Matthew 26:1-16: Anointing of Yeshua for burial

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 58:09 — 13.3MB)

Subscribe: RSS

We pause before studying Yeshua’s Passover meal with the 12 to consider an account (Mt. 26:1–16; Mk. 14:1–11; Jn. 12:1–11; Lk. 7:36–50) so important that Yeshua said it must be recounted wherever the good news of the Kingdom of God and the role of God’s Mashiakh (Messiah) in healing the gulf between mankind and God is proclaimed. 

The versions of this record in Matthew, Mark and Luke are very similar, while John’s deviates a bit. Was this two days before Passover or six? Was it in Simon’s house or Lazarus’s house?

Matthew, Mark and John all say this was an anointing of his upcoming burial, but Luke considered it as an act of repentance. John is organized by themes, while Matthew, Mark and Luke are largely chronological. John looks at things from a distance and puts them together in a different way than the other Gospels writers. 

One of the main themes is the focus on Yeshua’s burial. The Apostles seem to have been ignorant of Yeshua’s repeated hints at his upcoming death. He not only foreshadowed what was going to happen to Him but to the people of Israel. Yeshua is in the present but looking ahead, too. 

You see the idea of looking forward, looking back and looking into the present frequently in the Psalms and the Prophets. The past has relevance to the present and into the future. We have to be aware of “how late the hour” is. The past is relevant to the present and a pattern of what we will see in the future. 

The abomination of desolation is an example of a repeated theme of where the past informs the present and the future. 

The passage in Luke 7 is similar to a story in Luke 8 about Miriam (Mary) of Magdalah. Some merge them into one person but there are strong arguments that they woman of Luke 7 is not Miriam of Magdalah. 

Another main theme in these stories is the theme of forgiveness. Yeshua is the instrument of forgiveness. He can do what the High Priests, as descendants of Aaron, could never do. Yeshua is God, offering and priest all in one. 

In Matthew 26 and Mark 14 tell us this incident occurred in the home of Simon the Leper while Luke refers to him as Simon the Pharisee. 

Leviticus 13 records how different skin diseases are diagnosed. In the Hebrew, they are all lumped in as “leprosy.” Let’s focus on Lev. 13:45-46 and use this to look at Simon’s life and how he would have lived as a leper. 

“As for the leper who has the infection, his clothes shall be torn, and the hair of his head shall be uncovered, and he shall cover his mustache and cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’” (Lev. 13:45)

At this time, he was healed of his leprosy. We know this because he was inviting guests to his home. When a priest declares a leper clean, he is bringing the person back into fellowship with the community. The leper is brought from death to life. After the priest declares the person healed of the leprosy, there is a system of purification the victim goes through. All the hair on the body is shaved off, including eyebrows, beard, etc. A small part of the blood of the guilt offering is put on the healed leper’s right ear, right thumb and big toe. This is similar to the anointing of the priest.  

When a person suspects they have leprosy, they go to the priest and the priest quarantines the person for seven days. After seven days, the priest meets up with the suspected leper and if the condition is just baldness, a burn or some othernoninfectious condition, the priest declares the person טָהוֹר tahor (Strong’s lexicon No. H2889, clean).If the man was found to have leprosy, he hadto be separated from the community, yelling to everyone he was טָמֵא tamey (H2931, unclean).

It would be an anathema of anathemas for a Pharisee to be declared unclean. For a Pharisee to be declared a leper must have been a profound burden but when Simon was healed and brought back into the community would have marked him profoundly, too. 

We have several accounts of Yeshua’s healing lepers. We don’t know if Yeshua personally healed Simon or if one of His apostles healed him. I suspect that the fact that Simon was hosting Yeshua and His apostles in his home was an expression of Simon’s gratitude for his healing. 

The account of leper healing in Matthew 8, Mark 1 and Luke 5 are all about the same incident. There is a contrast between this healing and a confrontation between Yeshua and a group of Torah scribes and Pharisees, of whom Simon was a member, over another healing (Luke 5:12–26). The priests were in diagnosis mode, not healing mode. All they can do is declare you clean or unclean. Once the person is healed, the priest just confirms the cure and accepts the offerings. God was the one who healed and atoned for the person. The priest does not know the heart of the person. The priest doesn’t know if the person bringing the offering is contrite, repentant or if the person was putting on a show and hardened. Only God knows. 

We have Simon the Leper at his home vs. the woman with her anointing oil. The person who brings a gift needs to have a pure heart or the gift is not accepted. Who is receiving the gift here? Both Yeshua and the woman received something. He received her heart, her contrition, her repentance and she received forgiveness and shalom. Yeshua did something that no High Priest of Aaron’s line could ever do. Yeshua was a priest of a higher order. His righteousness is above the Torah. 

The High Priest’s could only declare and judge while Yeshua could receive, cover, forgive and give שלום shalom (peace, contentment). 

Pliny the elder records that Syrian nard perfumes could easily cost a year’s wages. The Apostles were not exaggerating at the expense this woman went through to anoint Yeshua. 

There is an ancient commentary on Ecclesiastes that emphasizes why this anointing of Yeshua was so significant:

“‘A good name is better than a good ointment’ (Eccl. 7:1). Good ointment flows downwards, but a good name rises. Good ointment lasts on a short while, but a good name endures forever. Good ointment is quickly used up, but a good name is never spent. Good ointment is bought with money, but a good name is free of cost. Good ointment is applied only to the living, but a good name applies to the living and the dead. Good ointment can only be purchased by the rich, but a good name can be acquired by poor and rich. The fragrance of good ointment spreads from bedroom to the dining hall, but a good name spreads from one end of the world to the other.” (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:1)

Apostle Paul used the sensory lesson of a strong fragrance to teach the importance of God’s giving believers a new “name,” a new identity, character and, eventually, a new reputation.

“For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things?” (2Cor. 2:14–16)

What is our name? A stink to society or are we a source of light? Death to death or life to life. If we are nothing but a “smell of death,” what is the result? Those who smell death end up in death. If we smell like life, then those who smell us gain life. Are we a “sweet savor to the Lord”? The inside appearance is more important than the outside appearance and only God can accurately discern what is inside. 

If we are not genuine and real, we can be a stench to others. The picture in this passage of the woman anointing the head and feet is a story of coming from death to life for Simon and the woman but also Yeshua’s approaching His time when He would go from life to death for them and all of us. 

Both Simon and the woman were brought from death to life, and in their own ways expressed their gratitude. 

Speaker: Jeff. Summary: Tammy.