Commentary on Matthew, Latin Series 76–77

“Then the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people gathered in the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and they took counsel to seize Jesus by deceit and kill him. But they said: Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.” What the prophet said, “And the rulers gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ,” is seen to have been fulfilled then, when the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the house of the high priest against the Lord and against his Christ: not true priests, but priests of the people; and elders not of others, but of that people which seemed to be the people of God, but in truth was a people of Gomorrah, since they said, “Crucify, crucify him,” and, “Away with such a one from the earth.” And what Isaiah had said, “Hear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom; attend to the law of God, people of Gomorrah,” fits those Jews of the generation of Christ's time who plotted against him. And what Ezekiel says to Jerusalem, “Sodom was justified more than you,” is more fittingly said to the Jerusalem over which the Lord wept than to the Jerusalem of the prophet's time. For the rulers of the people sinned worse than the people of Sodom, because, not understanding the high priest of God, they plotted against him; and the elders of the people, not recognizing the firstborn of all creation, older than all creatures, took counsel against him. And because of that court in which they took counsel to seize Jesus by deceit, I think, Jerusalem was made desolate. For the city had to cease to exist which had acted against the founder of the whole world; which had formerly killed the prophets, and afterwards the Lord of the prophets. “To seize him by deceit.” Therefore the prophet fittingly said of them: “May the Lord destroy all deceitful lips.” They wished to seize him and kill him by deceit, lest there be an uproar among that people who had seen Jesus doing many signs and wonders. For that reason many of them were for him, who had perhaps said that a great prophet had arisen in Israel; but others were against him, who had said: “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons.” So an uproar was bound to arise if the Lord were arrested, because of the different inclinations of the people, some loving Christ and listening to him, some believing and some not believing. Their counsel, that he should be killed not on the feast day but on another day, stood as if firm, though those who took counsel were not going to stand: namely, so that Christ our Passover should be sacrificed, so that, leaving the unleavened bread of the Jews, we may hasten to the spiritual and true unleavened bread. Consider, if you can, that every doctrine which in any way professes the teaching of God claims to be a high priest of God. And since there are many doctrines of false teachings, posing as priests of God, though they are not of God but of the people seduced by them, they take counsel against the one and true Word of God. But the Word of God gives himself up to those who plot against him; nevertheless he will rise again, unchanged and uncorrupted by them, and he will ascend into heaven, to receive those who take up their cross and follow him.

“Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of precious ointment, and poured it on his head as he reclined. But when his disciples saw it, they were indignant,” and the rest. Many think that the four evangelists have told of one and the same woman, because they wrote something of the kind about a woman, and all alike named an alabaster jar of ointment. John, however, put a pound of ointment instead of an alabaster jar. The words “This could have been sold and given to the poor” are reported by Matthew, Mark, and John; and they related that Christ declared that ointment poured out for his burial; and they wrote that it took place in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper. John, however, said Bethany, where they made him a supper, and Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining, and Mary took a pound of ointment of pure, precious nard, and the rest; from which it appears that they themselves made him the supper. Luke, though he did not call Simon a leper, yet said that he was a Pharisee who had asked Jesus to eat with him, as the Lord himself attests his name, saying to him there: “Simon, I have something to say to you.” There is, then, much likeness and a certain kinship concerning the woman in the four evangelists. Yet I will say to those who think there was one woman of whom all the evangelists wrote: Do you think that this woman who poured precious ointment on Jesus' head, as Matthew and Mark related, is the same who anointed his feet with myrrh, as Luke and John related? It is not possible that the evangelists, if they were telling of the same woman, being perfected in the same understanding, the same spirit, and the same judgement, and being appointed to minister salvation to the churches, should have said things contrary to one another. But if anyone thinks that she who anointed the Lord's feet with ointment in Luke and in John was the same woman, let him tell us whether Mary herself was the one who in Luke is written to have been a sinner in the city, who, learning that he was reclining in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment and, standing behind at his feet weeping, washed 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 notice that the woman who, according to Matthew and Mark, poured precious ointment on Jesus' head is nowhere written to have been a sinner? But she who according to Luke is reported to have been a sinner did not dare to come to Christ's head, but washed his feet with tears, as one scarcely worthy even of his feet, her sorrow working a repentance steadfast unto salvation. And the woman in Luke weeps and sheds many tears, so as to wash Jesus' feet with her tears; but the woman in John, Mary, is presented as neither a sinner nor weeping. Perhaps, then, someone will say that there were four women of whom the evangelists wrote. I rather agree that there were three: one of whom Matthew and Mark wrote, who show no difference in their account in this one chapter; another of whom Luke wrote; and another of whom John wrote, since she differs from the other women not only in what is written about the ointment, but also because Jesus loved Mary and Martha, although she too is reported to have been in Bethany, as was the woman of whom Matthew and Mark tell. A third difference is that Matthew and Mark relate that this took place in the house of Simon the leper; but John, that Jesus came to Bethany six days before the Passover, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised, and they made him a supper, not Simon, but Mary and Martha, and perhaps Lazarus too; and Martha served, while Lazarus was one of those reclining. Moreover, according to John he came to Bethany six days before the Passover, when Mary and Martha made him a supper; but here, when the woman came to him as he reclined in the house of Simon the leper, the Passover was to come after two days, as was said above. It remains that someone may say: If Matthew and Mark wrote of one woman, John of another, and Luke of a third, how is it that the disciples, once rebuked by Christ in the case of one woman for being wrongly indignant at the woman's deed, did not correct themselves so as not to be indignant at another woman doing the same? Let him know, then, that in Matthew and Mark the disciples are indignant with a good intention; in John, Judas alone, from the desire to steal; and in Luke no one murmurs. From these and other things which you can observe for yourself, it is certain that either the evangelists contradict one another, so that some of them lie, or, if it is impious to believe this, we must say that the evangelists did not all write of the same woman, but of three or of four. But someone a little bolder will say: Perhaps in history there was one woman who did something of this kind; suppose, if you will, a second too, and a third; yet the principal purpose of the evangelists looked to the mysteries, and they did not take great care to narrate the history according to the truth, but to set out the mysteries of the things that arose from the history. That is why they also wove in certain words fitting and in harmony with the understanding of the mysteries. Of what is related in the four evangelists concerning the women, or one woman as many think, we treated more carefully in expounding the Gospel according to John: the things which seemed to us, though similar and akin, to be as it were contrary and different. Now let us touch on them briefly. Reasonably, then, Luke, speaking of the sinful woman, presented her weeping more abundantly, so that she even washed Jesus' feet, and not pouring ointment but only anointing, and not his head but his feet. But she who was not accused of being a sinner did not anoint but poured, and not on his feet but on his head. And if one also considers what is written of Mary, the sister of Lazarus, who herself also anointed the Lord's feet, let him note what is written there, that the whole house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment; this is not written of her who was said to be a sinner. Nor is anything of the kind, that the whole house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment, written of the woman of whom Matthew and Mark wrote, who was not said to have been a sinner. Perhaps through the differences between these women the differences among the faithful are shown: some of them pour precious ointment on Jesus' head; others anoint not the head but the feet; others do not pour lavishly but only anoint. And of those who anoint, some anoint with such ointment that the whole house is filled with the fragrance of his divinity; others not with such ointment, yet they too are acceptable to Christ, since they too anoint with ointment his feet, which the Pharisee did not anoint even with oil. These things had to take place in Bethany, which is interpreted “house of obedience,” both by this woman who pours the ointment on the Lord's head, not accused as a sinner in the city, and by Mary, at whose house, when a banquet was held for Jesus, she came to him and anointed him. No one doubts that the house of obedience must be understood as the Church. 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 lacked something, so that afterwards she might be found in the house of obedience, made perfect, so as to be called neither a sinner, nor weeping and washing the Lord's feet, but she too pouring ointment on his head. Simon too is a mystery of obedience, since that is how his name is interpreted, but of the obedience of the letter, not of the spirit; that is why Simon, raised by Jesus from the letter of the law to the spiritual law, was no longer only Simon, but became Peter as well, and in place of the Jewish building was counted worthy of the building of the Church, to be founded upon the rock. So Jesus came to the house of a Simon who was obedient, yet a leper, still needing to be cleansed by Jesus. But in Luke it is not mentioned that Simon was a leper. I think he was the debtor of fifty denarii, and had already received their remission, since he had loved little; yet loving a little, he asked him to eat with him. And the woman came, not a sinner according to Matthew and Mark, with an alabaster jar of precious ointment. And consider how carefully, in those who did not report a sinner, her ointment is praised as precious; but in Luke, who related the sinner, it is called simply ointment, neither precious, nor of pure nard, so that the house would be filled with its fragrance. For she could not yet have ointment of this kind; but it was a great thing that she could anoint the Lord's feet even with ointment. But this woman's ointment is said to be precious; for it was not fitting that what was poured on the Saviour's head should not be precious. And over the ointment of the sinful woman who anointed the Lord's feet and did not pour it out, the disciples were neither indignant nor grieved, 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 waste of the ointment which ran down from his head over the rest of his body. For though that ointment could have been sold for much and given to the poor, yet this ought not to have been done, because it was fitting that it should be poured on Christ's head in a holy and becoming outpouring. And let those who insist on understanding these things according to the simple text say that the ointment was poured on Jesus' head praiseworthily, having, according to the text, the fitness of being poured on the head of so great a teacher. So that ointment was not suited to the poor, nor fitting, as regards its honour, to be divided among many, but to be poured out whole on the head of Jesus alone. That is why Jesus accepts the woman who had done this, and says to the indignant disciples: “Let her be, and do not trouble her, for she has done a good work on me.” And such praise of a good work is so effective that it urges all of us to fill the Lord's head with fragrant and rich works, so that it may be said of us too that we have done a good work on his head. For as long as we remain in this life we always have the poor with us, who need the care of those who have advanced in the word and become rich in the wisdom of God; but they are not able always, day and night, to have with them the Son of God, the Word of God, and Wisdom, and all that our Lord and Saviour is. See too what he says: “She has done a good work on me”; for he did not say of the sinful woman who anointed his feet, “She has done a good work on me.” And if we must also discuss his saying, “She did it for my burial,” comparing it with the words, “We were buried with Christ through baptism and rose with him,” consider further that of the woman in Luke it is not said: “Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.” But of the woman in Matthew and Mark this is written. For it was just that it should be said, not of her who had anointed his feet, but of her who had poured the ointment on his head: “Wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.” If, then, we wish that what we do on Jesus be told of us too, pouring precious ointment on his head, let us advance from anointing his feet to pouring precious ointment on his head. But what is oil, and what is ointment? And what ointment serves to anoint the body of Christ, and what the head, is hard to explain. Yet we will try to show what seems right to us, knowing most certainly that oil everywhere in the Scriptures is understood either as the work of mercy, by which the lamp of the word is nourished and shines, or as teaching, by the constant hearing of which the word of faith kindled in us is nourished and shines more brightly. Just as, in general, everything with which one is anointed is called oil, but of oil some is ointment [and some not], and of ointment some is ordinary ointment and some precious, so every just act is called a good work. But of good works, one kind is what we do for men's sake or according to men, another what we do for God's sake and according to God. Again, of what we do for God's sake, one kind serves the use of men, another does not serve the use of men but only the glory of God. For example, someone does good to a man moved by natural justice, not for God's sake, as the Gentiles sometimes did and many men do: that work is common oil, not of great fragrance, and yet it too is acceptable to God, as Daniel indicates when he says to Belshazzar, who did not know God: “Hear my counsel, O king; redeem your sins by almsgiving.” Peter too says something of the kind in Clement: that the good works done by unbelievers profit them in this age, but not also in that age for obtaining eternal life; and fittingly, because they do not do them for God's sake, but for the sake of human nature itself. But for those who do them for God's sake, that is, the faithful, they profit not only in this age but in that one, and more in that one. What the faithful do for God's sake is ointment of good fragrance. And this very work of the faithful done for God's sake, which is ointment, is in part done for the benefit of men: for example, almsgiving, visiting the sick, receiving strangers, humility, gentleness, forgiveness, and other such things that benefit men. Whoever does these things for Christians anoints the Lord's feet with ointment, because they are the Lord's feet, with which he always walks; and this those doing penance are especially accustomed to do for the remission of their sins. That is the work called fragrant ointment, but not the highest. But whoever devotes himself to chastity, persists in fasting and prayer, has patience in adversity like Job, and does not fear to confess the truth of God in trials, all of which profit other men nothing but serve only the glory of God, this is the ointment that anoints the head of the Lord Christ and runs down abundantly over the whole body of Christ, that is, over the whole Church; and this is the very precious ointment with whose fragrance the whole house, that is, the Church of Christ, is filled. And this work belongs not to penitents but to perfect saints. Or else: the teaching necessary for men, by which souls poor in spiritual goods, or perhaps weak through sins, are nourished, is ordinary 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 the head of Christ, which is God, is anointed.