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.
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.
Source: COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 77