The two anointings of Jesus the Messiah

According to Luke, Simon, a Pharisee, invites Jesus to lunch in his house (PER117: Jesus the Messiah at the Pharisee's house). Accepting the invitation, Jesus goes to his home. A woman, notorious for her dissolute life, learns that Jesus is dining at the Pharisee's house and enters discreetly.

In Luke 7.36-39, a Pharisee invites Jesus to eat with him. Jesus enters the Pharisee's house and reclines at the table. A sinful woman from the town learns that he is dining in the Pharisee's house. She brings a jar full of perfume and stands behind Jesus, at his feet. She weeps, wets Jesus' feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, kisses them and pours the perfume over them. Seeing this, the Pharisee who had invited Jesus thinks to himself:

Simon does not seem surprised by this woman's presence. Indeed, meals of this kind often took place in an inner courtyard open to everyone. Custom allowed outsiders to observe the distinguished guests at such receptions. What is surprising in this situation is the woman's action. She washes Jesus' feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, then pours perfume over them. Her gesture seems inappropriate, especially given her reputation.

Jesus and the other guests were reclining to eat, which is why he did not notice the woman when she entered. Simon the Pharisee, observing the scene, thinks that if Jesus were a prophet, he would know who this woman is. A sinful woman means a prostitute, and Simon seems to know what people say about her.

In this situation, two worlds confront each other: Simon's, characterised by his culture, abundance, success and respectable, exemplary life; and that of this woman, a prostitute, poor, disparaged and rejected. Jesus is expected to respond, because in Simon's eyes he should have turned the woman away.

Understanding the situation, all the guests turn their eyes to Jesus. We know what follows in this account and how Jesus intervenes on the woman's behalf. Unexpectedly, Jesus praises her. What matters is her present actions before everyone's eyes rather than her past.

Jesus the Messiah's stance towards women appears revolutionary.

This situation recalls that of another woman, caught in the act of adultery (John 8.2-11), while the man involved is left untroubled. Jesus' benevolent declaration on behalf of this sinful woman remains memorable. As it says:

And he adds:

She replied:

The way Jesus the Messiah treats women is thus revolutionary compared with the ideas of his time. In Israel then, women were confined to practical tasks within the family home. They were not allowed to participate in debates, which that society reserved exclusively for men.

Even in the Temple in Jerusalem, a woman had to remain in the area called the Court of the Women! A man did not speak publicly with a woman. This condition may surprise us in our twenty-first-century context, but we find these principles in our country's history, where the legend that women had no souls circulated and, above all, was accepted by many!

This idea originates in a passage from Gregory of Tours' History of the Franks. He recounts that, during the Council of Mâcon in 585, a bishop declared that a woman could not be called ‘man’ (homo in Latin). This was later misunderstood as a question about women's souls. In reality, it was a linguistic debate rather than a philosophical one. It is important to observe that the Church has never denied that women have souls. Women have been baptised alongside men since Christianity's beginnings.

Jesus the Messiah was therefore a great pioneer in the status of women, defending the principle set out in Genesis 1.27. According to this text, God created man and woman in his image:

This verse indicates that both man and woman were created in God's image, meaning that they share equal dignity as human persons. This has been interpreted to mean that all human beings, regardless of sex, reflect God's image.

It is crucial not to confuse the previous events with those involving Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus (Pericope PER277: Mary anoints Jesus the Messiah). According to Mark 14.3-4 and Matthew 26.6-13, during a meal at Simon the leper's house in Bethany, a woman carrying an alabaster jar of very valuable pure nard perfume enters while Jesus is at the table. She breaks the jar and pours the perfume on Jesus the Messiah's head, arousing the indignation of some guests.

This scene with Mary of Bethany is recounted by Matthew, Mark and John (John 12.2-8). It bears some resemblance to the episode involving the sinful woman, particularly since the Pharisee in that story is also called Simon, a common name at the time. Given that Jesus the Messiah performed many miracles, delivered many discourses and accepted many invitations, it is unsurprising that similar scenes occurred.

Having already related the episode of the sinful woman (Luke 7.36-39), Luke did not consider it necessary to report Mary of Bethany's action, which would have produced two overly similar examples. Consequently, we can affirm that Mary of Bethany was not a woman of ill repute in the sense meant by Simon the Pharisee.

One surprising detail is that neither Matthew nor Mark mentions Mary of Bethany's name. John reveals it later, more than thirty years afterwards (John 12.3). We must remember the period of persecution that followed the crucifixion. The writers of the first two Gospels, Matthew and Mark, avoided disclosing information that might harm their devoted associates and friends.

We infer that the disclosure of Simon the leper's name by Matthew 26.6-13 and Mark 14.3 suggests his death. It is then AD 46, according to our conclusions. When John writes his text several decades later, all those mentioned have died.

Thus, the writers of the first two Gospels, Matthew and Mark, took precautions when relating certain facts so as not to endanger the various participants still alive when their texts were written.

The question of when this event took place—six days before Passover, as John 12.1 indicates, or two days before Passover, as Mark 14.1-3 states—requires careful analysis.

In John 12.1-3, it is reported that, six days before Passover, Jesus arrived in Bethany, where Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead, was living. A meal was given for him there; Martha served, and Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Mary took half a litre of very expensive pure nard perfume, poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

In Mark 14.1-3, it is stated that Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread were to take place two days later. The chief priests and experts in the law were looking for a way to arrest Jesus by deceit and put him to death. While Jesus was in Bethany, in Simon the leper's house, a woman entered as he reclined at the table. She held a jar containing very expensive pure nard perfume. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on Jesus' head.

Nisan 14 begins on Thursday evening and continues through Friday, meaning that John speaks of Friday or Saturday and Mark of Tuesday or Wednesday. Without addressing the precise day here, and applying the same principle to both authors, we observe a four-day difference.

Analysing the texts, we observe that John relates his date to the meal at Simon's house, whereas Mark refers to the decision of the Pharisees — show definition INF002 to put Jesus to death. His subsequent reference to the meal gives the impression that it took place at the same time as that decision, which seems mistaken.

Mark clearly does not follow the events' chronological order; he prefers to group similar subjects. He organises his presentation to achieve his chosen aim. This is what he does in the section from Mark 2.1 to Mark 3.5, where he brings together five episodes showing the conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities. He does the same in the section from Mark 11.27 to Mark 12.37, where he reports five more controversies in the Temple in Jerusalem.

This leads us to give greater weight to John's information and affirm that it does not conflict with Mark's notes.

We will now compare the three accounts of this same story as reported in Matthew 26.6-13, Mark 14.3-9 and John 12.1-3.

In Matthew 26.6-13, Jesus the Messiah is in Bethany, in Simon the leper's house. A woman approaches him with a jar containing very valuable perfume and pours it on his head while he is at the table. The disciples are indignant at what they consider waste, arguing that the perfume could have been sold for a large sum and the money given to the poor. Fully aware of the situation, Jesus the Messiah defends the woman, declaring that she has done a good deed for him.

In Mark 14.3-9, the account is similar. Jesus the Messiah is in Bethany, in Simon the leper's house, and a woman enters while he is at the table. She holds a jar containing very expensive pure nard perfume, breaks it and pours the perfume on Jesus the Messiah's head. Some express indignation, believing that the perfume could have been sold for more than 300 silver coins and the money given to the poor. Jesus defends the woman, declaring that she has done a good deed for him.

In John 12.1-8, six days before Passover, Jesus the Messiah arrives in Bethany, where Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead, is living. A meal is given for him there; Martha serves, and Lazarus is among those at the table with him. Mary takes half a litre of very expensive pure nard perfume, pours it on Jesus the Messiah's feet and wipes his feet with her hair. The house is then filled with the fragrance of the perfume. Judas Iscariot, who was going to betray Jesus the Messiah, criticises this act, suggesting that the perfume could have been sold for 300 silver coins to give to the poor. Jesus the Messiah defends Mary, saying that she kept this perfume for the day of his burial.

All three accounts take place in Bethany, at Simon's house; he was a former leper, probably healed by Jesus. John does not name him, presumably because he was already known to his friends. He generally makes a habit of adding information rather than repeating what has already been written.

All three authors describe the scene in the same way: a woman pours costly perfume on Jesus the Messiah's head (or his feet). This act is criticised in all three texts because the money spent could have helped the poor. Mark and John give an estimated price (300 silver coins), and John specifies the quantity: 500 ml. John adds the detail that it was Judas Iscariot who stirred up this indignation, seeing the act as wasteful. Knowing Judas Iscariot's true motives, John reveals that he stole money from the common purse, a fact apparently unknown to Matthew and Mark. In all three texts, we observe that Jesus the Messiah defends the woman.

One question remains unresolved: did Mary pour the perfume on Jesus the Messiah's head, as Matthew and Mark specify, or on his feet, according to John?

Undeniably, Matthew and Mark report that Mary poured perfume on Jesus the Messiah's head, whereas John specifies that she poured it on his feet. How can this apparent contradiction be explained?

Recall that John mentions a large quantity of perfume, namely one pound, approximately 500 ml. Meals at that time were generally eaten reclining, with the feet pointing away from the low table on which the food was placed.

Mary, unsure how Jesus the Messiah would react, probably began by pouring perfume on his feet, as John reports, and wiped them with her hair so as not to discomfort the Teacher. On noticing Mary's action, Jesus the Messiah probably sat up to thank her, and from that moment she was able to pour the rest of the perfume on his head.

At that time, pouring oil or perfume on someone's head was a powerful symbolic act reserved for kings and prophets who held important roles.

This perfume probably represented all Mary's wealth. She used it to anoint her Lord and Teacher, which explains why the criticism by Judas Iscariot and some other disciples was entirely inappropriate.

With the limited information we possess, we cannot affirm that events unfolded exactly as we have described, but the interpretation we propose nevertheless seems the most realistic to us.

Matthew and Mark mention that Jesus the Messiah was anointed with perfume on his head, a gesture reserved for the powerful of this world. John adds the detail that Mary also poured perfume on the Teacher's feet, a gesture of humility. These clarifications are consistent with the various authors' aims.