AP
Reformed Thought for Christian Living
Sometimes, in reading the Gospels, we come across incidents which at first glance seem similar, but upon closer inspection are not. Indeed, they may be referring to different incidents. That’s […]
Sometimes, in reading the Gospels, we come across incidents which at first glance seem similar, but upon closer inspection are not. Indeed, they may be referring to different incidents. That’s what I think occurs with the multiple anointings of Jesus.
Matthew 26:6-16 and Mark 14:1-8 record the same event, but Luke 7:36-50 and John 12:1-8 are referring to different ones. Which means that there are not just two occasions in the gospels where Jesus is anointed with oil by a woman, but three.
Chronologically, the first incident is found in Luke 7 where Jesus is anointed by a ‘sinful’ woman. Some have identified her as being Mary Magdalene but that’s almost certainly not the case. The Pharisees are upset at Jesus’s allowing the woman to even touch him because she had led such an immoral life.
Nevertheless, the sinful woman washes Jesus’ feet with her tears and dries them with her hair, all the while kissing his feet and anointing them with perfume. It’s one of the most touching and beautiful scenes in the ministry of Jesus. Significantly, the woman herself is never recorded as speaking. She is simply described as being absorbed with serving Jesus.
The house is owned by a Pharisee named Simon, who had become upset that Jesus, as a prophet of God, doesn’t recognise he is being touched by a sinner. Little does he realise that this is precisely why Jesus came! So, Jesus asks him about which person would love a moneylender more – the person who has been forgiven five hundred denarii, or the person who has been forgiven fifty? The answer is obviously the person who was forgiven of the greater debt.
In the same way, Jesus says this woman has shown more love to him than Simon had, because she has been forgiven so much more than he had. Make no mistake, the Pharisee and the sinner were both debtors before God, for all have sinned.
The second anointing is found in John 12, but the question is, is it actually the same incident as the one recorded in Matthew and Mark?
Each anointing is obviously significant in its own right, but it’s important that we don’t confuse or mix them up. For there are five points of difference between the two accounts.
In verse 1 of John 12 we learn that it took place six days before the Passover, whereas in verse 1 of Mark 14 we find that it took place only two days before. Now, to be fair, many commentators today think that verse 3 of chapter 14 is a ‘flash back’ to what happened earlier in the week, and so they’re still holding to the inerrancy of Scripture. For example, John Calvin states:
As he had come to Bethany six days before the Passover, it can be gathered from Matthew and Mark that He remained there four days. John does not say on which day the supper was made for him, when he was anointed by Mary. But it seems likely that it was not long after his arrival. Those who think that the anointing mentioned by Mark and Matthew is different from this one are mistaken. The time factor has misled them; for the two Evangelists mention two days before relating that Christ was anointed. But the solution is easy and may be given in two ways. John does not say that Christ has anointed on the first day of his arrival; so it could have taken place even when he was preparing to depart. Yet as I have said, the other conjecture is the more probable, that he was anointed at least one or two days before his departure. Judas had certainly made a bargain with the priests, before Christ sent two of his disciples to prepare the Passover. Now, at least one day must have elapsed between these two events. The Evangelists add that he sought a convenient time to betray Christ after he had received the bribe. And so when, after mentioning two days they add the story of the anointing, they narrate last what happened first. The reason is that when they have related the words of Christ, “Ye know that after two days the Son of Man shall be betrayed,” they now put in what they had omitted – the manner and the occasion on which he was betrayed by his disciple. There is thus sufficient agreement that he was anointed at Bethany.[1]
However, a much simpler reading of the text is to see that this event happened at a different time. Mark in particular tells us that the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. In God’s plan, Jesus is the final Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7), the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).
Significantly, it’s the plans of the corrupt religious leaders of Israel which will facilitate that event occurring – an event which is now just a couple of days away, for Jesus will be crucified during the Jewish festival when the Passover Lamb was slaughtered. Hence, the events of John 12 seem to have occurred at a different time in the week to those in Mark 14 and Matthew 26.
The second difference between the two anointings is that they took place in a different setting. In John 12 it was the home of Martha and Mary, with the recently resurrected Lazarus also in attendance. As Matthew Henry observes: “… nor is it likely that Martha should serve in any house but her own.” [2]
In Mark chapter 14, however, the anointing occurs in the home of Simon the leper. We must never overlook the horror that people felt about contracting leprosy. It was a death sentence which was preceded by social isolation and slow physical decay as one’s body literally rotted away. And yet, this is precisely the kind of place where Jesus had gone to have dinner.
People with leprosy were required to live on the outskirts of town because of their condition. But Jesus goes to the outcasts so that they can be reconciled to almighty God – recall the sinful woman in Luke 7. It was thus more than likely a different place, despite what Calvin says.[3]
Third, it involves a different woman. This can easily be overlooked since they both use extremely expensive perfume made from nard. In John 12, it’s performed by Mary who had once sat quietly at Jesus’ feet. By way of contrast, in Mark’s account the woman is not named, and neither are Martha and Lazarus. Following on from the previous point, it would be strange for Jews to eat at a leper’s house when they were supposed to live in isolation (i.e. Lev. 13).
The temple religion of Israel might be fruitless (Mark 11:12-26), but that’s not the case with these women. They are offering to Jesus to most extravagant offering of all. They are giving to the Lord Jesus Christ everything they have and own! Interestingly, Song of Songs refers to the woman saying to her royal lover:
“While the king was at his table, my perfume spread its fragrance. My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts. My lover is to me a cluster of henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi” (Song of Songs 1:12-14).
John records Judas Iscariot as saying that a jar of nard cost approximately a year’s wages (John 12:5). Today, a first-year-out teacher earns approximately $75,000. That’s a lot of money to spend on a one-off event! Many people in the ancient world bought it as a family heirloom to be used sparingly on special occasions. Yet these two different women poured out the whole bottle onto Jesus.
The fourth difference relates to where they specifically anointed Jesus. In John 12, Mary pours it on his feet, whereas in Mark 14 the unnamed woman pours it on his head. Once again, Calvin thinks that this discrepancy can be explained as follows:
Between John saying that the feet were anointed and our writers, the head, there is no contradiction. Unguents were not poured on the feet; but as a more generous than usual amount was poured out, John, to give full detail, says that even the feet were smeared with oil. Mark says, when the alabaster was broken, all the unguent spilled over the head. It agrees very well with this that it flowed right down to His feet. Let us just keep certain that the same story is recorded by all.[4]
Some commentators suggest that the anointing of the women has messianic overtones. Which means they want to somehow connect it to Jesus’ being ceremonially recognised as the Christ. However, that event occurred at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry when he was baptised. As Jesus came up out of the water the heavens were torn open and the Spirit descended upon him as a dove.
By the way, the word ‘torn open’ appears only one other time in Mark’s Gospel, and that’s when the curtain in the temple is torn in two from top to bottom.[5] These two supernatural occurrences reveal that Jesus is the Son of God. What the women are doing by anointing Jesus, is preparing his body for burial. As such, it’s a profoundly moving act of love and devotion because it recognises the infinite preciousness of what Jesus is about to do. No other death in the history of the world is as special or as important as Jesus’.
It’s women who are the first to perceive that glorious Gospel truth – Mary in John 12 and this unnamed woman here in Mark 14. All the money in the world couldn’t remunerate Jesus for what he is about to do. How much more appropriate is it then that these two different women should lavish a year’s wages upon him before he dies?
The fifth and final difference picks upon on this aspect and involves the negative reaction of Judas Iscariot. On both occasions Judas is upset that the women ‘waste’ so much money on Jesus. Judas doesn’t really want to help the poor like he says. Instead, John tells us that he was a thief and as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
Significantly, after the incident in John 12 Judas doesn’t do anything. But is the account in Mark 14 and Matthew 26 refers to a separate event, then a couple of days later Judas has had enough. And we’re told he immediately leaves and betrays Jesus for thirty pieces of silver which was the price people paid for a slave.
There’s another fascinating contrast here, and it’s between that of Judas and the unnamed woman. Wherever the Gospel has been preached throughout the world, there have been these two difference responses: people worshipping Jesus with all that they have, or people betraying Jesus because they didn’t get what they want.
Ultimately though, regardless as to whether or not you think Jesus was anointed once, twice or three times, the obvious question is this: How have you responded to Jesus? Are you giving him all that you have, or are you upset that you’re not receiving more?
Jesus was anointed before he died because people knew that He was profoundly unique and special. This was obviously no ordinary man but the Son of Man, the one whom Daniel said would receive all glory, honour and authority and be worshipped by people from every tribe and nation (Daniel 7:13-14).
Christ alone deserves our devotion, love and worship. For his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and his dominion is one which will never end. And just as he ascended into heaven on the clouds, so to one day will he return in judgment.
– Mark Powell
[1] John Calvin, The Gospel According to St John 11-21 and the First Epistle of John. Translated by T.H.L Parker (Paternoster, 1959), 24-25.
[2] Calvin, John 11-21, Calvin argues that ‘Matthew and Mark say that on this occasion he was dining with Simon the leper. John does not name the house, but hints plainly enough that he was not dining in the house of Lazarus and Martha, for he makes Lazarus as one of them that sat at meat with him – a fellow guest of Christ’s’(page 25).
[3] It’s worth noting that John Calvin says, “John’s narrative is slightly different here from Matthew’s and Mark’s but the inconsistency, which some interpreters have wrongly inferred as grounds for making up a new account, is soon resolved. The name of the woman who anointed Christ is omitted by the two evangelists and given by John. Yet he makes no mention of the man who invited Christ to the meal, while Matthew and Mark expressly record that they dined at the house of Simon the leper” (pp.120-121).
[4] John Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 120-121. Calvin also states in his commentary on John 12, ‘Nor indeed is there any contradiction in Matthew and Mark relating that Christ’s head was anointed, while our author says that it was his feet. Anointing was usually of the head, and for this reason Pliny regards it as extravagant when some anointed the ankles. The three agree that Mary did not anoint him sparingly but poured a large quantity of anointment upon him. John’s reference to his feet is equivalent to his saying that Christ’s whole body was anointed down to his feet. The word feet amplifies the sense, as appears better in what follows, when he adds that Mary wiped his feet with her hair’ (p.25).
[5] See James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Eerdmans, 2002), 36.
