The Woman or Mary?
6Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,7There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
3And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
Before Jesus was in Bethany, according to the gospels of Matthew and Mark,
Jesus prophesied that he would be betrayed and crucified to his apostles– but they did not seem to notice, nor ask why? That is because Matthew and Mark made this stuff up after the fact. Both Matthew and Mark say it was two days before the feast of Passover that Jesus sat at meat in the house of Simon the Leper. Neither gospel mention that Jesus had just raised Lazarus from the dead in Bethany!
Isn’t that strange?
36And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to meat.37And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,38And stood at his feetbehind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
Luke would have us believe that some woman just entered some Pharisee’s home in the city and poured the ointment on Jesus’s feet and started kissing his feet.
Later he says that she continuously kissed his feet in his parable.
How does one stand at someone’s feet behind them? Was Jesus standing on a pedestal? No, Jesus was sitting at the table. How can a woman stand at his feet behind him when he is sitting?
Makes no sense!
Luke says that the woman was a sinner. How would he know? He wasn’t there!
The Gospels of Matthew and Mark say that she anointed Jesus on the head and Luke says the feet.
All three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) do not know the woman’s name, just some sinner woman anointing Jesus. She enters the house of a leper, or a Pharisee, as Luke would have it, and starts her ritual.
Luke says she was weeping. Why was she weeping? None of the other gospel mention the weeping woman and Luke wasn’t there,…….. so he is embellishing this event to include a witty parable to teach about forgiveness which is also not included in any other gospel. We’ll get to that parable later in this article.
Talk about ridiculous!
Thank goodness we have the gospel of John to give us THE FACTS. He tells us when, where, who was there by name, and who served and who anointed and how!
1Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.2There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.3Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
Martha was who served the meal. I would think that would mean it was her kitchen. She lived in Bethany.
Was Martha married to a Pharisee or Simon the Leper?
Jesus did not sit down to meat, he was having supper at a table at the house in Bethany and Mary, Martha and Lazarus were there. Martha was serving! Mary anointed the feet of Jesus with Spikenard using her hair. ETC.
All the Disciple, Some of the Disciples,
The Pharisee (Simon the Leper)
Judas Iscariot Simon’s Son
8But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?9For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
4And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?5For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
39Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
4Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,5Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?6This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
First of all, the oil which was very expensive
and the ointment was Mary’s ointment (the sister of Martha).
They were guests at the house she lived in with her sister Martha and her brother Lazarus. If they were at the Pharisee’s house and some strange woman came in, as in Luke’s account, why would the disciples have indignation for what some woman spent on her spikenard. It wasn’t as if it came out of their own pockets.
Matthew says that the disciples had indignation and Mark says that there were some that had indignation within themselves about the cost towards the woman.
How would they know…..they were not there! They don’t even know the woman’s name!
Luke says the Pharisee had indignation because the woman was a sinner.
How would he know? He wasn’t there and did not even know the name of the woman and, of course, uses the name Simon the Leper for the Pharisee-
because it was Luke that says that Jesus said:
“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat.
at the Last supper,
even though Luke was not at the Last Supper!
John say Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, had indignation openly about the cost of the spikenard. (not within himself) otherwise unless they can read each others minds how would they know whether they or some had indignation within themselves!
They were guests at the house she lived in with her sister Martha and her brother Lazarus was there and had just recently died and was raised from the dead by Jesus in Bethany right before the Jewish Feast of Passover in Jerusalem.
If they were at the Pharisee’s house and some strange woman came in, as in Luke’s account, why would the disciples have indignation for what some woman spent on her spikenard. It wasn’t as if it came out of their pockets!
Funny thing, most men that I know and have known would never have concerned themselves with what other people do with their own money! Most men don’t even think about the cost of an item if it is not coming out of their own pocket. For instance:
Think about our government! It doesn’t sound like men.
Nevertheless, it was Mary’s spikenard…
(and not the anonymous woman, as in the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.)
In the New Testament John 12:1-10, six days before the passover, Mary, sister of Lazarus uses a pound of pure nard toanointJesus‘s feet. Judas Iscariot, the keeper of the money-bag, asked why the ointment wasn’t sold for three hundred denariiinstead, (About a year’s wages, as the average agricultural worker received 1 denarius for 12 hours work: Matthew 20:2) and the money given to the poor. Two passages in parallel (Matthew 26:6-13, and Mark 14:3-9) speak of an occasion 2 days before the passover, in which an unnamed woman anointsJesus‘s head. The costly perfume she used came from analabaster jar, and contained nard according to the passage inMark. On this occasion, the disciples also protest, saying that the perfume should have been sold to benefit the poor.
According to this site the disciples protested twice
on two different occasions
to the spikenard being used because of the cost the money that should have been given to the poor.
Even though it was not their money!
So now we are to believe that the disciples protested again?
I guess I’m supposed to believe that this happened twice?
By the way, I don’t recall anywhere in the gospels where Jesus and his disciples were distributing money to the poor.
Have you noticed how many characters are inserted with the name of Simon
especially in the synoptic gospels!!!!!!!!
10When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.11For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.12For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.13Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
6And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.7For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.8She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.9Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
7Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.8For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.
Luke’s Parable about LOVE & Forgiveness
40And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
IN the verses above Jesus is talking to the Pharisee who was thinking to himself about the fact that the woman was a sinner and that if Jesus truly was a prophet he would know that she was a sinner and was touching him.
First: The Pharisee is named Simon because Jesus responds to the Pharisee’s thoughts in these verses in Luke’s gospel and calls him Simon.
If the Pharisee called Simon, is also a leper (as in the gospel of Matthew and Mark), why would The Pharisee be disturbed at Jesus being touched by a woman who is a sinner? Seems to me, the Pharisee called Simon who was a leper would be grateful to sit near anyone who was willing to sit with him at supper. Leprosy was highly contagious. In Israel leprosy represented sin. They were outcasts. I highly doubt some strange woman would come into the house of a Pharisee who had leprosy.
This is nonsense!
41There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.42And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?43Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
This does not make sense to me because when you speak of money owed and the amounts are different the forgiveness of the debt of money has nothing to do with the amount of love. Say i owe 2 dollars and another person owes 3 dollars will the person that owed 3 dollars be more appreciative and love more because it was a dollar more that he owed. I don’t think so!
In this day and time rich men get bigger loans than poor men. If the person loans the money forgives the debt of the rich man and the poor man, does the rich man love the loaner more than the poor guy?
Honestly, I don’t think it makes one bit of difference.
Nor, do I think that the loaner loves either man more.
For instance: I don’t love the IRS if they forgive a debt of mine and I wont love them more if I owed them more than the next guy.
I understand that this is an analogy, but because someone is forgiven does not necessarily result in love.
The amount forgiven should not be commensurate with amount of love returned.
It is just as possible that the one that owed less loves more than the one that owed more.
This parable is saying that the bigger sinner loves more than the lesser sinner when both are forgiven.
I don’t buy it!
Just received a phone call a few days ago from the Obama campaign about the IRS and it’s debtors and asking me to choose from a few options for tax resolutions and forgivness for the debtor. I hung up because of the timing (which I think was very pretentious) as if the Democrats are more concerned about the individual American tax payer immediately after the Republican and Democratic conventions and before the election. Three years ago would have been more believable. Why now?
you know why!
To be fair I received a phone call yesterday from the Romney campaign about money and business. I hung up on that phone call also. I don’t believe the stories at the convention. What was telling to me was the story I saw on video with one of his sons showing what Romney did about a light beneath the microwave and over their counter in their kitchen that was too bright. He taped aluminum foil over the light bulb to fix the problem.
Geez, is that how he is going to fix our economy? ALUMINUM FOIL?
Big Business Corporations vs. Big Government.
Neither care a hoot about the individual American.
They just want to be in control.
I DON’T AGREE WITH TALK RADIO EITHER. THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT YOU OR ME. THEY ARE JUST HYPING THEIR CANDIDATE.
All of these men and women think they have a better solution to the American failure, as it stands now, but in my opinion it is the individual American citizen that makes or breaks the American dream. Believing in God and Jesus of the Gospel of John and changing their own life with the help of God and Jesus by turning away from sin as much as you can, facing your personal demons, fighting hate, prejudice, indifference and revenge
and by practicing fairness and forgiveness.
Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one’s actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy, in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.
The Gospel of John is a big help in that regard.
The average teacher in Chicago makes about $76,000 a year. What in the world do they have to complain about? They are employed and they have benefits that most Americans don’t receive and a summer vacation. They are using this election to gain more even knowing they have a huge deficit in the city. That stinks! I don’t think the teacher’s union care about the kids they teach or their families.
Longer school days won’t solve anything, that’s just baby sitting. Shorter days, better teachers teaching with the freedom to teach, more homework might help the children and save money for the city and improve the next generation!
I know that most teachers don’t teach and should not be teachers, because I went through the public school system. Most had a coach mentality! They would sit and watch the kids read……that is not teaching. There were a few teachers in my past that were wonderful teachers, but too few. The same goes for my kid’s teachers nowadays. It’s not whether you can pass a test…..can you teach?
As far as the problem of overcrowded classrooms why not have the kids bring a mat and sit on the floor if need be. Medgar Evers was an African American who was so determined to get a high school diploma that he walked 12 miles to and from school for his education.
I think the kids can sit on a mat on the floor to get an education.
Tell them to carry their own mat.
No big deal. And as far as student to teacher ratio then hire an assistant to help. Pair the kids to help each other. There are many kinds of ways to handle that problem and if you are a good enough teacher you should be able to figure it out. It is not the equipment that will solve overcrowding just common sense problem solving. Times are tough so buckle down and try harder. Government and Big Business can’t solve every problem all the time. We have to pitch in and help ourselves and others so that those entities can work on the bigger problems.
The kids are worth it!
Don’t abandon them.
Teachers should do a better job teaching and be thankful that they have a job. Families that work should not rely on the school system to baby sit their children. You can always hire a baby sitter for those few hours your children aren’t at school.
Remember the movie with Sidney Poitier called To Sir With Love. I loved that movie and the main theme song to that movie. At the time it was very popular movie full of hope. I wish teachers were like that man in that movie. Linked below is the song:
To Sir With Love Lyrics and the song on you tube which is dedicated to all the teachers in the world. Well you could say, “You didn’t actually believe those kids, lol”, or you could see that being a good teacher is a sacrifice with blessings ie teaching kids.
Kids need hope, they need someone to look up to, and they need people who care.
44And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.45Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
First of all, the woman who washes Jesus’s feet with her tears and kisses his feet continually is only in the gospel of Luke. Luke wasn’t there. So this is pure embellishment to begin with.
Because someone shows their appreciation in a gesture outwardly in front of everyone does not mean that she loves more than someone who does not show it outwardly. I know some people who cry over everything. Because someone is more “sensitive” does not mean they love more.
Because someone gives someone a kiss does not mean they love the person they kiss. And if someone is continuously kissing your feet doesn’t mean they love you more,
but instead are ingratiating and flattering you!
Only an egotistical and a false Jesus would appreciate someone kissing his feet continuously!
|Definition:||get on the good side of someone|
|Synonyms:||attract, blandish, brownnose,captivate, charm, crawl, flatter,get in with, grovel,hand a line, insinuate oneself,kowtow, play up to, seek|
Is that love?
Just think about the Mafia….Arafat….
They kissed a bunch, but I would not say they love more!!!!!!!!!!!!
They also kill the ones they kiss.
46My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.47Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.48And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.49And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
Again, for the same reasons above ….I don’t buy it!
50And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
For Cryin’ Out loud—-
She lives there!
(whisper….But Luke did not know that 🙂
Reminds me of the new Time Warner Cable ad with Jimmy Fallon of the Tonight Show and the guy with a bowl of cereal says. “But I live here’ when Mr. Fallon dis-misses him. Cute ad.
I believe the motive of Luke and his parable is to reward the bigger sinner!
That’s tricky work, but Luke is good at tricks!
I believe Luke is undermining the truth!
I think the truth regarding this event is that Mary (in the Gospel of John)
Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, the Messiah, Her King and was thankful and it was symbolic because he had saved her brother Lazarus and what he had accomplished and was going to accomplish against all odds!
She believed in his work.
The link below is about the Statue of St. Peter in Rome and the hordes of people that come to adore and kiss it’s feet to the point of
There is almost always a crowd of worshipers about this statue. As soon as the devotions, which are continually going on at some one of the many altars, are over, the devotee rises, approaches the statue and kisses the great toe of the foot of the Apostle; after which he softly rubs his forehead against the instep. Several toes have been worn away by this contact of human lips, and have been replaced, and if you will look at the foot carefully you will see that the present toe is considerably worn.
Among the memories of St. Peter’s that will, at least, linger longest with me, is one which recalls a crowd of peasants gathered about the statue with rapt faces and upturned eyes, as though they were gazing upon God in heaven. They thronged about it, almost crushing one another in their efforts to kiss the bronze foot.
Is this love?
What about Jesus?
My Other Blogs :