Many Biblical scholars presume Mark’s mention of Jesus’ dinner at the home of Simon the leper is out of place. The reason being that John’s mention of the dinner Martha had made for Jesus (see John 12:1-3) is very similar to that mentioned by both Matthew and Mark (Matthew 26:6-7; Mark 14:3). Luke doesn’t record either of these events but does record a similar dinner held in Jesus honor much earlier in his public ministry at the home of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50). So, we have two dinners where Jesus’ feet were anointed, one with tears (Luke) and the other with expensive ointment; and we have two accounts of a dinner where Jesus’ head was anointed with expensive ointment. While it seems clear to any unbiased reader that the accounts in Luke and John are different events, are Matthew’s and Mark’s dinner the same as that of John?
I don’t believe so. If the word of God can be trusted to be accurate in its original manuscripts, then, there are enough differences between the Synoptics and John to show they are, indeed, different events. For example, John specifically claims the anointing occurred six days prior to the Passover Feast Day, both Synoptic narratives indicate the anointing took place only two days prior to the feast day. Moreover, in John’s account Mary anointed Jesus’ feet, while both Matthew and Mark have the woman anointing his head. Mary did not break the vessel in John, but the woman did break it in both Synoptic narratives (Mark 14:3; cp. Matthew 26:6-7). In John only Judas was offended in the anointing, while in Matthew and Mark offense was taken generally by all Jesus’ disciples. In John the anointing seems to take the form of washing Jesus’ feet, while the anointing in both Matthew and Mark seems to be understood as anointing the head of a scholar or a rabbi, which was a shame according to Jewish custom:
The House of Hillel say, perfumed oil in his right hand and the cup in his left hand, he recites the benediction over the perfumed oil and rubs it on the head of the waiter. But if the waiter was learned, he would rub it on the wall because it does no credit to the learned to walk around perfumed.[1] (emphasis mine)
In other words, what the woman did in anointing Jesus’ head was wasteful (Mark 14:4), not because it was done to Jesus, but because it was done to their Rabbi, which according to custom was a shameful act. Even care for the poor took second place to this. That is, don’t shame the Master by anointing his head with perfume. Rather, give the proceeds of the sale of the ointment to the poor (Mark 14:5). In John, Judas coveted the value of the ointment spilt in Jesus’ honor, while Matthew and Mark have the disciples concerned over Jesus’ reputation as a scholar. I don’t see how the two anointings found in John and the two Synoptic narratives could be the same event.
Jesus defended the woman by applying her act to his burial (Mark 14:8). Whether or not the ointment was sold and the proceeds given to the poor, the poor would still be there to care for. The poor will always be there, and folks with an open heart will always have opportunity to share what they have with them (Mark 14:6-7; Deuteronomy 15:11). Rather, it was the woman’s intention to do good by expressing her love for Jesus that was important (cp. Mark 12:28-31). If what she did had negative effects on his reputation as a rabbi, he was happy to bear it, in order to receive her love offering. Some things are simply more important than what they may seem to others (1Samuel 16:7).
To conclude, the woman’s act occurs between the Jerusalem authorities’ act of plotting to kill Jesus (Mark 14:1-2) and Judas’ meeting with them and agreeing to betray the Lord, permitting them to have their desire upon him (Mark 14:10-11). The scriptures are clear that the disciples simply didn’t understand what Jesus was saying, when he spoke of his coming death and resurrection (Mark 9:31-32). Nevertheless, we need to ask, if this was true also of this woman, or did she have a sense of ominous significance in Jesus’ words (cp. Matthew 26:2)? While we could say she didn’t have a clear sense of what to expect, perhaps she understood enough to make her apprehensive of what lay ahead for Jesus, because Jesus not only applies her act to his burial, but he says what she had done to him would be preached throughout the world as part of the Gospel and as a memorial of her (Mark 14:9). In other words, her act of love would never be forgotten.
________________________________________________
[1] Jerusalem Talmud; chapter 8; Halakhah 5; page 577. Also see: Apostolic Writings of Mattithyah, page 249.
Smoodock's Blog 