26:6-13 Who is this woman who anointed Jesus here and when did this anointing take place?
26:6-13 Who is this woman who anointed Jesus here and when did this anointing take place?
There is some confusion in the contemporary church over who the women were who anointed Jesus, and how many times He was anointed. There are three distinct and separate anointings of Jesus by women in scripture, and this is the third. The first took place in Simon the Pharisee’s house in Nain early in Christ’s earthly ministry (cp Lk 7:11, 36-39). This woman anointed Jesus’ feet. Many in the church believe that this was Mary Magdalene, and/or that she was a prostitute, but there is nothing in scripture whatever to identify her. Luke simply describes her as a sinner, which can mean literally anything, but it is no proof that she was a prostitute. There is no proof either that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute – scriptures merely teach that Christ cast seven demons out of her (cp Mk 16:9; Lk 8:1-2).
Generally scriptures teach that demons affected people they possessed physically, not morally (cp Mt 8:16-17, 28-34; 9:32-33; 15:21-28; Mk 9:17-27; Lk 4:33-36; 11:14). Mary Magdalene is mentioned in Lu 8 but this is no proof either that she was the one who anointed Jesus’ feet in Lk 7. The second anointing took place in Lazarus’ house in Bethany, six days before Jesus was betrayed (cp Jn 11:1-2, 12:1-3). This Mary is Lazarus’ and Martha’s sister. She also anointed Jesus’ feet, the same as the woman did in Lk 7. The third anointing in Mt 26:6-13 also took place in Bethany, in Simon the leper’s house, two days before Jesus was betrayed. Mark’s gospel also records this anointing (cp Mk 14:1-9). This woman anointed Jesus’ head, not His feet, like Mary, Lazarus’ and Martha’s sister in Jn 12, or the first woman in Lk 7. And there is also nothing in scripture to identify her either. Like the woman in Lk 7, she too is not named.
To say that Judas was never saved, always of the devil, and never in grace as some teach, is to ignore the plain facts of scripture. Judas was given by God to Jesus and Jesus had once given him eternal life (cp Jn 17:1-12). Jesus trusted Judas – He called him “mine own familiar friend”, which means that Judas was a confidant of Jesus, a trusted friend (cp Psa 41:9; 55:12-14; Jn 13:18).
Would Jesus have referred to Judas like He did in Psa 41 and 55 if he was always of the devil? (While Psa 55:12-14 also applies to the betrayal of King David, it is a messianic prophecy and applies to the betrayal of Jesus too). The Holy Spirit indwelt him and Judas had all the power the other disciples had to heal the sick, cleanse lepers, raise the dead and cast out demons, etc. (cp Mt 10:1-8, 16-20; Mk 3:14-19; 6:7-13; Lk 6:13-16; 9:1-6). Along with Jesus’ other disciples Judas’ name was written in God’s Book of Life (cp Lk 10:1-9, 17-20). Judas was a bishop in the church Jesus is building (cp Acts 1:15-25). But Judas became apostate, then a thief, and eventually he betrayed Jesus (cp Zec 11:12-13; Mt 26:14-16, 47-50; Mk 14:10-11; 43-46; Lk 22:3-6, 47-48; Jn 6:70-71;12:3-6; 13:2). He forfeited his apostleship, his bishoprick (his ministry), and his salvation (cp Psa 69:22-28; 109:6-20; Ac 1:15-20). In Ac 1:20 Peter quoted Psa 109:8 as being fulfilled in Judas. Psa 69:22-25 applies to both Judas and those who had Jesus killed. We learn from Psa 109 that Judas had a wife and children. His wife became a widow and his children vagabonds (wanderers), who had to beg all the rest of their days (cp Mt 26:9-10). Judas’ family name died out in that generation. It was lost to posterity forever - no one was left to carry on his name (cp Mt 26:13).
(cp also Mk 14:12-17; Lk 22:7-16) The Passover concerns the events immediately preceding Israel’s deliverance from its four hundred and thirty years captivity in Egypt. It was instituted by God and celebrated by the Jews to commemorate being spared by the death angel on its way to kill all the firstborn of Egypt prior to the Exodus. The Passover involved the killing of an unblemished lamb by the Jews and sprinkling its blood on the lintels and doorposts of their houses. The blood of the lamb was a sign for the death angel to spare, or pass over the houses of the Israelites (cp Ex 12:1-14, 21-28). There is rich prophetic symbolism here which points forward to our redemption through the blood of Christ. The Passover and the feast of unleavened bread were “a shadow of things to come” (cp Col 2:16-17). The Passover itself was an Old Testament type, of which Christ was the New Testament antitype (an antitype is the person or thing represented or foreshadowed by an earlier type, or symbol). The unblemished lamb sacrificed for its blood prefigured the shedding of Christ’s blood as the sacrificial lamb of God.
As the Passover lamb was a substitute sacrifice for the firstborn of the Jews, so Christ was the substitute sacrifice for sinners (cp Jn 1:29; 1Cor 5:7; 2Cor 5:21; 1Pe 1:2, 18-20; Rev 5:5-10). The sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb on the lintels and doorposts typified the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross. The sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb by the Old Testament Jews was done in obedient faith. This response of faith brought about redemption through the blood. Salvation through Christ’s blood is likewise obtained through the obedience of faith. And as the blood sprinkled on the lintels and doorposts saved all the firstborn Jews, so Christ’s blood on the cross saves all repentant sinners (cp Eph 1:7; He 9:11-15, 22; 10:19-20; 13:20; 1 Jn 2:2; Rev 1:5). The eating of the Passover lamb represented the Jews identifying with the lamb’s death, a death which saved them from physical death. Similarly, partaking of communion represents the Christian’s participation in the death of Christ, a death which saves them from spiritual death (cp 1Cor 10:16-17; 11:23-26).
It is also significant that only unleavened bread could be eaten with the Passover lamb. In scripture leaven is used metaphorically to refer to sin and evil (cp 1Cor 5:1-8). The symbol of unleavened bread for New Testament Christians is to be without sin before God. As the Old Testament feast of unleavened bread represented the Jew’s separation from the corruption symbolized by Egypt, New Testament Christians must likewise be separated from the corruption and evil of the world (cp 2Cor 6:14-18;Jas 4:4; 1Jn 2:15-17). We must repudiate all sin or we will be cut off from the covenant promises like the Old Testament Jews who ate leavened bread were to be cut off from the congregation (cp Ex 12:15). See also comments on Mt 26:26-29; 1Cor 11:20-22 and author’s study Communion in his book Foundational Truths of the Christian Faith.
There have been three major interpretations placed upon the meaning of Christ's reference to His body and blood when He instituted the Lord's supper and we need to know what they are in order to distinguish between them. The first is the Roman Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation. The second is the Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation and the third is the non-Lutheran Protestant Doctrine of Symbolic Commemoration. Non-Lutheran Protestants include Pentecostals. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation promotes the theory that in the Roman Catholic Communion service the bread and the wine are literally converted by the officiating priest – though their appearance remains the same – into the actual body and the blood of Christ.
Roman Catholics are taught that the power to change the elements (or emblems) – the bread and the wine – into the actual body and blood of Christ was given to the apostles at the last supper by Christ and has been carried on by Catholic priests as the successors to the apostles ever since. They are taught that through His earthly priest Christ's sacrifice is renewed at every Communion service, and that by giving the apostles and their successors the Divine power to change the bread and the wine into His own body and blood Christ ensured that His redeeming sacrifice would forever be present in the church. Roman Catholics believe that partaking of Communion is crucial to their salvation. There is no warrant for this doctrine in scripture. Even Catholicism's own St Augustine taught that Christ's references to His body and blood are merely figures bidding us communicate in His sufferings (ref Augustine – On Christian Doctrine). The Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation is just as fallacious as the doctrine of transubstantiation. This denies that the elements are changed into the actual body and the blood of Christ but it asserts that the literal presence of Christ is present in, under, and with the elements so Christ can be received sacramentally by those taking Communion. Sacramentally means necessary to salvation. This is much the same as what Roman Catholicism teaches and like the Catholic teaching is also not scriptural.
The non-Lutheran Protestant Doctrine of Symbolic Commemoration teaches that what Jesus says about eating His body and drinking His blood is not to be taken literally but only symbolically, and that the observance of Communion is a commemoration of the death of Christ in which Christ is spiritually present. The Lord's supper is therefore a memorial feast. As they receive the bread and the wine, symbolic in their nature, it is an acknowledgement by those partaking of Communion that their salvation is solely through the broken body and the shed blood of Christ. To eat the bread and drink the wine is to commemorate Christ's death and accept the benefits He has provided for us in His death until He comes again. This is the correct teaching (cp Jn 6:47-63). These passages are the continuation of a long discourse by Jesus contrasting the manna, the bread which the Jews' forefathers ate and which could not save them, with Himself, the Bread of Life, and they must be kept in the context of that teaching to better understand them. They provide us with the most indepth explanation of Communion in scripture and while Jesus is not making a direct reference to Communion, this discourse conveys the same truth in words that Communion conveys in action (cp Mt 26:27-35).
When scriptures are kept in context it is quite clear that the expressions Jesus uses about eating His body and drinking His blood are to be understood spiritually. They are used figuratively not literally. In Mt 26:51 Jesus is in effect saying, "I will give this bread which symbolises my body given in death to save the world" (cp Mt 26:51). By comparing Mt 26:47-48 with Mt 26:53-54 we see that believing in Jesus is the same as eating His body and drinking His blood. Jesus teaches in V63 that even if we could literally eat His body and drink His blood it would not save our souls. This clearly refutes both the Roman Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation. The life Jesus speaks of is spiritual and eternal life, not fleshly life. Eating of Christ simply means that man must accept by faith what Christ has done for him and live by obedience to Him without sin so the penalty will not have to be paid again (cp 1Cor 11:23-32).
Paul received the revelation of the Lord's supper direct from Jesus Himself. It is clearly symbolic in nature, and as the word remembrance in Mt 26:24-25 signifies, it is a memorial of Christ. Those who partake of Communion must do so reverently, remembering always the atoning sacrifice of Christ's death for them. But it is not meant to be a morbid re-enactment of Christ's death. Rather it is to bring to remembrance the purpose of the cross and Christ's victory over it (cp Acts 2:22-24; 3:13-18; 5:30-31;Col 2:13-15). See also comments on Mt 26:17-19; 1Cor 11:20-22 and author’s study Communion in his book Foundational Truths of the Christian Faith.
We learn from what Jesus says here that communion, or the Lord’s supper will be observed by Christ and all believers in the Kingdom of God throughout eternity (cp Mk 14:22-26; Lk 22:14-18). Scriptures also confirm that all the redeemed of God will eat food and drink liquids in the eternal kingdom (cp Isa 65:21-22; Eze 28:25-26; Amos 9:14; Lk 22:30; Rev 2:7, 17; 19:9; 22:1-2).
Scriptures teach that Jesus had looked ahead to this hour (cp Jn 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1). But now, as the time drew near Jesus dreaded it (cp Mk 14:32-36; Lk 22:41-44). Jesus’ anguish had nothing to do with the fear of man or the physical torments of the cross, for He had resolutely set Himself to die (cp Isa 50:6-7; Mt 20:28;Mk 10:32-34, 45; Lk 9:51; Jn 12:24, 27). Our Lord was sorrowful because within hours the full cup of Divine fury against sin would be His to drink; He would bear the punishment for sin by being separated from God (cp Isa 53:10-12 with Psa 22:1; Mt 27:45-46; Mk 15:33-34; 2Cor 5:21). See also comments on Mt 27:45-46; Lk 22:44;Jn 18:11.
Neither Matthew, Mark nor Luke tells us who did this – only John does (cp Mk 14:44-47; Lk 22:47-50 with Jn 18:10). Peter struck the servant with a sword, completely severing his ear, but Jesus restored it to normal (cp Lk 22:51). Jesus reprimanded Peter for doing it because He did not need anyone to defend Him – God would have sent 12 legions of angels (72,000), had Jesus wanted them, but He only wanted to fulfil God’s eternal purpose in His death (cp Mt 26:52-54; Mk 14:49; Jn 18:11).
Jesus never said this. That was a statement made by the two false witnesses against Him at His trial. What Jesus really said is recorded in Jn 2:13-19 (cp Jn 2:13-19). Jesus said as an ironic command to the Jews in response to their demand for a sign to prove His right to eject them from the temple: “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. He was not referring to the temple from which He had just ejected them, but to the temple of His body and it being raised up in three days after His death (cp Jn 2:20-22).
His Second Advent (cp Isa 63:1-6; Dan 7:13-14; Mt 24:29-31; 25:31; 2Th 1:7-8; Jude 14-15; Rev 1:7; 19:11-12). Those Scriptures all concern the second coming of Christ, not the Rapture. They relate to Antichrist, the Tribulation, the Battle of Armageddon, the Judgement of the Nations, Christ’s Millennial Kingdom, etc. (See also comments on Mt 24:1-3; 2Th 1:7-10; Rev 1:7, 19:11-21.