THIS is Why I Need To Preach
I have taken a lot of criticism over these last few years about why it is that I want to "PREACH". Preaching is one thing that did not transfer over from Christianity to neo-Paganism.., mostly because most of us got really tired of "preachers" standing up in front of large groups of people telling them that women were inferior and that homosexuality is an abomination. Plus, for the LONGEST time, "preaching" was a profession reserved for men. There were some exceptions, but for most of my lifetime, to hear a female preacher was unusual.
So, when I first started this journey and I told some Pagan friends of mind that I wanted to be a "preacher", they gave me looks that I can only say were looks of disgust. "Preaching" was something reserved for those "holier than thou" types who PRESUME to have some kind of "divine authority", when all they REALLY do is "holler with a collar". "Preachers" were Jerry Falwell, Pat Robinson, Billy Graham, Fred Phelps.
The word "preach", however, is actually a combination of a Greek and a Hebrew word, and all it really means is "to teach". It began is early Christianity to explain the text to illiterate people. I'm thinking the reason that maybe they combined a Greek and a Hebrew word is because they were teaching about both the Hebrew and the Greek testaments. (but I have no proof of that, as I just made that up, just now). Still, however, preaching did come from a place of power. Obviously, if your whole civilization is based upon a text that only a few people can read, there is a power imbalance.
This is why I am choosing to keep the word "preach" and not change it to "teach" or "story" or "discussion" or some other word that some modern ministers have been experimenting with to try to soften that reality. I own the fact that the person at the pulpit... the Preacher... is a person who is wielding power.... quite a lot, actually. And that power needs to be handled responsibly.
So, back to that passage in Luke that I am going to be preaching on. For the last 2000 years, that passage has been about the "penitent prostitute." That woman that comes to wash Jesus's feet with her tears is a prostitute, right? That is why it says that she is a sinner, right? Doesn't that mean prostitute?
Uh, no, actually, it doesn't. What the text actually says in Greek is "a sinful woman", but the definition of "sinful" is "has fallen short". So, this is actually a woman who "has fallen short" of the Jewish Purity code, but that could mean anything. Maybe she ate a rabbit. That would make her just as "sinful" as prostitution would. Secondly, these laws only applied to Jews. Non-Jews were not expected to follow them. Therefore, ALL gentiles were "sinful". And, in fact, the fact that the Pharisee is so pissed off that she is even there supports that theory. Jews were not supposed to eat with non-Jews. His reaction fits with this completely.
However, there is one other important piece of information within the text that almost no one is aware of, and that is, the "alabaster jar".
Most people also think that the Alabaster Jar belongs to Mary Magdalene, but we don't know that for sure. It certainly COULD have, but the text doesn't support that. This story of a woman coming seemingly out of nowhere to anoint Jesus is in all four canonical gospels, and it is different in every one. (
Matthew 26.2-12, Mark 13.35-14.8, Luke 7.32-42, and John 11.55-12.8 (btw, if you don't have a Bible handy, the easy way to look these up is @ bible.oremus.org).
So, is this Mary Magdalene, or not? Did she anoint his head, or his feet? WTF is going on here?
The confusion arises because we are asking the wrong question. The question isn't who did what to who, the question is why is there an alabaster jar?
Two items, alabaster and nard, are either mentioned directly in all 4 texts or inferred. Here, again Oremus Bible Browser is my friend, because when I did a search, I discovered that there is only ONE PLACE is ALL of the Hebrew Bible that either of those things are mentioned, and they are mentioned in the same book, and that book is in the Song of Songs.
Song of Songs 1.12:
While the king was on his couch,
my nard gave forth its fragrance.
Song of Songs 4.13:
Your channel* is an orchard of pomegranates
with all choicest fruits,
henna with nard,
Song of Songs 4.14:
nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon,
with all trees of frankincense,
myrrh and aloes,
with all chief spices-
Song of Songs 5.15:
His legs are alabaster columns,
set upon bases of gold.
His appearance is like Lebanon,
choice as the cedars.
Uh... is it just me? Or does this all sound like pretty sexy stuff to be included in the Bible? So... what is really going on here?
The women dries Jesus's feet with her hair, which means her hair is UNBOUND. That, in itself, is pretty racy stuff. At that time, no reputable woman would be caught outside with her hair unbound. That is kind of like taking her top off would be today. So, the act itself, in Jesus's time, is pretty scandalous. But still, we are once again being distracted by sex. Sex is not the point.
The point is... WHO IS THAT WOMAN?!?!
Stay tuned to find out ;-)