115. Chapter 2 - The Anointing of Jesus by Mary

Chapter 2 - The Anointing of Jesus by Mary Matthew 26:6-13;Mark 14:3-9;John 12:2-8 The Master Comes The home of Simon the leper in Bethany throbs with the full pulsation of a supreme moment of life, for the kind of time has arrived for which all other time is made. The lights glow in every chamber. Jesus and His apostles have come to share a supper which devoted friends have prepared. The manner of ecstatic but subdued conversation fills the banquet room. Old friends are meeting again to renew wonderful fellowship as rest and relaxation are provided after an arduous journey. Faces are aglow and eyes are shining, for hearts are beating high. Is not the Master Himself in the midst again? What a look of reverence and gratitude is on the face of Lazarus as he leans forward to hear every word which falls from the lips of Jesus. The Lord is again in Bethany with His dear friends. And will He not go tomorrow into the holy city to face His cruel foes in the temple? No other purpose could have brought Him to this fateful Passover. And what then? An impenetrable veil hangs over a future fraught with tragic suspense. But tomorrow will he another day and tonight is tonight; at least, we can drink deeply tonight of the blessed water of life, for our souls are famished and our lips are feverish.

There is one person in the midst who is not content with such blindfolded reflections. Every hour of this day has sounded a knell of doom for Mary. The outcome of a future that steadily grows darker, although it is still shrouded with the mystery of infinite possibilities of glory or despair, may cause the apostles to blunder on in helpless indecision and uncertainty. Such a state of mind renders them ready victims to the evil suggestion of Judas Iscariot a little later in the evening. But the keenness of a woman’s intuition when it is directed by a great love and deep spiritual insight is in the heart of Mary. She has not heard all the terrifying predictions of death at the hands of the rulers of temple and synagogue that have been vouchsafed to the apostles in hours of private instruction, but she has heard enough; she has seen enough. She has missed no word of the Master spoken in her presence and, like Mary of Nazareth, she has treasured each word pondering them in her heart. Ominous figures of speech delivered in temple sermons or to the multitudes on mountain sides have filled her with foreboding. The apostles, warned at first not to repeat the startling predictions of a death too horrible to contemplate, are beginning to talk freely in the inner circle of friends concerning the fearful outlook. The Insight of Mary Is it surprising under such circumstances that one so spiritually minded should have been able to see clearly the inevitable outcome as the whispered threats against Jesus and even against Lazarus, the innocent witness to the divine power of the Master, increased in volume and venom? It was perfectly clear to her that Jesus did not intend to use His marvelous power to destroy these malicious hypocrites and that naught but His death could quench the fierce flame of their hate. Why should any one doubt the accuracy of Jesus’ declaration: “For in that she poured this ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial”? The aged Simeon, as he had stood in the temple with the Christ-child in his very arms, had cried out in passionate thanksgiving to God for the redemption of Israel, had predicted that the Child should be “for a sign which is spoken against,” and had uttered to Mary of Nazareth the dreadful words, “Yea and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul.” Like miraculous foresight could have been granted to Mary of Bethany, but there seems no necessity for it. The Gift of Love

We do not know what transpired in the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus between the time of the resurrection of Lazarus and this beautiful scene in the home of Simon the leper. We can only surmise how and when there was invested what must have been the savings of a lifetime in a small “alabaster cruse of exceeding precious ointment.” On a former occasion Martha had protested bitterly to Jesus against the excessive spiritual concentration of Mary which had caused her to neglect doing her share of the onerous tasks of the day. But Martha offered no protest against the gift of love which has made forever precious the memories of this supper in the minds of uncounted millions of devoted Christians. When Jesus predicted the world-wide fame that should come to Mary as a result of her deed, He in no way suggested that there was the slightest idea of this in her heart or the heart of her friends. She had done what she could as she plainly saw Jesus going to His death. It must have seemed entirely appropriate to Martha that it should be Mary who would present this gift to Jesus. And Lazarus, so silent in all the narratives concerning Bethany, must have felt a peculiar, loving gratitude as he contemplated the gift of life he had received from the Master. We are apt to think of Mary as quiet, subdued, and retiring because so many forceful words are spoken by Martha in the Gospel records. We have but one sentence recorded from the lips of Mary, and that a brokenhearted repetition of the protest Martha had just uttered (John 11:32), but in the presence of the grief of Mary as she fell prone at His feet crying out brokenly of the death of Lazarus, the Master Himself had wept Certainly Mary was no reed shaken by the wind, nor a helpless, clinging vine following the lead of her brother and sister. She was full of individuality, initiative, and determined purpose. It took much of this to have kept her place at the feet of Jesus as He taught in the home — this in spite of the distress signals and urgent need of Martha. It also required great boldness of character for Mary to have interrupted the banquet in the home of Simon by such an amazing gift of love. She could foresee the inevitable fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions of His death, but she could not have been absolutely certain of how Jesus would regard this gift which others would criticize as the most reckless extravagance. It was not such a matter as she might discuss with Jesus and ascertain His will before the time. It had to be done extempore. It would cause a tremendous reaction from every one present. What others might think was of no consequence. The clarity of her spiritual vision which enabled her to understand that Jesus was about to die, also enabled her to believe that Jesus would accept her precious gift. Verily those who do His will shall know of His teaching. A Startling Interruption

We do not know the topics of conversation on this occasion as intimate friends listened to wonderful words of life from Jesus. There was one haunting specter in every heart. It might be crushed and driven Out for a passing moment, but it would continually rush back into the thoughts as on the wings of a tempest. “And while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster cruse of ointment of pure nard very costly; and she brake the cruse, and poured it over his head” (Mark 14:3, Mark 14:4). Whatever turn the conversation was taking, certainly it was broken up in the most startling and amazing fashion “And the house was filled with the odor of the ointment” (John 12:3). Mary had decisively furnished the topic of conversation; not a nook or corner of the entire house but was suddenly filled with the pungent odor of this powerful essence; not a person but thought and spoke only of this. Sadler suggests that the record of how the odor of the ointment filled all the house is typical of the way the great beauty of her deed would ring through all the world, but this is a mystical interpretation which we cannot assert. We are not told in the New Testament that this was “a mysterious forecast of the world-wide fame of her action.” The Protest When the first gasp of amazement subsided, the reaction was decidedly unfavorable. “Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, that should betray him, saith, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred shillings, and given to the poor? Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put therein” (John 12:4-6). Mark records: “But there were some that had indignation among themselves, saying, To what purpose hath this waste….And they murmured against her” (Mark 14:4, Mark 14:5). This last verb is the extraordinary embrimaomai, which is used to express the very great emotion of Jesus at the tomb of Lazarus — “groaning in himself” (John 11:38). Bernard translates it “And they roared against her.” The blunt command of Jesus: “Let her alone; why trouble ye her?” shows that their criticisms were very pointed, if not vociferous. Matthew informs us that the apostles joined in the protest against the waste: “But when the disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying Here is another deathblow to the theory which Allen uses desperately to sustain the Two-source Theory. He holds that Matthew copied from Mark and changed as he copied to remove any criticism or hint of blemish in the apostles and that this is evidence of the late date of Matthew which was written in a time when growing reverence for the apostles began to color the accounts. A little more investigation might have saved Allen from such folly, for here Mark leaves unidentified the “some that had indignation,” while it is Matthew who definitely declares the disciples uttered this protest! Those who contend that Mary did not really foresee the death of Jesus or intend that the anointing was for His death and burial, but that Jesus just chose to accept her gift with this meaning, overlook the contrast between the understanding and attitude of the apostles and that of Mary as shown by her presenting such a gift that it caused them to offer vehement protest. A deep spiritual insight into the inevitable trend of events and the purpose and heart of Jesus is shown by Mary as she made her gift, even if we did not have the commendation of Jesus to guide us in determining the extent of her understanding. The Time of Anointing A most difficult problem is found in the different the arrangement of this scene in the various narratives. John records it immediately after the arrival in Bethany and before the triumphal entry. He does not state definitely that it occurred at this time, but the account of the anointing is placed between two notes of time. Matthew and Mark record the anointing after the triumphal entry and just before the compact between Judas and the chief priests and the preparations for the Passover meal. They do not definitely state that the anointing occurred at that exact time and their arrangement may he topical rather than chronological. It can hardly be doubted that Matthew, Mark, and John describe the same event in spite of the different arrangement in their narratives.

Some conservative scholars hold that Jesus was anointed three times: (1) by the sinful woman at the banquet in the home of Simon, the Pharisee in Galilee (Luke 7:36-50); (2) by Mary of Bethany at an unidentified home in that village just before the triumphal entry (John 12:1-8); (3) by an unidentified woman in the home of Simon at Bethany three days after the triumphal entry (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9). The difficulty with this view is readily seen in a careful reading of the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and John: the details are so nearly identical that it is hard to see how the anointing, the protest, the rejoinder, and the praise by the Master could have taken place twice within a few days of the triumphal entry. In the case of the somewhat similar problem as to whether there were two rejections at Nazareth or only one, there is a very wide difference in time and very pointed differences in details, which lead one to conclude that Jesus made two efforts to evangelize the city of Nazareth.

Some radical scholars go to the extreme of maintaining that Jesus was anointed but once. This view is plainly untenable, for Luke placed the anointing of Luke 7:36-50 in Galilee, and the setting, characters, and details as well as the time are absolutely different. It is possible that Matthew and Mark give a topical setting or John a geographical setting instead of the chronological order. John describes the dramatic character of the arrival in Bethany and the intensely hostile atmosphere in Jerusalem; it may he that he adds this beautiful scene among devoted friends at Bethany to assist the reader in obtaining an insight into the whole situation before plunging into his chronological narration of the final events. But it seems more probable that Matthew and Mark introduce it as a break in their narrative of the plots and betrayal, turning back momentarily to tell of this scene that had happened a few nights before at Bethany. The general manner of introduction indicates this: “And while he was in Bethany” (Mark 14:3); “Now when Jesus was in Bethany” (Matthew 26:6). That Matthew and Mark should thus break their narration at the same point does not furnish any potent argument for the Two-source Theory. The arrangement of plots, friendship, and betrayal is such a natural array of contrasts that it does not argue against an independent writing of both narratives. If breaks from a chronological to a topical arrangement were frequent in the narratives of the whirlwind of events during this final week, critics might build an imposing argument. A single similarity in arrangement and such a natural one is entirely lacking in force. When we recall that all these events had been proclaimed thousands of times in the days following Pentecost by the inspired apostles, it is not hard to understand the similarities in the records of Matthew, who wrote the first authoritative account and Mark, who later wrote as Peter directed (according to the declarations of the early Christian scholars). The fact that Luke makes no mention of this whole event is a most important phase to remember in testing the probabilities that the Gospel narrators copied from one another or from common sources. If Luke copied from Mark and Matthew (or Ur-Mark and Q) what possible reason can be assigned for his failure to recount this scene with its enormously impressive declaration by Jesus of the world-wide proclamation of the Gospel which would be of especial interest to Luke’s Gentile readers? Plummer suggests that Luke had already recounted an anointing in Galilee by a sinful woman and so omitted this one. If Luke wrote independently this might explain the omission; but if he were only copying from sources then it is hard to explain the omission with its particular points of interest. John wrote several decades later, and the original line of presentation of the Gospel by the inspired witnesses soon after Pentecost was supplemented in most powerful fashion by John who certainly had the other Gospel accounts before him and very certainly did not follow them. The Place

John does not locate this scene other than as in Bethany with Lazarus present at the table, Martha serving, and Mary offering the spiritual service of anointing Jesus as He sat at the banquet table. Matthew and Mark expressly declare it was in the home of Simon the leper. Simon was probably a disciple who had been a leper and had been healed by Jesus. It does not prove that the banquet was served in the home of Martha because we find her serving, although many traditions have arisen which explain the differences on this assumption. They affirm that Simon was the father of Lazarus and the two famous sisters, or that Simon was the husband of Martha. But two families of intimate disciples of Jesus or several families may have thus joined in the home of one family without any blood relationship existing. “They made him a supper” (John 12:2) may refer to one household or the two households or even a much wider group of friends. Churches today abundantly illustrate such fellowship. The nucleus of a group of strong and devoted disciples in the village of Bethany is more than a probability in the light of the frequent visits of Jesus there and the prodigious miracle of Lazarus’ resurrection, which John tells us led many to believe on Him. The effort of radical critics to identify this anointing with that of Luke 7:36-50 rests upon the slender foundation of the host in each case having the same name. But Simon was a very common name and it certainly is not surprising that a Pharisee named Simon should have entertained Jesus in Galilee and that a disciple named Simon should entertain Jesus at Bethany a year or two later. In Luke 7:36-50 the host was churlish and neglected the ordinary duties of hospitality, and the woman was a public sinner who was repentant. Here the banquet was the expression of abounding devotion, the woman a devout disciple, and the discussion was with the disciples as to whether her act constituted a waste of funds, instead of being with the host as to the propriety of permitting a woman who was a public character to touch Him. In the earlier anointing forgiveness of the woman’s sins was declared by Jesus; at Bethany Mary’s devotion was praised and the significant connection of the act with His approaching death and with the ultimate proclamation of the gospel was set forth. The Identity of the Woman

It is remarkable that Matthew and Mark do not name the woman even though they report the prediction of Jesus concerning the fame that is to be hers as her noble deed is proclaimed all over the world. John dearly declares that it was Mary of Bethany. The most surprising efforts have been made to identify Mary of Magdala with the sinful woman of Luke 7:36-50 and to identify both with Mary of Bethany. Radical scholars who hold that there was only one anointing usually attempt to identify these three women as one. Bernard follows the Roman Catholic position in identifying the three women as one and yet holding that she anointed Jesus twice, once in repentance as she left the life of a harlot to rejoin her family and again in grateful devotion to her Saviour. He expends five pages in this bizarre effort.

Early Christian writers show great divergence of opinion about the identity of the anointings and the women, but from the time of Gregory the Great, the Roman Catholic Church has identified the three women as Mary of Bethany. The feast of St. Mary Magdalene on July 22 attempts to teach this theory and to present Mary as a great sinner who became a great saint. This makes a very dramatic story and illustrates the tendency of Catholic tradition to concentrate a large number of scenes in the same “holy place” or a number of individuals in the same personality. To have Mary first a harlot, then anoint Jesus for burial, and finally be the first to see Him risen from the dead does make an exceedingly dramatic account. The trouble with the arrangement is that it contradicts the historical narratives in the New Testament. How can Magdala in the plain of Gennesaret on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee be identified with Bethany the famous village on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives? It is vain to imagine that Magdala is some unidentifiable place on the Mount of Olives for Mary Magdalene is clearly represented as a woman of Galilee and Mary of Bethany as a woman of Judaea. The suggestion that Mary, Martha, and Lazarus formerly lived in Galilee is without the slightest historic foundation for they are always associated with Bethany. (Luke 10:38-42 does not name the village, but it evidently is Bethany.) Moreover, there is not the slightest excuse for the deliberate slander of the good name of Mary Magdalene or Mary of Bethany by trying to identify them with the repentant harlot of Luke 7:36-50. Bernard’s effort to interpret “Mary hath chosen the good part” (Luke 10:42) as meaning not the good part of hearing Jesus instead of serving with Martha, but the good part of becoming a disciple instead of living a life of shame, is monstrous. Such a farfetched effort is self-evident proof of the lack of any real evidence to sustain his attempted identification of persons. The Ointment The accounts vary in the description of the ointment: “an alabaster cruse of ointment of pure nard very costly” (Mark 14:3); “a pound of ointment of pure nard, very precious” (John 12:3). The term “spikenard” (pistic nard) has caused much speculation. Some hold that it is used as an adjective with ointment and means “genuine”; others suggest that it means “potable,” as some perfumes could be used as a drink, but this does not fit the context in any way. The Revised Version of 1901 translates “pure nard” and gives the marginal reading “liquid nard.” Dods holds it refers to a particular type of very rare and costly turpentine which was given this name because of the terebinth which yielded it. Robertson suggests that “pistic” refers to the particular locality from which the perfume was secured. The amazement and storm of protest that followed the anointing is eloquent testimony to the very precious quality of the ointment. “Three hundred shillings” was the quick estimate of the astute Judas. Three hundred denarii would be about fifty one dollars which perhaps should be multiplied by one hundred to make allowance for the difference in the purchasing power of money then and now. Some affluence and prominence for the family of Mary, as well as supreme devotion in her heart, is indicated by this costly gift. The sinful woman, being unable to secure any ointment that was very expensive, seems to have used ordinary olive oil. The Manner of the Anointing

John states that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped off the ointment with her hair. Matthew and Mark declare that the woman anointed His head. To anoint the head with olive oil was the customary honor bestowed upon guests (Psalms 23:5; Luke 7:46). The sinful woman may have desired to do this, but did not presume to do so and anointed His feet instead (Luke 7:38). To anoint the feet was extraordinary, although it was customary to furnish a basin of water and a towel to a guest in order that he might wash off the dust of travel as he removed his sandals at the door of the home (Luke 7:44). Mayor has cited an illustration from classical literature (Aristophanes), where a maiden anointed and kissed her father’s feet. Bernard argues at great length upon this phase of John’s narrative, asking why Mary of Bethany should have appeared in public with disheveled hair, when it was considered immodest for a woman to have her hair unbound in public; why she should have anointed His feet, when this was so unusual; why no towel was available for wiping His feet in a home where her sister was serving at the banquet; and why Mary should have wiped off the ointment at all. His answer to all this is that Mary is the sinful woman of Luke 7:36-50 and that she now repeats the procedure which she had followed impromptu before. This is exceedingly farfetched and gratuitous. The woman in Luke 7:1-50 probably intended to anoint Jesus’ head and certainly did not intend to break down and weep in public; she was overcome by her repentance and her course in wetting His feet with her tears and wiping them with her hair and anointing them was unpremeditated and done on the spur of the moment. The course which Mary of Bethany pursued was undoubtedly just as spontaneous. She came to anoint His head, saw His feet travel-worn from the long and difficult journey, anointed them also, and wiped off the excess of ointment with her hair. She had no towel because she had not intended aught except to anoint the head of Jesus. To have interrupted her gift of devotion while she went in search of a towel would have been absurd in the light of the supreme devotion which her gift revealed. She might conceivably have used her head-covering to dry off the ointment, but she showed greater devotion by using her hair. The question as to how it was possible to anoint both the head and the feet of a guest at a banquet table is readily answered when we recall that the Graeco-Roman civilization had caused the custom to prevail for the guests to recline on couches. Most of the artist’s pictures of the Lord’s Supper are at fault in this respect. We read of Eli sitting on a bench when the messenger came with the news of the capture of the ark by the Philistines; the bench had no back and the old high priest fell backwards and broke his neck upon hearing the sad news. The money-changers sat at tables in the temple market. The synagogues had benches for the worshippers. We read in Acts that on the day of Pentecost “it filled all the house where they were sitting” (Acts 2:2). But there were couches provided for banquets and the guests reclined, resting on the left elbow with the right hand free to procure the food. The anointing of both the head and the feet was not difficult under such circumstances.

Judas Iscariot The character of Judas begins to emerge in a most startling fashion in the home of Simon the leper. John makes clear that it was Judas who first raised the objection and that his motive was not regard for the poor, but desire to have the money for the general fund from which he was stealing. Evidently followers of Jesus were giving continually into this treasury and the money was being used for the necessary expenses of the group and the surplus given to the poor. Judas must have been a keen businessman, for he had been placed in charge of the treasury. The Greek word translated “bag” or “purse” meant originally a case which contained the reeds or tongues of musical instruments and then came to mean any kind of box. It is used as a money box into which the offerings were cast (Septuagint version of 2 Chronicles 24:8, 2 Chronicles 24:10). The box which Judas carried may have been small or he may not have carried it all the time. Judas’ whispered protests misled all the apostles and stirred them to indignation — probably some more than others. Hostile critics attempt to say that John is unfair to Judas and tries to blame everything on him. In their perverse effort to go through the Bible and make all the wicked people noble and to picture the noble people as contemptible, they seize upon John’s statement, “he was a thief,” as evidence of unfairness. But John simply tells the actual facts. The apostles did not learn until later of the baseness of Judas. Instead of being unfair, his statement is wonderfully restrained when one contemplates the circumstances. The Purpose of the Anointing

There is something mysteriously appropriate about this whole scene as we contemplate the tragic but triumphant close of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Guests were anointed as a matter of courtesy. Prophets, priests, and kings were anointed in the Old Testament. Jesus was the divine Guest and the great Prophet, Priest, and King. Klausner holds that Mary anointed Jesus as Messianic King and not for His death; he claims that the death of Jesus was not anticipated. Thus do skeptics deny the historic records and rewrite from their own fancy. It is true that Jesus was about to be proclaimed King by men on the morrow as He entered the city in triumph. He was about to be crowned in heaven at His ascension. Both of these events were as yet unknown to Mary. John notes that the disciples did not know the significance of Jesus’ conduct at the time when He rode the colt in triumphal entry, but he does not state that Mary did not know what she was doing when she anointed Jesus. The very opposite is affirmed by the writers. Before the final coronation, the death of Jesus intervened and Jesus humbly accepted the anointing as for His burial rather than as King. He declares that Mary so intended it. Like the crown of thorns, this anointing was particularly fitting for the King who was about to die on a cross.