Jesus’ Anointing

Q. I have yet another biblical question concerning the anointing of Jesus by the sinful woman. This event was recorded in all four gospels, so it should be important (Mt 26:7-12; Mk 14:3-8; Lk 7:36-46; Jn 11:2, 12:1-8).

My biblical questions are: (1) Were there two anointings, one of Jesus’ head and the other His feet, and (2) Was the sinful woman Mary of Bethany? A related question is (3) Whether Judas Iscariot was related to the family of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary of Bethany? Of course, another bigger question is whether Mary of Bethany is the same person as Mary Magdalene, but this may just be important to Catholics, not Protestants.

There were two anointings, both involving very costly perfume, one early in His ministry in Galilee (Lk 7:36-50), the other near the end in Bethany near Jerusalem (Mt 26:6-13, Mk 14:3-9, Jn 12:2-11).

First, let us look at the account in Luke:

• Time: Galilean ministry, ~31AD;
• Place: Galilee – Capernaum (Lk 7:1), and Nain (Lk 7:11) are cities in the province of Galilee;
• Host: Simon (Lk 7:40) the Pharisee (Lk 7:36);
• Anointer: Unnamed woman who was a sinner (Lk 7:37) anointed Jesus’ feet with perfume (Lk 7:38, 46).
• Occasion: Led to the parable of two debtors (Lk 7:40-50)

Next, let us look at the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and John:

	Mt 26:6-13	Mk 14:3-9	Jn 12:2-11
Time: Jesus’ final week before His death ~33AD	Two days before Passover (Mt 26:2)	Two days before Passover (Mk 14:1)	Six days before Passover (Jn 12:1)
Place: Near Jerusalem	Bethany (Mt 26:6)	Bethany (Mk 14:3)	Bethany (Jn 12:1)
Host and server	Simon the leper (Mt 26:6)	Simon the leper (Mk 14:3)	Martha serving, Lazarus reclining at the table (Jn 12:2), likely as a guest
Anointer	An unnamed woman anointed Jesus’ head (Mt 26:7)	An unnamed woman anointed Jesus’ head (Mk 14:3)	Mary anointed Jesus’ feet (Jn 12:3)
Onlookers’ reaction	Disciples were indignant (Mt 26:8)	Some (disciples) were indignant (Mk 14:4)	Judas objected (Jn 12:4)
Perfume cost	High price (Mt 26:9)	Over 300 denarii (Mk 14:5)	300 denarii (Jn 12:5)
Jesus’ reaction	Prepare Jesus for burial (Mt 26:12), will be spoken of in memory of her (Mt 26:13)	Prepare Jesus for burial (Mk 14:8), will be spoken of in memory of her (Mk 14:9)	Prepare Jesus for burial (Jn 12:7)

The time, place, people, and occasion between the account in Luke and that in Matthew-Mark-John are very different to identify them as separate incidents. A leper was ceremonially unclean and cannot become a Pharisee. Simon was a common name in Israel during Jesus’ days, so there is no need to equate Simon the Pharisee with Simon the leper.

Concerning Matthew-Mark-John, some believe they refer to the same occasion based on the similarities. Others feel Matthew-Mark refers to the same incident, but John is a different event based on the differences. I believe the variations between Matthew-Mark and John are not significant and can be reconciled:

• Time: Matthew-Mark said two days before the Passover. John said Jesus came to Bethany six days before the Passover (Jn 12:1), but the actual supper could be held four days later. There was no contradiction.
• Host and server: Matthew-Mark said it was at the home of Simon the leper, so he must be the host. John said they made Him a supper there, without specifying who are the “they.” Some assumed that since Martha was serving and Lazarus was reclining at the table they must be the hosts. But it could be that Martha was helping out her family’s friend, and Lazarus was just Simon’s guest.
• Anointer: Matthew-Mark said an unnamed woman anointed Jesus’ head. John said Mary anointed Jesus’ feet. John simply identified the unnamed woman to be Mary. The head versus feet is not necessarily a contradiction. Mark said she broke the vial and poured the perfume over His head (Mk 14:3), part of which would have flowed to His feet. The anointing could include both head and feet but recorded differently for theological emphasis. Matthew focussed on the head to stress Jesus as the Messiah King, as OT kings were anointed on the head. John’s focus was on the feet, possibly to lead up to Jesus washing the disciples’ feet which was recorded only in John.
• Onlookers’ reaction: Again, John added the detail that the most vocal disciple was Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, and thief (Jn 12:4, 6). There is no need to hypothesize two anointings within a week before His crucifixion – one six days before the Passover, and again four days later.
• Perfume cost: Mark and John both specified the perfume cost to be three hundred denarii, which would be odd if it were a coincidence.

So my conclusion is that there were two anointings, one recorded in Luke and the other in Matthew-Mark-John. The similarities in the latter outweigh the differences, which could be reconciled. My principle of Occam’s razor (the simplest of competing theories is preferred to the more complex) led me to choose two over three anointings.

Secondly, was the sinful woman Mary of Bethany? No. There is no such identification anywhere in the Bible.

Third, was Judas related to Lazarus’ family? No. I believe Simon the leper and Lazarus were friends, but the extrapolation ends there. Judas’ father is specified three times in the Bible:

• Jn 6:71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.
• Jn 13:2 During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him,
• Jn 13:26 Jesus then answered, “That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.” So when He had dipped the morsel, He *took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.

As I said, Simon or its variation Simeon was a common name in ancient Israel.Nowhere in the Bible did it say Simon Iscariot was Simon the leper.

Lastly, Mary of Bethany was not Mary Magdalene. Mary of Bethany was the sister of Martha and Lazarus:

• Lk 10:38-39 Now as they were traveling along, He entered a village, and a woman named Martha welcomed Him into her home. She had a sister called Mary, who was seated at the Lord’s feet, listening to His word.
• Jn 11:1-2 Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.

On the other hand, Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ disciple whom He healed of evil spirits:

• Mk 16:9 Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.
• Lk 8:2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,

Again, Mary or its variation Miriam was a common Jewish name. There is no biblical evidence that Mary of Bethany was Mary Magdalene.

The Twelve

Q. Paul said in 1Cor 15:5-8 that Jesus appeared in His resurrection to Simon Peter first before appearing to The Twelve again. This seems to support the statement by the two Emmaus disciples to the remaining eleven apostles in the Upper Room just before Jesus’ second appearance there, that Jesus had appeared to Simon Peter earlier. However, why did Paul say “The Twelve” when there were evidently only eleven of them?

At that time, the casting of the lot for Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot had not taken place yet (Acts 1:9-26), and whether Judas Iscariot had committed suicide (Mt 27:3-11) was immaterial as he should not be joining the other eleven again. What is the problem of saying eleven apostles as there were verses that mention this exact number of apostles (Mt 28:16; Mk 16:14; Lk 24:9, 33).

Had “The Twelve” become an icon to be so coined, so that the eleven apostles had to find another witness (Matthias) to make it up to the number 12? This seems to be analogical to the Old Testament notion of always referring to The Twelve Tribes, and not one time to Eleven Tribes or Thirteen Tribes, by sometimes including and something excluding Levi and/or some other tribe. Lacking one apostle should have no great impact on the effort to fulfill the Great Commission. Why did they insist on making it up to twelve?

Talking about The Twelve Tribes, was it because Jesus had made a promise twice to The Twelve (Apostles, not Tribes), one time on the way to enter Jerusalem (Mt 19:16-30) and the other time during the Last Supper (Lk 22:30), that in future in heaven they would be there to judge the Twelve Tribes?

Was this promise also made to Judas Iscariot then, but through his later betrayal, the promise had been shifted to Matthias instead? Of course, we would not expect Judas Iscariot to be in heaven in the future, but some bible scholars said that the promise had not been made to Judas Iscariot because the Bible had not mentioned the number of apostles in Mt 19:16-30, so Judas Iscariot might not be there (though The Twelve should have been together on the way to enter Jerusalem), while in the latter scene, Judas Iscariot had already left when Jesus made that promise. (Putting Lk 22:23 in parallel with Jn 13:22-29, and Lk 22:29 in parallel with Jn 13:31 so that Judas Iscariot’s departure in Jn 13:30 happened before Jesus made the promise to the remaining eleven in Lk 22:30).

Overall why is the number Twelve so important that made Paul say “The Twelve” when there were only eleven, and also made the remaining eleven casting lot for Matthias to make the number up to twelve?

Yes, “the twelve,” without the noun disciples it qualifies, had become the short nickname of the twelve apostles, e.g.

• Mt 26:14 Then one of the twelve, named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests
• Mt 26:47 While He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came up accompanied by a large crowd with swords and clubs, who came from the chief priests and elders of the people.
• Mk 3:16 And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter),
• See also Mk 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:10, 17, 20, 43; Lk 8:1; 9:1, 12; 18:31; 22:3, 30, 47; Jn 6:67, 70, 71; 20:24; Acts 6:2; 1 Co 15:5

There were only ten apostles present (excluding Thomas) when the Lord appeared to them in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday evening, and eleven (including Thomas) eight days later. But by the time the gospels were written, everyone understood that “the twelve” meant the disciples the Lord chose to be with Him, learn from Him, and sent out to preach. That is why Paul simply wrote “the twelve” without qualification.

Why did the Lord choose only twelve apostles? I believe you are right in linking “the twelve” to the twelve tribes of Israel.

In the OT, the twelve tribes were God’s chosen people:

• Ex 19:5-6 Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”

However, Israel did not obey God’s voice and keep His covenant, so God chose the Church as the His new people:

• 1 Pet 2:9-10 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

The Church is built on the foundation of the apostles:

• Eph 2:19-20 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.

The relationship between the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles is given in:

• Mt 19:28 And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
• Lk 22:30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
• Rev 21:12 It (the New Jerusalem) had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates, twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
• Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Notice that:

• The Church’s foundation consists of the apostles (NT) and prophets (OT). There is continuity, not discontinuity.
• The Church itself consists of both Jews and Gentiles. The new people of God, therefore, do not replace but subsume the old chosen people.
• The New Jerusalem consists of the twelve tribes as gates and twelve apostles as foundation stones. They are complementary, not substitutional.
• The apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The new covenant supersedes the old.

Hence I believe the Lord purposely chose twelve to be His apostles to maintain the continuity between the old and the new covenant.

As to whether the promise to sit in judgment of the twelve tribes was made to Judas Iscariot as part of the Twelve, the text was silent. My opinion is NO, based on:

• Jn 17:12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.
• 2 Thes 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

The Lord called Judas the son of perdition or son of destruction, the name of the man of lawlessness or the Antichrist. Jesus knew who would betray Him from the beginning, and had given him chance after chance, without naming him directly, to repent, but he did not. To argue that Judas was one of the Twelve and received the promise to judge is unreasonable.

Was Judas a True Believer?

Q. John 13:26-27 Satan entered Judas. I thought that believers were safe from being possessed by demons and evil spirits. If that is true, was Judas never a true believer? If he was not, how was he still able to do so many miracles in God’s name as a disciple? And if Satan entered Judas so he would betray Jesus, then is it still Judas’ fault?

(Continued from yesterday)

Second, was Judas a true believer? This is more controversial. Some say yes because Jesus chose him as His disciple and gave him the power to cast out demons and to heal. Others say no because how can Satan enter him if he were a genuine Christian. My conclusion is NO because we already established in Part 1 that true Christians cannot be possessed by demons. But to answer your question specifically, note Mt 7:21-23:

• ²¹ “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. ²² Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ ²³ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

Entering the kingdom of heaven are for those who do the will of the Father, those who are saved. Many did prophesy, cast out demons, perform miracles in Jesus’ name, just like Judas. But Jesus never knew them i.e. they do not belong to Him, as they practice lawlessness. They are not saved.

Evidence that Judas was not saved include:

• Jn 6:64, 70-71 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. … ⁷⁰Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” ⁷¹ Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.
• Jn 12:5-6 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?” ⁶ Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.
• Jn 13:2, 27 During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him, …  After the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Therefore Jesus said to him, “What you do, do quickly.” 
• Jn 17:12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

Jesus’ own verdict on Judas is that he was a devil who did not believe. The Lord called him the son of perdition or son of destruction. This title is used for only one other person in the Bible, in 2 Thes 2:3, also called man of lawlessness or the Antichrist. His heart was where his treasure was (Mt 6:21) – money. He was the disciples’ treasurer, but he was a thief and used to steal from the money box. Christians can steal too, but Satan used Judas’ weakness to trap him.

Third, since Satan entered Judas to betray Jesus, is it his fault? YES, he is responsible for his own sin because although Satan planted the idea of betraying Jesus in Judas’ heart, he could not force him. Judas made the decision himself. When he felt remorse that Jesus had been condemned, which is not the same as true repentance, he admitted:

• Mt 27:4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to that yourself!”
• Acts 1:25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 

Judas never pleaded, “the Devil made me do it!” He recognized that it was his own sin. He turned aside or left on his own, not dragged by Satan. Man is always responsible for our own choices, even when we are tempted.

The Traitor

Judas betrayed Jesus

Q. Lk 22:3-4 “Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve…and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus.” Why was Satan allowed to enter Judas? I thought that anyone filled with the Holy Spirit and follower of Christ could not be possessed by an evil spirit.

A. Your presupposition is correct, but Judas did not meet that criteria. Let’s look at the biblical evidence. He started out well, but he did not end well.

The earliest clue that something went wrong is in Jn 6:70-71 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) Even though he was called to be one of the Twelve, Jesus knew Judas’ heart had turned back and no longer followed Him (Jn 6:66).

The second clue is in Jn 12:4-6 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.]” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. Although we cannot be sure because the Bible did not say so explicitly, money, position and power may be his motive in betraying Jesus, as greed was certainly one of his character traits.

My opinion is that he had hoped Jesus would become King of a temporal, not spiritual, kingdom, and that he would gain a high position by following Jesus. When that failed to materialize, his disappointment turned to hatred and he betrayed Jesus. Despite his treachery, Jesus gave him every opportunity to repent during the Last Super. Jn 13:2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus.

Jesus washed His disciples’ feet, including those of Judas.
• Jn 13:10-11 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.
• Jn 13:18 I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: ‘He who shared my bread has turned against me.’

Even at the last moment, Jesus did not name him to expose him. Instead, He gave him an opportunity to confess on his own, but he refused to the end. Jn 13:26-27 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.”

Judas was the one doomed to destruction Jn 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. He was the precursor of the Antichrist, who like Judas will rebel against Christ. 2 Thes 2:3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

So based on the biblical record, Judas was most definitely not filled with the Spirit and following Jesus to the end. In fact, he apostasized and did not really belonged to Jesus. 1 Jn 2:9 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. My conclusion is that he fits the description of Heb 6 and had fallen away: Heb 6:4-6a It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. Beware of apostasy.