Introduction
Mark and Matthew
Matthew and Mark’s versions are nearly identical, with only minor details differing between them. Both place the passage within the larger context of Jesus’ last week before the crucifixion. Specifically, it appears right after an apocalyptic pronouncement and two days before the Passover. In Mark, the narrator tells us that the religious authorities were looking for ways to accuse and hopefully execute Jesus. In Matthew, that warning comes from Jesus himself. Tension is growing, both within the narrative and between Jesus and the chief priests and scribes. Both Mark and Matthew place the story after an apocalyptic passage. Following the anointing story, both Gospels move to the Last Supper and passion narratives; Jesus is in the midst of conflict in his final two days and is abandoned by his disciples in his moment of greatest need. Thus, the anointing narrative serves as an emotional moment where the unnamed woman anoints his head—prompting Jesus to tell those who object that “she has anointed me for my burial.” Both Mark and Matthew have Jesus saying that the woman’s deed will be proclaimed—though one is immediately drawn to the fact that the woman remains unnamed.
The setting of the dinner, and thus the anointing, bears exploration. Luke is the only writer to place the dinner in a town other than Bethany, which we shall explore presently. Bethany was a small village a few miles southeast of Jerusalem that was home to Lazarus, Mary, and Martha (Parsenios 436-437). Both Mark and Matthew tell us that Simon the leper is host of the dinner. One wonders if Bethany might have been the site of a leper colony, or if Simon simply lived there with his family or alone. In either case, the fact that Jesus was in the house of a man known and named for his condition serves to show that Jesus gathers not with the rich and famous—the ones who are outwardly worthy—but with sinners, tax collectors, lepers, and other outcasts. Lepers were to remain apart from the community (see Lev. 13:45-46), and one might expect that going to a leper’s home for dinner would make the guests unclean. Yet Jesus and his disciples show no reluctance to accepting the invitation.
Some of the people who see the woman anointing Jesus’ feet—the disciples in Matthew but unnamed in Mark—object to the act, noting that the perfume could have been sold “for 300 denarii” (Mark) or “a very large sum” (Matthew) and the money given to the poor. Jesus’ reply serves as the climax of the narrative and the reason for including it in the Gospel accounts; she is anointing him for his burial. He first tells them to not burden her, and then comments on their objection about how the ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus points out that ministry with the poor is something that can be done at any time, even (especially) after his death, resurrection, and ascension. But ministry with him is limited by his impending death. Thus, the woman’s anointing serves as a moment of ministering to Jesus’ needs amid the building tension of the greater narrative.
While Matthew uses Mark’s version with little editing, there are still a few differences. Mark’s account of the preceding apocalyptic pronouncement includes a short section of warnings where the destruction of the temple is only briefly mentioned, but which talks about how the disciples will be arrested and persecuted. Things will be resolved, but not until there has been much suffering. This fits with the generally accepted dating of Mark’s writing to the late 60s, before the destruction of the temple in 70 (Johnson 145).
Mark includes two words or phrases which differ from the other accounts. The first word is πιστικη̃ς, which appears only in Mark 14:3 and John 12:3. The NRSV omits it from Mark, but translates the Johannine instance as “pure”. Danker defines it further as “genuine, unadulterated.” This adds to the picture that the ointment is very valuable and costly; it is not a mixture of some kind but a substance that is pure, just as Jesus Christ is pure. The other phrase is one which the NRSV and Nestle-Aland render “She has done what she could,” but which the Interlinear Bible renders “what this one held, she did.” The word in question is either ἔσχεν (Nestle-Aland) or εΐχεν (Interlinear). It seems that the Interlinear is in error here. The other accounts do not pick up this phrase from Mark. Yet it is important because it shows Mark’s viewpoint for his entire Gospel account.
Mark is a narrative of doing. In Mark, disciples are expected to physically follow Jesus. They are invited into Jesus’ messiahship through obedience and service (Johnson 153-154). The woman in the present story performs an action which both prefigures Jesus’ death and echoes Old Testament anointings of prophets, priests, and kings, while breaking gender and social status norms. This illustrates that Jesus calls everyone to service, not just those who appear on the outside to be worthy. Thus, Mark’s inclusion of the anointing narrative shows that serving Jesus—and by extension, those to whom Jesus sends us—is our expression of discipleship.
Matthew’s reason for including this story differs from Mark’s. Matthew places it just after several chapters set in and around Jerusalem. In these chapters Jesus foretells the destruction of the temple and the upheaval of society that stems from that conflict and then gives a polemic speech wherein he describes the dividing of true disciples from those who merely give lip service (the “sheep” from the “goats”) and the meaning of true discipleship. Thus, the anointing story serves as a way to illustrate serving. The disciples grumble that the ointment could be sold “for a large sum” (rather than Mark’s three hundred denarii) and the money given to the poor. Despite a whole chapter where Jesus commands his followers to give to the poor, Jesus seems to dismiss their concerns. A closer look shows that, as in Mark, the implication is that there will be plenty of opportunities for almsgiving. The woman recognizes that this moment with Jesus is important and will not be repeated, whereas giving alms to the poor is expected to be frequent. Matthew is showing us that by anointing Jesus, the woman is demonstrating her devotion to Jesus, who is the living Torah. Matthew picks up Jesus’ assertion, as in Mark, that the anointing is for the day of his burial. Thus, Matthew does not mention spices or anointing Jesus’ body as the reason for the women to visit the tomb in the resurrection narrative, unlike Mark and Luke.
Both Matthew and Mark contrast the woman’s kindness with the vitriol of the chief priests and scribes, who seek to have Jesus killed. They also contrast the woman’s attention with the disciples’ apparent indifference. Both Gospels use the episode as a pause in the growing tension of the overall narrative, showing a tender moment between Jesus and one of his followers who seeks to minister to him in his moment of need.
John
Like Mark and Matthew, John places the anointing story in Bethany shortly before Jesus’ passion, amid rising tension between Jesus and the scribes, chief priests, and Pharisees. However, John makes several key changes. The narrative that precedes the anointing story is a resurrection story rather than an apocalyptic pronouncement. John changes the host from Simon the Leper to Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. John changes the date from two days before the Passover to six days before. John also makes several other changes; he claims the woman who does the anointing is Mary and John has her anoint Jesus’ feet instead of his head. In Mark, those who object to the extravagant gift are unnamed and in Matthew it is simply “some of the disciples.” In John it is Judas Iscariot, who is further identified as the treasurer of the group. John thus changes the emphasis of the story from a woman anointing Jesus for his burial—though this detail is kept—to a plot point to further incriminate Judas Iscariot, further setting up his betrayal.
On All Saints Day in Year B of the Revised Common Lectionary we have a pericope from John 11:32-44, which details Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. In verse 39, Jesus orders them to remove the stone from Lazarus’ grave, and Martha objects: “Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead four days.” This provides a nice contrast with John 12:3, where the pleasant scent of the perfume fills the room. He who had been dead and stinking was now surrounded by a sweet aroma. She who had wept at her brother’s funeral was now attending to Jesus’ needs.
Mary’s choice of anointing and wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair is interesting. Prophets, priests, and kings were anointed on the head. Verse seven shows why; Jesus mentions that she is anointing him for his burial. Like Matthew, John does not include a reason for Mary Magdalene’s visit to the tomb on the day of resurrection—the anointing has already taken place. Yet another, equally important point of symbolism comes from Mary washing Jesus feet. As part of the Last Supper narrative John shows Jesus washing the disciples’ feet as an expression of love and service. He then commands them to wash each other’s feet. In anointing Jesus’ feet, Mary is prefiguring the foot washing, and she does so as an expression of love and service.
John’s inclusion of several details about Judas Iscariot is interesting. His thievery and greed are a foil for Mary’s extravagant generosity. Mary’s giving is based on her love for Jesus, whereas Judas’ stinginess is based on his selfishness. Not only that, but John goes out of his way to mention that Judas is the one who will betray Jesus. Mark and Matthew both show that betrayal in the verses immediately following the anointing story, but do not reference it within the story itself. John, however, feels the need to introduce the man by telling us about his impending betrayal. The inclusion of the betrayal detail also compares nicely with Jesus’ statement that Mary is anointing him for his burial.
John’s inclusion of the anointing narrative serves to show that Mary understands Jesus’ significance. It also provides a poignant moment of tenderness and love amid a growing hostility around Jesus, though John’s inclusion of an extended last supper scene helps to slow down the narrative as well. John’s main concern is to “engender faith in the person of Jesus (20.21) and discredit the Temple-centered, hereditary religious authorities who present a collective obstacle to the acceptance of faith in Jesus” (Hendricks 146). Thus, the narrative shows that Mary, Jesus’ close friend, knew him to be the Son of God; we should follow her in belief. By anointing Jesus, Mary shows that she knows Jesus’ importance and the importance of his death.
Luke
Luke’s version of the anointing story is remarkable because it is so different from the others. While Mark, Matthew, and John all place the story immediately before Jesus’ passion and crucifixion, Luke sets it much earlier in Jesus’ ministry and moves it from Bethany to Nain. Furthermore, if Luke is editing the Markan or Johannine versions to suit his own purposes, he does so masterfully, for Luke’s version has internal structure and unity that is not generally associated with such large editorial changes. With John, Luke has the woman anoint Jesus’ feet. With Mark and Matthew it takes place in the house of a man named Simon, who this time is identified as a Pharisee rather than a leper. Unlike the other three Gospels, Luke does not see this as a chance to anoint Jesus for his burial, but rather as the climax of a section where each story has shown Jesus to be greater than the Old Testament prophets.
It might be tempting to think that Luke is reporting a separate incident that happened early in Jesus’ ministry, and thus the Markan, Matthean, and Johannine versions are a second anointing late in Jesus’ ministry. But we are not here to find “what really happened.” As such, we will leave aside these questions. We have acknowledged the existence of the idea, but further questioning is ultimately unanswerable and unfruitful. Still, there are details here which might suggest that there were two or more traditions regarding the anointing—one of which is represented by the Markan and Matthean texts—which Luke melded together and used for his own purposes. The fact that the host is named Simon is one such fact, and another is that the setting is a meal. On the other hand, there are many details unique to Luke. The woman is a sinner, and this fact is repeated several times after her introduction. The largest change is that the anointing is a response to forgiveness. When Simon objects to the scene the woman is creating, Jesus reprimands Simon and tells a parable about forgiveness. He then compares the woman’s hospitality to the hospitality that Jesus received from Simon, concluding by forgiving the woman. Luke ends the pericope by saying that those around the table began asking who this could be who forgives sins.
The story, as Luke tells it, calls us to put ourselves in Simon’s place. Simon’s disdain for the woman—he keeps telling himself she is a sinner—is obvious, and blinds him to the fact that she is expressing great love borne out of great forgiveness. We might argue whether forgiveness leads to love or love leads to forgiveness, but Simon is so self-righteous that he does not know the gift of forgiveness, and his actions paint him as being unloving toward those whom he deems unworthy or undesirable. Luke also uses the passage to show that Jesus is greater than the prophets; Simon thinks that “if this man were a prophet, he would have known what kind of woman this is who is touching him.” Yet Jesus perceives what is happening and turns the tables on Simon, telling him that forgiveness offers a great reason to pour out one’s tears and expensive perfume on our savior. Another time in Luke where we see pouring out imagery used is in the Lord’s Supper narrative in 22:14-23, where Jesus talks about his blood being poured out as a new covenant. Christians have understood this to be a reference to the blood sacrifices offered for forgiveness of sin in the temple cult which Jesus was about to fulfill in his crucifixion.
Conclusion
Mark presents the disciples as inadequate; nevertheless, they are invited into Jesus’ messiahship through obedience and service (Johnson 153-154). Thus, Mark’s inclusion of the anointing narrative shows that serving Jesus—and by extension, those to whom Jesus sends us—is our expression of discipleship. Matthew calls readers to see Jesus as the fulfillment and personification of Torah (Johnson 179). Matthew is showing us that by anointing Jesus, the woman is demonstrating her devotion to Jesus, who is the living Torah. John presents Jesus, the Son of God who came into the world and took on humanity. John shares a tender moment between Jesus and his close friend which both foreshadows his burial and his washing the disciples’ feet. Luke writes “an orderly account” to show us that Jesus is a great prophet and the perfect man who is worthy of emulation. Luke’s inclusion of this story shows us that Jesus is a greater prophet than those of the Old Testament since he has the power to forgive sins.
The story of the woman who anointed Jesus is special. It appears in all four Gospels, though each Gospel writer bends it to fit his own purposes. They have been connected to one another in various ways over the years since they share many similarities, even as they have differences. Mark, Matthew, and John use the story as a transition moment to share an emotional moment where someone ministered to Jesus’ needs in the midst of the growing tension and his impending passion and crucifixion, while Luke uses it to further develop Jesus as the great prophet. Each writer’s aims help shape the way the story is presented, using it to further the picture each one is painting of Jesus Christ, Son of God.
1The authors of the four Gospels are unknown, despite ancient Christian attribution to specific people. For the sake of simplicity I will refer to these anonymous authors by the traditional names of their books.
