Mark § 63

(de Con. Evan. ii. 79) I however think that nothing else can be meant, but that the sinner who then came to the feet of Jesus was no other than the same Mary who did this twice; once, as Luke relates it, when coming for the first time with humility and tears she merited the remission of her sins. For John also relates this, when he began to speak of the raising of Lazarus before He came to Bethany, saying, It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. (John 11:2) But what she again did at Bethany is another act, unrecorded by Luke, but mentioned in the same way by the other three Evangelists. In that therefore Matthew and Mark say that the head of the Lord was anointed by the woman, whilst John says the feet, we must understand that both the head and the feet were anointed by the woman. Unless because Mark has said that she broke the box in order to anoint His head, any one is so fond of cavilling as to deny that, because the box was broken, any could remain to anoint the feet of the Lord. But a man of a more pious spirit will contend that it was not broken so as to pour out the whole, or else that the feet were anointed before it was broken, so that there remained in the unbroken box enough to anoint the head.

(de Con. Evan. ii. 78) It may appear to be a contradiction, that Matthew and Mark after mentioning two days and the Passover, (John 12:1) add afterwards that Jesus was in Bethany, where that precious ointment is mentioned; whilst John, just before he speaks of the anointing, says, that Jesus came into Bethany six days before the feast. But those persons who are troubled by this, are not aware that Matthew and Mark do not place that anointing in Bethany immediately after that two days of which he foretold, but by way of recapitulation at the time when there were yet six days to the Passover.

We should not doubt that this was that same woman, once a sinner, who, as the Evangelist Luke reports, came to our Lord with an alabaster vase of ointment "and, standing behind him at his feet, began to bathe his feet with her tears, and she wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet and anointed them with ointment." This is the same woman, but there, she bent over and anointed only our Lord's feet, and she did this amid her tears of repentance. Here amid the joy of her righteous action she did not hesitate both to anoint his feet and to stand up to anoint his head also.

And when He was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, and sat at meat. About to suffer for the entire world and to redeem all nations with His blood, He stayed in Bethany in the house of obedience, which once belonged to Simon the leper; not that the leper remained at that time, but because he who had been a leper was later cleansed by the Savior, the former name remaining, so that the power of the healer might appear. For even in the catalog of the apostles, Matthew the publican is named with his former vice and office, who certainly had ceased to be a publican. Some wish to understand Simon the leper as part of the people who believed in the Lord and were cured by Him. Simon is also called obedient.

A woman came having an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of spikenard, and having broken the jar, she poured it out on his head. This woman was Mary of Magdala, the sister of Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead, as John openly mentions, who also attests that this happened six days before the Passover, the day before he came to Jerusalem sitting on a donkey with palms and the praise of the crowds. She is the one, not another, who once (as Luke writes) was still a sinner, coming to the Lord's feet, washed them with tears of repentance and anointed them with the ointment of pious confession. And because she loved much, she earned forgiveness of many sins from the merciful judge. Now having been justified and made familiar with the Lord, she not only anointed his feet (as the same John narrates) but also his head (as Matthew and Mark testify) with sacred oil. Alabaster is a kind of white marble, speckled with various spots, which is typically hollowed out for ointment vessels because it is said to preserve them uncorrupted. It is found around the Thebes of Egypt, and the whitest around Damascus of Syria, but the best is in India. Nard itself is an aromatic shrub, with a heavy (they say) and thick root, but short and black and brittle, although rich, smelling like a rose or cypress, with a bitter taste, small and dense leaf, whose tips spread into spikes. Therefore, perfumers celebrate the spikes and leaves of nard for their dual property. And this is what Mark says: Very costly ointment of spikenard. Because indeed, the ointment which Mary brought to the Lord was not only made from the root of the nard, but also, to make it more precious, its perfume and power were enhanced by the addition of its spikes and leaves. Moreover, naturalists say about nard that it is principal among ointments. Therefore, it was rightly offered for the anointing of the Lord's head and feet. There are many kinds of it, but all are less potent except for the Indian, which is the most precious. Mystically, this devotion of Mary ministering to the Lord signifies the faith and piety of the holy Church, which speaks in the Song of Songs saying: While the king was at his table, my nard gave forth its fragrance (Song 1). Undoubtedly, these words, both once literally fulfilled by the hands of Mary, and daily spiritually fulfilled in all its members, who, spread throughout the world, glorify and say: But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ, and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of Him. For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ (2 Cor. 2). When it acknowledges with worthy reverence the power of his divine strength, which he shares with the Father, it truly anoints his head with precious ointment. But when it equally regards with worthy reverence the mysteries of his assumed humanity, it surely anoints the Lord's feet with pure nard ointment, that is, faithful and true, because it piously commends and devoutly venerates that nature of his in which he deigned to touch the earth, that is, to live among men.

(ubi sup.) The Lord when about to suffer for the whole world, and to redeem all nations with His blood, dwells in Bethany, that is, in the house of obedience; wherefore it is said, And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman.

(ubi sup.) He says of Simon the leper, not because he remained still a leper at that time, but because having once been such, he was healed by our Saviour; his former name is left, that the virtue of the Healer may be made manifest.

(ubi sup.) Alabaster is a sort of white marble, veined with various colours which is often hollowed out for boxes of ointment, because it keeps things of that nature most uncorrupt. Nard is an aromatic shrub of a large and thick root, but short, black, and brittle; though unctuous, it smells like cypress, and has a sharp taste, and small and dense leaves. Its tops spread themselves out like ears of corn, therefore, its gift being double, perfumers make much of the spikes and the leaves of the nard. And this is what is meant by Mark, when he says spikenard very precious, that is, the ointment which Mary brought for the Lord was not made of the root of nard, but even, what made it more precious, by the addition of the spikes and the leaves, the gratefulness of its smell and virtue was augmented.

This woman is outside the temple and carries with her a jar of ointment containing nard, genuine nard, from which she has prepared the ointment. This is why the faithful are called "genuine" or pure nard. The church, gathered from the nations, is offering the Savior the abounding faith of believers. The alabaster jar which had been sealed is broken that all may receive its perfume. Homilies of Saint , Homily

Just as the grain of wheat, unless it falls into the ground and dies, does not bring forth any fruit, so, also, unless the alabaster jar be broken, we cannot spread its fragrance.

This woman has a very special message for you who are about to be baptized. She broke her alabaster jar that Christ may make you "christs," his anointed. Hear what it says in the Canticle of Canticles: "Your name spoken is a spreading perfume, therefore the maidens love you. We will follow you eagerly in the fragrance of your perfume!"

When Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman having an alabaster jar of precious ointment and poured it upon his head as he reclined. But when his disciples saw it, they were indignant, and so forth (26:6—13).

Many indeed suppose that the four evangelists have given an account of one and the same woman, because they wrote something of this kind about a woman and all alike named an alabaster jar of ointment; but John, instead of the alabaster jar, put "a pound of ointment." But also what is said, this could have been sold and given to the poor, was said by Matthew and Mark and John; and that Christ declared that ointment to have been poured out for his burial, these too expounded; and that it happened in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, these three wrote; but John indeed said Bethany, where "they made him a supper and Martha was serving and Lazarus was one of those reclining, and Mary took a pound of ointment of pure precious nard" and so forth, from which it appears that they made a supper for him. But Luke, although he did not put Simon as a leper, nevertheless said that he was a Pharisee, who had asked Jesus "to eat with him," just as the Lord himself testifies concerning his name, saying to him there: "Simon, Simon, I have something to say to you." There seems, therefore, to be much similarity and a certain kinship concerning the woman among the four evangelists.

Yet I will say to those who think that it was one woman about whom all the evangelists wrote: Do you suppose that this woman who poured upon the head of Jesus the precious ointment, as Matthew and Mark expounded, is the same one who also "anointed his feet with myrrh," as Luke and John expounded? But it is not possible that the evangelists, in expounding about the same woman — since they were "perfected in the same understanding and in the same spirit and in the same judgment," they who were to minister the salvation of the churches — should have said things contrary to one another. But if anyone thinks that she was the one who anointed the Lord's feet with ointment in Luke and John, let him tell us whether Mary here was the very one who in Luke is written to have been "a sinner in the city," who "learning that he had reclined in the house of the Pharisee brought an alabaster jar of ointment and standing behind at his feet weeping began to wash his feet with her tears." For it is not credible that Mary whom "Jesus loved," the sister of Martha "who had chosen the better part," should be said to have been "a sinner in the city." And do you suppose that the woman who according to Matthew and Mark poured upon the head of Jesus the precious ointment is not written to have been a sinner, whereas the one who according to Luke is reported as "a sinner" did not dare to come to the head of Christ but "washed his feet with her tears" as though scarcely even worthy of his very feet, from sadness working "repentance unto stable salvation"? And the one who is in Luke weeps and sheds many tears, so as to wash the "feet" of Jesus "with her tears," whereas the one who in John is Mary is introduced neither as a sinner nor as weeping. Perhaps then someone will say that there were four women about whom the evangelists wrote; but I rather agree that there were three: one indeed about whom Matthew and Mark wrote, making no difference in their exposition in that chapter; another about whom Luke wrote; and yet another about whom John wrote, since she differs from the other women not only in the things which are written about the ointment, but because "Jesus loved" Mary and Martha — although she too is reported to have been in Bethany, just as also the woman about whom Matthew and Mark expound. There is a third difference. For Matthew indeed and Mark expound that this happened in the house of Simon the leper; but John says that "Jesus six days before the Passover came into Bethany, where Lazarus was whom Jesus had raised, and they made him a supper" — not Simon, but Mary and Martha, perhaps also Lazarus, "and Martha was serving, but Lazarus was one of those reclining." Furthermore, according to John, "six days before the Passover he came into Bethany," when also Mary and Martha "made him a supper"; but here, when also, as he reclined in the house of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman, "after two days it was to be the Passover," as was said above. It remains that someone may say: If Matthew and Mark wrote about one woman, but John about another, and Luke indeed about a third, how is it that the disciples, once rebuked by Christ in the case of one woman (as being wrongly indignant about the woman's deed), did not correct themselves, so as not to be indignant over another woman doing likewise? Therefore let him know that in Matthew and Mark the disciples are indignant out of a good intention, but in John Judas alone out of a desire to steal, whereas in Luke no one murmurs. From these things, then, and others which you yourself will be able to observe, it is certain that either the evangelists say things contrary to one another, so that some of them even lie, or (if it is impious to believe this) it is necessary to say that the evangelists did not all write about the same woman, but either about three or about four. But someone a little bolder will say: Perhaps according to the history there was some one woman who did something of this kind — suppose too a second (if you wish) and a third — yet the evangelists' chief purpose was directed toward the mysteries, and they were not much concerned to narrate according to the truth of the history, but to expound the mysteries of things which arose out of the history. For which reason they also wove in certain discourses fitting and consonant with the understandings of the mysteries.

But concerning these things, which are expounded among the four evangelists on account of the women or of the one woman (as many suppose), we have treated more carefully in expounding the Gospel according to John — those things which seemed to us, since they were similar and kindred yet as it were contrary and divergent. But now let us touch on them briefly. Reasonably, then, Luke, when he spoke of the sinful woman, introduced her weeping more abundantly, so as even to wash the feet of Jesus, and indeed not pouring on the ointment but only anointing, and not the head but the feet. But that woman, who was not accused as a sinner, did not anoint but poured out, and not upon the feet, but upon the head. But if anyone should also treat of the things written about Mary the sister of Lazarus, who likewise "anointed" the Lord's "feet," let him note for himself what is written there, that the whole "house was filled with the odor of the ointment"; which is not written of her who was said to be "a sinner," but neither about the woman of whom Matthew and Mark wrote, who was not said to have been "a sinner," is anything of this kind written, that the whole "house was filled with the odor of the ointment."

Perhaps then through the differences of these women the differences of the faithful are demonstrated, of whom some indeed pour upon the head of Jesus the precious ointment, but others anoint not the head, but the feet, while others do not pour on abundantly, but only anoint; and of those anointing, some indeed anoint with such ointment that the whole house is filled with the odor of his very divinity, while others anoint not with such indeed, yet with one likewise acceptable to Christ, since they too anoint his feet with ointment — feet which the Pharisee did not anoint even with "oil." And it was fitting that these things be done in Bethany, which is interpreted HOUSE OF OBEDIENCE, and by this woman who poured out the ointment upon the head of the Lord, not accused as "a sinner in the city," and by Mary, at whose house, when a banquet was made for Jesus, she came to him and anointed. But that the house of obedience should be understood as the Church, no one doubts. But she who in Luke was called "a sinner" was not yet worthy to be in Bethany, although she was doing penance for her sins. For she still had the less, so that afterward she might be found made in the house of obedience (as now perfected) and be called neither "a sinner" nor "weeping" and washing the Lord's "feet," but herself too pouring the ointment upon his head. But Simon too is a mystery of OBEDIENCE, since so it is interpreted, but the obedience of the letter, not of the spirit: for which reason Simon, lifted up from the letter of the law through Jesus to the spiritual law, was no longer Simon only, but was made also Peter, and in place of the Jewish edifice was held worthy of the edifice of the Church to be founded upon the rock. Jesus therefore came to be in the house of Simon indeed, of one OBEDIENT, yet a leper and still having need of cleansing from Jesus. But it was not mentioned in Luke concerning Simon that he was also a leper; I judge that he himself was a debtor of fifty denarii and had already received remission of them, because he had loved little; yet loving somewhat, "he asked him to eat with him." But there came a woman (not a sinner) according to Matthew and Mark, having an alabaster jar of precious ointment. And consider how carefully among these, who did not report a sinner, her ointment is praised as precious. But in Luke, who expounded the sinful woman, the ointment is simply named, neither precious nor "of pure nard," such that "the house" might be filled "from the odor" of it; for she could not yet have ointments of this kind, but this was a great thing, that she could anoint the Lord's feet even with "ointment." But of this woman the ointment is reported as precious, for it was not fitting that what was poured out upon the head of the Savior should be not precious.

And over the ointment indeed of the sinful woman, anointing the Lord's feet and not pouring out, neither were the disciples indignant nor did they grieve, nor did Judas say: "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" But over the woman in Matthew and Mark the disciples were indignant and grieved at the loss of the ointment which was running down from his head to the rest of his body. For even if that ointment could have been sold for a great price and given to the poor, nevertheless this ought not to have been done, because it was fitting that it be poured upon the head of Christ with a holy and seemly pouring. But those who strive to understand these things according to the simple text, let them say what beauty the ointment poured upon the head of Jesus praiseworthily had according to the text, that it should be poured upon the head of such and so great a master. That ointment therefore was not worthy of the poor nor fitting (as regards its own honor) that it be divided among many, but that, remaining whole, it should be poured upon the head of Jesus only. For which reason Jesus also receives the woman who had done this, and says to the indignant disciples: "Let her be, and do not be troublesome to her, for she has worked a good work in me." And to such a degree is the praise of a good work of this kind effective, that it exhorts all of us to fill the Lord's head with fragrant and rich works, so that of us too it may be said that we have done a good work upon his head; for we always indeed have (as long as we remain in this life) the poor with us and having need of care from those who have advanced in the word and have been made rich in the wisdom of God, but they cannot suffice to have always, by days and nights, with them the Son of God, the Word of God and the Wisdom and all things, whatever our Lord the Savior is.

See also what he says: she has worked a good work in me, since he did not say concerning the sinful woman anointing his feet that "she did a good work in me." But if it is also necessary to discuss what he says, she has done it to prepare me for burial, you will compare with it what is said: "we were buried together with Christ through baptism, and we rose again together with him." Consider furthermore that concerning the woman according to Luke it is not said, amen I say to you: wherever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she did shall be told in memory of her, but concerning the woman according to Matthew and Mark this is written. For it was just, not concerning her who had anointed the feet, but concerning this one who had poured the ointment upon the head of Jesus, that it should be said, wherever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she did shall be told in memory of her. If, then, we wish that of us too it may be said what we do to Jesus, pouring the precious ointment upon his head, let us advance from the anointing of his feet to pouring the precious ointment upon his head.

But what oil is and what ointment, and what ointment is that which serves for anointing the body of Christ and what for the head, is difficult indeed to explain. Nevertheless we shall attempt to show that which seems to us, knowing most certainly that oil everywhere in the scriptures is understood either as a work of mercy (by which the lamp of the word, being nourished, shines brightly) or as doctrine (by whose constant hearing the word of faith which is kindled in us is nourished and shines more brightly). Just as, then, generally everything with which one is anointed is called oil, but of oil one kind is ointment another kind is not ointment, likewise of ointment one kind is a middling ointment, another precious: so every just act is called a good work, but of a good work one kind is what we do for the sake of men or according to men, and another what is for the sake of God and according to God. Likewise this very thing, which we do for the sake of God, one kind is what serves the use of men, and another what does not serve the use of men but only the glory of God. For instance, someone does good to a man, moved by natural justice, not for the sake of God (as sometimes the Gentiles too did and as many men do), that work is common oil of no great odor, and yet it too is acceptable to God; as Daniel signifies, saying to Nebuchadnezzar, who did not know God: hear my counsel, O king, and redeem your sins with almsgivings. Something of this kind Peter too says in Clement, that the good works which are done by unbelievers in this world profit them, but not also in that world for the attaining of eternal life; and fittingly, because they too do not do them for the sake of God, but for the sake of human nature itself. But those who do them for the sake of God, that is, the faithful, it profits them not only in this world, but also in that, and rather in that.

But what the faithful do for the sake of God, this is the ointment of good odor. But this very work of the faithful for the sake of God, which is ointment, one kind is done for the benefit of men — for instance almsgivings, visitations of the sick, receptions of strangers, humility, meekness, forbearance, and other things of this kind which profit men. He who does these things toward Christians anoints the Lord's feet with ointment, because they are the Lord's feet, with which he always walks. This the penitent are especially wont to do for the remission of their sins, and that is the work which is called ointment, fragrant indeed, but not the highest. But he who is zealous for chastity, perseveres in fastings and prayers, has patience in adversities like Job, in temptations does not fear to confess the truth of God (all which things profit other men nothing, but serve only the glory of God), this is the ointment which anoints both the head of the Lord, Christ, and from there runs through the whole body of Christ, that is, through the whole Church; and this is the ointment exceedingly precious from whose odor the whole house is filled, that is, the Church of Christ; and this is the work proper not to the penitent, but to the perfect saints. Or certainly: the doctrine which is necessary to men, through which are nourished souls poor in spiritual goods or perhaps also weak in sins, this is the middling ointment with which the Lord's feet are anointed; but the knowledge of the true faith which pertains to God alone is the precious ointment with which is anointed the head of Christ, God.

For the fawn amongst the stags ever comes back to his couch, that is, the Son, obedient to the Father even unto death, seeks for obedience from us.

Again in a mystic sense, Simon the leper means the world, first infidel, and afterwards converted, and the woman with the alabaster box, means the faith of the Church, who says, My spikenard sendeth forth its smell. It is called pistic nard, that is, faithful, and precious. (Cant. 1:12). The house filled with the smell of it is heaven and earth; the broken alabaster box is carnal desire, which is broken at the Head, from which the whole body is framed together, whilst He was reclining, that is, humbling Himself, that the faith of the sinner might be able to reach Him, for she went up from the feet to the head, and down from the head to the feet by faith, that is, to Christ and to His members. It goes on: And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this loss of the ointment? By the figure synecdoche, one is put for many, and many for one; for it is the lost Judas who finds loss in salvation; thus in the fruitful vine rises the snare of death. Under the cover of his avarice, however, the mystery of faith speaks; for our faith is bought for three hundred pence, in our ten senses, that is, (denarii i. e. ten asses.) our inward and outward senses which are again trebled by our body, soul, and spirit.

"And when He was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, and was reclining at table, a woman came." The ointment is mentioned by all four Evangelists. And some think that in all of them the same woman is meant. But this is incorrect: these are two different women, one of whom is mentioned by John (Jn. 12:3), she being the sister of Lazarus, and the other by the three remaining Evangelists. But if you look more carefully, you will find that there were three: one is mentioned by John, another by Luke (Lk. 7:37–38), and a third by the other two Evangelists. For the one mentioned by Luke was a harlot and anointed the Lord in the midst of His preaching, while the one mentioned by Matthew did the same near the time of the Passion, and moreover she was not a known harlot. The Lord accepts her devotion, as one who spent so much on the ointment.

But although the four Evangelists record the anointing by a woman, there were two women and not one; one described by John, the sister of Lazarus; it was she who six days before the Passover anointed the feet of Jesus; another described by the other three Evangelists. Nay, if you examine, you will find three; for one is described by John, another by Luke, a third by the other two. For that one described by Luke is said to be a sinner and to have come to Jesus during the time of His preaching; but this other described by Matthew and Mark is said to have come at the time of the Passion, nor did she confess that she had been a sinner.

Or as is said in Greek, of pistic nard, that is, faithful, because the ointment of the nard was made faithfully and without counterfeit.

There were some who were indignantly saying among themselves, "Why has this waste of ointment been made? For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor." Mark, like Matthew, speaks synecdochically, using the plural for the singular. For John, speaking more distinctly, testifies that Judas said this, and that out of greed, because he was a thief and had the money box and carried what was put in it. It can also be understood that other disciples either thought this or said it, or were persuaded by Judas saying it, and Matthew and Mark expressed the will of all in words, but John said it of Judas because he was a thief, while the rest rejoiced for the sake of the poor. John, however, wished to mention only him who from this occasion believed he should intimate his habit of stealing. And what follows:

And they rebuked her harshly. I do not believe it was said of the good and diligent apostles who loved Christ, but rather of the one who, under the plural number, was proven neither to have adhered faithfully to the Lord nor to his disciples, nor to have cared for the poor.

To him [Judas], it seemed to be wasting the ointment because the jar is broken, but, for us, it was a great good because the perfume spread throughout the world. Why are you indignant, Judas, because the alabaster jar is broken? God, who made you and all the nations, is blessing us with that precious perfume. You wanted to keep the perfume sealed up so that it would not reach others.

"And some were indignant," the evangelist remarks. But John says that Judas was indignant (Jn. 12:3–5). One may suppose that the other apostles also rebuked the woman, since they constantly heard from Christ teaching about almsgiving. But Judas was indignant at the woman not with the same thought as the others, but out of love of money, for the sake of base gain. For this reason John mentions him alone, as one who reviled the woman with a wicked intention. "And they murmured against her," that is, they were indignant, reproached, and reviled her.

Or else, it appears to be aptly implied that many disciples murmured against the woman, because they had often heard our Lord talking of alms. Judas, however, was indignant, but not with the same feeling, but on account of his love of money, and filthy gain; wherefore John also records him alone, as accusing the woman with a fraudulent intent. But he says, They murmured against her, meaning that they troubled her with reproaches, and hard words.

(ubi sup.) And in that he says, And they murmured against her, we must not understand this to be spoken of the faithful Apostles, but rather of Judas mentioned in the plural.

The traitor Judas, who in appearance championed the cause of the poor, said with indignation, "This ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor." But in reality he "was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it." If, then, any one in our time who has the money box of the church speaks like Judas as if speaking for the poor, but steals what is placed there, let there be assigned to him the same portion along with Judas.