.  Mark states that the woman used a whole pound of ointment on Jesus.  Judging from the little .3 oz bottle of Spikenard that I purchased, a pound of Spikenard would have lasted a long time, even for years, if used carefully.  If the Spikenard was supposed to be used to enhance intimacy over years of marriage, the fact that Mary pours out the whole amount could be an expression of mourning. She was, perhaps, thinking of the years of closeness they may have enjoyed which were now impossible. She, bereft, decided to use all the Spikenard understanding it would be her last chance. If this is the case, Jesus' rebuke of the Apostles criticism is very touching. "Let her alone."  He acknowledges the tenderness of her feelings on the occasion, letting her grieve her impending loss. 

As I said, these are just speculations.  There is no support for most of these ideas, but I found them interesting and thinking of them helped make the scriptures more personal to me this week.

Matthew 23: 37-38

One of the saddest passages in the New Testament is Matthew 23: 36-38. 

 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

 Jesus has just been enumerating the hypocrisies of the scribes and pharisees.  He basically starts with small indiscretions like making big phylacteries and broad boarders on their clothes, and flaunting privilege (v. 5-6). Then he talks about them taking advantage of the vulnerable and misleading converts (v. 13-14). He accuses them of extortion and finally, of seeking to persecute and kill God's true servants (v. 25, 34). 

 I read this chapter in Greek this week and something popped out at me at the end of the chapter.  In verse 33 Jesus calls them "serpents" and "generation of vipers".  This automatically rings a bell for someone who knows the Old Testament.  Clear back in Genesis 3 a serpent became the symbol of Satan, the tempter and adversary.  Calling the Jewish leaders the "generation of vipers" is equivalent of calling them children of Satan.  It also hearkens the reader's mind back to the story of the Fall.  

 You may remember an earlier post I did about The Fall.  In it I mentioned that Adam means "earth" in Hebrew, meaning arable soil. When Adam is cast out of the garden, God calls him, instead, "dust" or dry ground that cannot grow things "for dust though art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (v 19).  

So, this is in my mind as I read Matthew 23: 38.  In the KJV it says, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate," but that is a loose translation.  What it says in Greek is ἰδού, ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν ἔρημος, or "behold, your house is given up to the desert." I live in a desert state.  I have seen what happens to abandoned homes that are taken over by the desert.  Of course, "house" here doesn't mean a physical domicile.  It means a clan, or "your people".  Juxtaposed against the idea of them being children of the serpent, I think Jesus is intentionally telling the Jewish leaders that they are going to remain in their fallen state. Because of their iniquity, they and all their "house" are "dust" instead of "adamah" fertile ground. 

 According to the podcasts I listened to this week, (particularly Talking Scripture with Mike Day and Bryce Dunford) within a century of Jesus' death, Jerusalem fell before the Romans, and became a "desert", at least as far as the Jews were concerned.  The temple was, indeed, thrown down, and any Jew that didn't flee was killed. It was the end of the ancient Jewish state, and Judaism only lived on in isolated pockets outside of Jerusalem. I believe Jesus knew this was going to happen. He was seeing the end of his people, just as Moroni saw the destruction of the Nephites.  That is why he was so sad.

The Prodigal Son

 The Prodigal Son (Luke 15: 11-32) is one of the most famous of all Jesus' parables. It is one that has touched me personally.  At various times I have felt like the prodigal, the father, and the older brother.  One of the podcasters I listened to this week (I think it was Michael Wilcox on Follow Him) pointed out that both the older brother and the young brother are the same in one respect. Both of them think their value is based on what they do.  The younger brother, at the end, feels useless because he has chosen to do bad things. The older brother feels like he should be valued because he has chosen to do good things.  But the father loves both children not for what they do, but because they are his children. This was a powerful insight to me and I began recognizing that principal in other places. 

I think it is in play in the parable of the hired laborers (Matthew 20:1-16).  This parable has bothered people before because it seems unfair that those who worked all day should receive the same reward as those who only worked one hour. Again, we are valuing people for what they do--the ones that do more should be valued higher. The parable seems to be trying be saying they are valued, not for how much they do, but for their willingness to do work. I think the line in the parable is significant when the lord says, "Why stand ye here all the day idle?" and they answered, "Because no man hath hired us." They were willing to work but were kept from it because circumstances beyond their control.  We could say the lord values them the same because they all have the same willingness.  But maybe that isn't even quite true.  Maybe the Lord values them because he values all his children, regardless of what they do or do not do. Maybe he is just generous, and would give a denarius to any in need.

My mind bounces to the sermon on the mount.  "Consider the lilies of the field..." (Matthew 6:28).  They don't work for their blessings.  God just blesses them. 

I guess this was impactful because deep down I have felt that I must do XY and Z so that when the time comes when I really need the Lord, he will be there for me.  If I do everything I possibly can to be the kind of servant God needs, I can rely on him in my time of need.  Maybe I need to rethink my motivations. Maybe I am trying too hard to earn God's love, sometimes to the point of making myself miserable because I always feel like I am falling short. But if that is not what God wants, for me to be as righteous and diligent as I can, then what does he want?  He certainly condemned those who are "wicked and slothful" servants (Matthew 25: 26).   

This, I guess, is the old works vs grace argument that theologians have debated for centuries.  I say I believe in grace, but I think part of me is still clinging to works. 

Lazarus (both of them)

 It is interesting that there are two important stories in the New Testament about men called Lazarus. As so often happens, the names have meaning important to the stories.  The name Lazarus is the Greek form of the name in Hebrew Eleazer, which means "God will help."  Both stories show how God will help his faithful children.

The first story is a parable that Jesus gives in Luke 16: 19-26.  It was meant as a rebuke to the Pharisees for putting too much importance on wealth and status.  In the story a man called Lazarus is poorly treated by his master "who was clothed in purple and fine linen." (vs 19).  Lazarus dies and then the rich man dies as well.  After death their roles are reversed.  Lazarus is in Abraham's "bosom" and the rich man burns in hell. The rich man begs to Abraham to send Lazarus to give him relief but Abraham says the he cannot. 

This is such an interesting and complex parable.  As the parable starts it would be easy for the Pharisees to think Lazarus represents "the Jews".  He has a very Jewish name and when he dies he goes to the bosom of Abraham. It would also have been natural for them to associate the rich man with the Romans.  The Roman custom was for their rulers to wear "purple", and they were famous for their elaborate feasts.  But as the story goes on, it becomes clear that Jesus is associating the Pharisees with the rich man and the more humble classes of Jews with Lazarus. In other words, he is suggesting without actually saying it, that the Jewish leaders were as oppressive as their Roman overlords. 

The story of the second Lazarus is found in John 11. Jesus' friend, Lazarus becomes ill and Jesus intentionally delays going to him until after Lazarus has died, specifically so he could raise him from the dead.  This obvious miracle was the last straw that convinced the Jewish hierarchy that Jesus must be eliminated.  It has always seemed interesting to me that the whole thing was so "staged."  Jesus intentionally lets Lazarus die and rot in the grave so he can show forth great power by bringing him back to life.  Why make such a production number out of it?  One answer is that he knew he must die at the hands of the Jewish leadership and this was a way to push them into doing what he needed them to do.  This idea seems a little harsh, though.  

After reading the Old Testament last year another reason came to mind.  There were several prophets of the Old Testament, especially right before the Babylonian captivity, that performed ritualistic acts to demonstrate future events.  For example God to Jeremiah to walk around with a yolk on his neck to signify the coming captivity (Jeremiah 27).  Hosea was told to marry a harlot to represent Israel's unfaithfulness to their God (Hosea 3-5).  I think Jesus' raising of Lazarus was just such an act.  He was prophesying of his own death and resurrection.  There are so many similarities.  Lazarus, like Jesus, was in the tomb several days, signifying that he was well and truly dead.  There was a stone rolled in front of his tomb that had to be removed.  Lazarus arose wrapped in a shroud with a cloth on his face, just as the shroud and cloth were found in the tomb after Jesus arose.  These were all elements of Jesus' own death and resurrection.  I think he knew he had to do this ritualistic act so that in hind sight the disciples would believe that he had truly risen from the grave, like Lazarus did.  He did it to prove what he said to Martha, "I am the resurrection and the life".  

I personally think that the reason Jesus wept when he saw Mary and Martha and the Jews weeping of Lazarus, wasn't just out of sympathy for their grief.  I think he felt bad that he had to intentionally put them through this hard ordeal. It was important that this event happen, but it came at the expense of the emotions of those he loved, and I think it was hard for him to put them through all that.  I think that sometimes he feels bad at what we have to go through.  It is like when a parent cries when they have to take their child to the doctor for shots, even though they know the shots are good for the child. It is still hard to see our children' suffer. Or when I, as a young mother, lay in bed weeping as I listened to my baby cry himself to sleep.  I knew he needed to learn to go to sleep in his bed, but his little voice seemed to sound betrayed and it broke my heart.  I think that is why Jesus wept.

The Good Samaritan

 As I listened to my different Come Follow Me podcasts this week I was struck by how many kinds of interpretations there are of the Good Samaritan parable from Luke 10:25-37. If I were teaching a Sunday School class right now, I might talk about the different ways of interpreting this parable. Here are some of them.

1. The simple interpretation:  The simplest interpretation is the one we learned in primary (or junior Sunday school).  The lawyer asks Jesus "who is my neighbor" and by telling the parable, Jesus is answering that question.  The lawyer gets it, so that when Jesus asks, "Which of these three...was neighbor to him that fell among the thieves?" he answered, "He that shewed mercy on him."  That's it.  Your "neighbor" is anyone you come across who needs help. 

2. The cultural interpretation: This is the interpretation that emphasizes that cultural difference and expectations between the groups in the story.  The people who ignore that man who is injured are Jewish religious leaders who should have had a stronger moral obligation to help someone in need, the priest and the Levite. They did not stop to help because of either indifference or fear that by helping the man they might become ritualistically unclean preventing them from performing their ecclesiastical duties. The man who helps the injured person is from a group shunned by Jesus' audience. In this interpretation, Jesus is condemning the religious leadership of the Jews of his day and teaching the lawyer to be more inclusive in his charity and less concerned with religious convention.

3. The metaphorical interpretation, the plan of salvation: In this interpretation all of us are the man who fell among thieves.  Jerusalem represents the pre-earth life, and Jericho represents earth life.  When we come from pre-earth life we encounter sin for the first time and it leaves us abused and near spiritual death. The law of Moses, represented by the Priest and the Levite, has no power to save us, but Jesus, represented by the Samaritan, comes and heals us with his oil (representing his Messiahship) and with wine (representing the atonement).  He  brings us to the inn, representing the true church, where we can stay and heal knowing that the Lord will return again and settle all debts. Greg Halverson of the Unshaken podcast attributed this interpretation to Origen, an early Catholic Father.

I think the third interpretation is intriguing, but I think the first and second are most powerful.  We can , at separate times in our lives, see ourselves in each of the roles in the story.  Sometimes we are the man who is attacked by thieves and find ourselves battered and unable to help ourselves.  Sometimes we are the thieves that leave others near spiritual death by a thoughtless word or act.  Sometimes we are the self-righteous ones who pass by those in need and sometimes we are the good Samaritan who stops to help. Sometimes we are the innkeeper, charged with caring for the more long-term needs of those the Lord has rescued from death with faith that we will eventually be repaid for our efforts. This is one of my favorites of the parables, and one that always causes me self-reflection.

Mark 7-9 and some Matthew

 Some weeks I feel like I have to stretch to find something interesting to blog about in this week's Come Follow Me reading, but this week there is so much I won't be able to cover it all. 

First of all, I am beginning to have more respect for the Gospel of Mark.  I had always thought of it as the abbreviated gospel, since it is the shortest and usually most free from commentary. We don't see much "thus we see,"  in the book of Mark.  Even though Mark is a "just the facts" kind of writer, I was impressed with the way he arranges his narrative to each principles.

My first example is in Mark 8, starring in verse 22.  A blind man approaches Jesus and asks to be healed.  Jesus takes him out of town and then spits on his eyes and asks what he could see.  He said he saw men, as trees walking (v.24).  Then Jesus put his hands on his eyes again, and he can see clearly.  

Immediately Mark recounts Jesus' question about "Who do men say I am" (v. 28) and Peter declares, "Thou art the Christ." (v. 29).  In vs 31, it says that Jesus "began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and ...be killed and after three days rise again."  Peter can't handle it, and rebukes the Lord, and then Jesus rebukes Peter.  

I don't think that the story of the blind man and the story of Peter were put together by accident. The healing of the blind man is the only account of someone being healed in stages. I think is foreshadowed Peter's progression.  In vs 29 Peter declares that Jesus is the Christ.  He is beginning to see, just as the blind man could see a little after his first administration.  But Peter is not yet seeing things clearly because he rebukes Jesus when Jesus says he must die.  Just as the blind man regained his sight in steps, Peter was coming to understand Jesus' mission in steps. 

The next major story is the mount of Transfiguration.  So much of this story harkens back to the Old Testament Tabernacle.  The tabernacle was the dwelling place of God on Earth, and when God was present it was overshadowed by a cloud.  We see the same elements here.  Peter suggests building tabernacles for the three exalted beings.  The cloud is there representing the presence of God.  Where as the Old Testament Israelites were not able to go into the holy of holies when the cloud was over it, this time, Peter, James, and John were invited into the cloud and heard the voice of God.   For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, there is a bunch of temple imagery here.

Finally I want to jump to Matthew 16: 16-17. Jesus asks the disciples whom men think he is.  They respond that people think he is John the Baptist or one of the prophets.  Then Jesus asks whom they think he is.  Peter responds by declaring "though art the Christ." Jesus says "flesh and bone hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven."  Several podcasters mentioned that "the coasts of Caesarea" where this exchange takes place was a center of pagan worship.  One interpretation of the phrase "flesh and blood hath not revealed it.,," is that it is referencing the pagan practice of killing and animal and looking at its entrails to divine the future. If there were, indeed, people in the city offering to divine a prophecy through this kind of augury, it was no wonder that Jesus said that "flesh and blood" (i.e, the flesh and blood of dead animals used in augury) was no source of true revelation.  

So there are my favorite tidbits from this week.  Like I said, there was much more I could have written.  

Judas Iscariot

 The creators of The Chosen have short Youtube videos about different Biblical characters depicted in their drama. I was watching one while exercising this week and the narrator commented that Judas' name was actually "Judah" in Hebrew.  Of course I should have realized this before.  All the masculine Hebrew names that end in "ah"  in Hebrew end in an "s" in Greek because the "ah" ending sounds feminine in Greek. When the narrator made the comment, it created a cascade of ideas in my mind. 

All through the Old Testament we saw that someone's name is significant in the story.  One of the podcasters I listen to always says, "the name is the sermon".  Joshua means, "Jehovah Saves" and Joshua saved his people in the promised land. "Jacob" means "He supplants" and he ended up supplanting his older brother as heir to his father. I never have figured out if their names were changed in the storytelling to match the story, or if it was just divine intervention/inspiration at the time of their naming. 

What if Judas/Judah Iscariot is called Judah in the story because he represents the house of Judah, i.e. the Jews and their treatment of Jesus?  I have never heard anyone make this supposition before but I think it fits pretty well. 

What do we know about Judas?  He was one of the original twelve (Matt 10:2-4) but was not from Galilea like many of the other apostles (some scholars think Iscariot, means man of Kerioth, a town in Judea, not Galilea). He kept the purse (John 13:29) i.e. he was in charge of managing at least some of the group's finances.  He opposed Mary's waste of the ointment, (John 12 3-5) claiming it should be sold and given to the poor. John thought he was a thief (John 12: 6). He betrayed Jesus to the Jewish leaders for 30 pieces of silver (Matt 26: 14-16) John suggests that Jesus knew what Judas was going to do (13:27) and did not try to stop him. He indicated to the mob who Jesus was with a kiss (Matt 26:48-49).  John later felt remorse for what he did and killed himself (Matt 27:3-5).

How might these actions reflect Jewish response to Jesus?  Just like Judas, the Jews originally accepted Jesus and many followed him.  Then, like Judas, they seem to become distracted by the things of this world. John suggests that after Jesus fed the 5000, the Jews they wanted him to keep providing food from heaven (John 6) and when he didn't, but instead spoke to them "hard sayings" (John 6:59) they stopped following after him. Like Judas, they were focused on what they could get from Jesus materially instead of spiritually. Like Judas, the Jewish people betrayed Jesus by working through authority figures. Just as Judas approached the Jewish leaders to betray Jesus, the Jewish leaders used the Roman government to cause his execution. As Judas, once part of the inner circle, betrayed his master, the same Jews who had welcomed Jesus when he fed the 5000 and made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, later cried out, "Crucify him." Finally, as Judas ended up paying for his betrayal with his life, the Jews as a nation suffered much persecution for centuries because they were seen as the group that killed Jesus.

This may be bit of a stretch, but I think that (particularly) Matthew and John used the figure of Judas to represent all of Judah and their betrayal of Jesus.  I think they did this because it is easier for us to understand the relationship between two men than between one man and a whole nation.  Readers feel Judas' betrayal poignantly, and so we can understand the betrayal of the whole nation more clearly.  As it says in Zachariah 13:6 "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."  Judah, who was once Jesus' friend, represents the house of Judah, who should have been Jesus' friends.