M. The anointing of Jesus by a sinful woman (7:36–50)
M. The anointing of Jesus by a sinful woman (7:36–50)
Each Gospel has a story of an anointing of Jesus by a woman (Matt. 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9; John 12:1–8). There are good reasons for thinking that the other three are describing one and the same incident, but Luke a different one. They refer to an incident in the last week of Jesus’ life, Luke to one much earlier. The ‘sinner’ of Luke’s account wet Jesus’ feet with tears, wiped them with her hair, kissed and anointed them, which is different from what we read in the other accounts, as is the ensuing discussion. In Luke it is concerned with love and forgiveness, in the others with selling the unguent and giving to the poor. There is no reason for holding that the woman in the other Gospels was ‘a sinner’ (John says she was Mary of Bethany). Some have held that Luke’s ‘sinner’ was Mary Magdalene, but this is sheer speculation.
36. A Pharisee named Simon (40) invited Jesus to a meal. Simon is the host’s name in Matthew and Mark (‘Simon the leper’), but the name was very common and does not prove identity. It is a mark of Jesus’ broad sympathies that he dined earlier with a publican (5:29) and now with a Pharisee.
37–38. A woman of the city described as a sinner, which probably means a prostitute, came to know of it and entered the house. A meal such as the one that Jesus was attending was not private. People could come in and watch what went on. At the same time a prostitute would not have been very welcome in Simon’s house, so it took courage to come. The woman brought an alabaster flask of ointment. The word alabastros denoted a globular container for perfumes. It had no handles and was furnished with a long neck which was broken off when the contents were needed (BAGD, LSJ). Despite the name the container was not always made of alabaster, but Pliny says that containers made of this material were best (Natural History xiii. 19, xxxvi. 60). We may fairly deduce that this perfume was costly. Jewish ladies commonly wore a perfume flask suspended from a cord round the neck, and it was so much a part of them that they were allowed to wear it on the sabbath (Shabbath 6:3). The extensive use of perfumes may be gathered from the fact that the Sages allotted a certain woman an allowance of 400 gold coins for perfume (Ketuboth 66b; even at that she was dissatisfied!). Ointment is not a good translation, for what is meant is perfumed oil, not a solid. Such oils were common accompaniments of festive occasions.
People reclined on low couches at festive meals, leaning on the left arm with the head towards the table and the body stretched away from it. The sandals were removed before reclining. The woman was thus able to approach Jesus’ feet without difficulty. She may have intended to anoint them (or the head), but her emotions got the better of her and her tears fell on his feet. She promptly wiped them with her hair, a significant action, for Jewish ladies did not unbind their hair in public. Clearly she was completely oblivious of public opinion in the grip of her deep emotion. This will explain also her kissing of the feet. There are examples of the kissing of the feet of a specially honoured rabbi (e.g. Sanhedrin 27b), but it was far from usual. Finally she anointed Jesus’ feet with the unguent. Normally this would have been poured on the head. To use it on the feet is probably a mark of humility. To attend to the feet was a menial task, one assigned to a slave. It is a fair conjecture that Jesus had turned this woman from her sinful ways and that all this was the expression of her love and gratitude. It is not clear whether she had met Jesus. She may simply have been among the crowds who listened to his teaching and had been so convicted that her life had been changed. Or she may have had unrecorded contacts with Jesus. We do not know.
39. Jesus’ host saw all this and engaged in a little disapproving conversation with himself. The form of conditional sentence he used implies in the Greek (a) that Jesus was not a prophet, and (b) that he did not know who and what sort of woman was touching him.
40. Jesus proceeded to correct both mistakes. The Pharisee had not spoken aloud, but Jesus answered his thoughts. He began by showing that he knew who and what sort of man Simon was. First he said that he had something to say which got Simon’s undivided attention. The Pharisee’s reply is rather ‘Speak on’ (NEB) than What is it? His words are polite but not encouraging.
41–43. Jesus told a little story about two debtors who were excused their debts, the one five hundred denarii, the other fifty (a denarius was a day’s pay for a labourer, Matt. 20:2). It did not need a great deal of insight to recognize which would love the benefactor the more. Yet Simon’s reply is somewhat grudging, with his I suppose before the one who was forgiven. Jesus did not comment on this, but agreed that Simon had given the right answer.
44–46. Then he came to the application. He turned to the woman and asked Simon, Do you see this woman? Did he? It is an interesting point. ‘Simon could not see that woman as she then was, for looking at her as she had been’ (Morgan). Jesus proceeded to contrast her attitude with that of his host. It now comes out that, though Simon had invited Jesus to his home, he had not given him the treatment due to an honoured guest. It would have been expected that the host would have provided water for his guest’s feet (cf. Gen. 18:4; Judg. 19:21). Jesus had not received this courtesy, but he had had his feet washed with the woman’s tears. Similarly in place of the kiss of welcome that might have been expected from the host (cf. Gen. 29:13; 45:15) he had received kisses on his feet. And finally, whereas Simon had omitted to anoint Jesus’ head (cf. Pss. 23:5; 141:5), the woman had anointed his feet (oil is olive oil, which was plentiful and cheap; there is a contrast with ointment, which was rare and expensive perfume).
47. Jesus goes on to tell Simon that the woman’s sins are forgiven. He does not gloss over those sins: they are many. But it is consistent New Testament teaching that, no matter how many and how great the sins, God’s grace can forgive them. We must understand carefully the words for she loved much. Jesus is not saying that the woman’s action had earned forgiveness, nor even that her love had merited it. In line with his little parable and his later words (50), he is saying that her love is proof that she had already been forgiven. It was her response to God’s grace. JB brings out the meaning with ‘her sins, her many sins, must have been forgiven her, or she would not have shown such great love’. By contrast, he who is forgiven little, loves little. It is natural to think of Simon. He certainly had shown little love and the implication is that he had not been forgiven very much.
48–50. Jesus now said to the woman, Your sins are forgiven (cf. 5:21– 24). Luke tells us that this provoked a discussion among the guests. The forgiveness of sins was a divine prerogative. Who is this, they asked accordingly, who even forgives sins? But Jesus completely ignored them. His interest was with the woman. Your faith has saved you, he said. This is important as showing that the love spoken of earlier was the consequence, not the cause, of her salvation. As elsewhere in the New Testament it is faith that is the means of receiving God’s good gift. Jesus dismissed her with go in peace (cf. 8:48). The Greek is literally ‘go into peace’ and it may be worth noting that the rabbis held that ‘Go in peace’ was proper in bidding farewell to the dead, but to the living one should say ‘go into peace’ (Moed Katan 29a).