Journal of Pentecostal Theology

2006 SAGE Publications

London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi
http://JPT.sagepub.com
Vol 15(1)73-82
DOI: 10.1177/0966736906069257

THREE ANOINTINGS AND ONE OFFERING:

THE SINFUL WOMAN IN LUKE 7.36-50

Kent A. Van Til*

Religion Department, Hope College
Hollatid, MI 49423, USA
email: vantil@hope.edu

ABSTRACT
The story ofa woman pouring oil on Jesus' feet or head is attested in all
four canonical gospels. While some see the Lukan version pointing to an
event that is different from the 'Bethany' anointing found in the other three
gospels, I argue that all four accounts are based on the same event. The
differences in Luke's narrative, instead, can be accounted for by seeing the
pouring of oil in Luke as symbol of a sacrificial offering rather than an
anointing. Understanding this symbolic act as an offering/sacrifice fits
Luke's theme of forgiveness, which is evident in this passage and many
others. Moreover, it shows how Luke's gospel moves his readers from a
Jewish, male, temple-based religion at the beginning of Jesus' ministry to a
Jewish and Gentile, male and female. Spirit-based religion that culminates
at Pentecost. Such a reading may also provide clues about the relationships
among the Spirit, forgiveness and worship in Luke's gospel.

What accounts for the differences between the narrative of anointing in

Lk. 7.36-50 and its parallels in the other gospels?' Whereas Matthew,
Mark, and John locate the anointing in Bethany, Luke does not specify its
location. Luke agrees with John and reports a foot anointing, as opposed
to the head anointing in Matthew and Mark. In John, the woman is called
'Mary', whereas she remains anonymous in Matthew and Mark and is

* Kent Van Til (PhD, Marquette University) is Assistant Visiting Professor of

Scripture and Ethics at Hope College, Holland, MI, USA.
1. Mt. 26.6-13; Mk 14.3-9; Jn 12.1-8.

74

Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15.1 (2006)

simply 'a sinful woman' in Luke. Matthew and Mark conclude with the
words 'wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has
done will be told in memory of her',^ whereas Luke concludes with words
of forgiveness. Uncharacteristically, only Luke omits any reference to the
poor; the note upon which John ends'you will always have the poor
among you, hut you will not always have me' (12.8 NIV). Nor does Luke
mention the value of the myrrh, or Judas' comment on that subject. In
addition, Luke places this scene far earlier in his gospel than do the other
gospel writers. It is found in the fourteenth of 16 chapters in Mark, the
twelfth of 21 chapters in John, the twenty-sixth of 28 chapters in Matthew, but the seventh of 24 chapters in Luke.
These differences cause some, such as John Nolland, to conclude that
'there is not sufficient reason for identifying the Lucan and Bethany anointings'.^ Darrell Bock also sees Matthew, Mark, and John describing the
same event, while Luke records another distinct one, claiming that the differences are 'vast'."* Contra Nolland and Bock, I will show that these differences do not derive from two distinct events but are best understood in
light of Luke's distinct narrative purposes. In Luke, the story can best be
understood not as an anointing, but as an offering. Basing his narrative on
the same event, Luke shades his sources to promote his theological intentions, focusing on the universal need for forgiveness and the resulting
spiritual fellowship available to all.
Among the reasons are the following. First, while pouring out ointment
can symbolize an anointing, viewing it as a symbolic offering better fits
both the immediate sense of the passage as well as Luke's overall concern
with forgiveness. Second, pouring the ointment on Jesus' feet rather than
on his head follows the sacrificial practice of pouring out blood at the foot
of the altar. Third, Luke's choice of vocabulary for this 'pouring out', permits the reading of an offering. Fourth, the inclusion of the mini-parable
of the two debtors is clearly focused on forgiveness, precisely the objective sought when making an offering. Fifth, the chiastic structure of the
passage contributes toward a reading of it as an offering. Sixth, viewing
the symbol of pouring ointment as an offering also ameliorates the chronological differences between the Parable of the Two Debtors, in which the
debtors first receive forgiveness and then show love, and the woman's

2. Mt. 26.13; Mk 14.9.

3. John Nolland, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Waco, TX: Word Books,
1989), I, p. 352.
4. Darrell Bock, Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), p. 690.

VAN TIL Three Anointings and One Offering

75

action, in which she first shows love for Jesus and then receives forgiveness. Finally, within the Lukan corpus, viewing this event as an offering
serves to highlight Luke's contrast between temple worship and table
fellowship.
The differences between the Bethany anointings and the Lukan offering occur in the identity of the characters and in the dialogue. All the
narratives agree that:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

A man invites Jesus to a dinner.

A woman interrupts the dinner.
The woman pours out ointment on Jesus.
The guests react negatively to her and her actions.
Jesus reacts positively.

The differences, far from being central to the drama, center on the words
ofthe dialogue and details within the narrative. For example:
1.
2.
3.
4.

How is the man who invites Jesus identified?

How is the woman who anoints Jesus identified?
What is the content ofthe negative response ofthe guests?
What is the content of Jesus' positive response?

Furthermore, only Luke includes the Parable of the Two Debtors. The
similarities among the narratives are striking. The story line is the same;
differences occur only in the dialogue and in the identification of the
location and the names ofthe characters. Consequently, some scholars do
agree that the Lukan narrative refers to the same event as do the other
gospels. Guy Wagner, for example, argues that all the narratives do refer
to the same event but that each author has employed different strategies
for its use.^
Rather than requiring that we posit two separate events, the differences
are better explained by addressing the narrative purposes ofthe authors.*
A narrative reading of the text pinpoints the critical tools that analyze
differences among the gospels, the goal of which is not to discover the
'real' event underlying them but to understand why the narrative is
presented in a particular way.

5. Guy Wagner, 'L'Oncion de Bethanie', Etudes Theologiques etReligieuses 72.3

(1997), pp. 437-46.
6. James L. Resseguie proposes that Luke is 'defamiliarizing' a familiar story in
order to serve his unique ends. 'Defamiliarize' is a term Ressiguie borrows from Russian formalism in 'Automatization and Defamiliarization in Luke 7.36-50', Literature
and Theology 5 (1991/92), pp. 137-50 (137).

76

Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15.1 (2006)

How can we determine Luke's purposes?^ The context of the narrative

in each gospel provides one clue as to its meaning. Mark places it after the
so-called 'Little Apocalypse' to show that Jesus is the anticipated Messiah. Matthew places the story near the resurrection and great commission
to show that the woman understands Jesus' significance better than do the
disciples. John emphasizes Jesus' impending burial with his comment, 'It
was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial'
(12.7). Luke agrees with John that the woman anointed Jesus' feet but
emphasizes the need for forgiveness by including the parable of the two
debtors.
Other clues are found in the differences in Luke's presentation. For
example, Luke highlights a number of contrasts between Simon and the
woman. He shows that the woman was a better host than Simon. He highlights the fact that the woman was a sinner whereas Simon considered
himself righteous. Finally, the mini-parable of the two debtors highlights
the contrast in gratitude between those like Simon who saw himself as
needing little forgiveness, and the woman, who deeply recognized her
need for forgiveness.
The universal need for forgiveness and its resulting gospel of forgiveness available for all is central not only to this passage but to Luke's entire
project. For example, the following uniquely Lukan passages focus on
forgiveness. In 1.77 Zechariah says that John the Baptist is to 'give the
people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of sins'. In 6.37
Jesus says, 'Forgive and you will be forgiven', and in 17.3 'If your brother
sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him'. Only Luke includes the
words from the cross:' Forgive them Father, for they know not what they
do' (23.34). For Luke, Jesus' last words on earth are those of forgiveness:
'Repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all
nations' (24.47). Thus, the universal availability of forgiveness serves as
the basis for the universal proclamation of the gospel in Acts (cf. Acts 5.31,
8.22, 10.43, 13.38, 26.18). Clearly, forgiveness is at the core of Luke's
concerns.
The contrast between those who see themselves as needing little forgiveness versus those who recognize their need for forgiveness is found in
the context leading up to this passage. Jesus heals a Roman centurion's son
(7.1-10) and then raises a widow's son (7.11-16). The centurion is a Gentile, but Jesus honors him for his faith. The widow lacked the legal status
of an adult male in Jewish society, but Jesus raises both her son and her
7. For a thorough presentation of the narrative structure of Luke, cf William S.
Kurz, SJ, Reading Luke-Acts (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993).

VAN TIL Three Anointings and One Offering

11

status. In these pericopes, Jesus takes the role of healer and bringer of
Jubilee that is set for him in Lk. 4.18-19. Then, immediately before our
text (7.18-35), the consummate outsider, John the Baptist, sends emissaries
to ask whether Jesus is in fact the Messiah. Jesus responds by telling John
that the blind see, the lame walk and the good news is preached to the
poor, and so on; however, he concludes with this warning, 'Blessed is the
man who does not fall away on account of me' (7.23).
Indeed, there are two distinct responses to Jesus. 'All the people, even
the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's
way was right because they had been baptized by John. Yet, the Pharisees
and experts in the Law rejected God's purposes for themselves because
they had not been baptized by John (7.29-30). The Pharisees and teachers
ofthe Law accepted neither John nor Jesus. They claimed that John had a
demon and that Jesus himself was sinfiil since he associated with sinners.
Now in 7.36-50 we have Jesus, a Pharisee, and a renowned sinner all
together in one room, illustrating the precise point of conflict among them.
According to Luke, the Pharisees and experts ofthe Law rejected both
John the Baptist and Jesus since they believed they had a better alternative
available to them: temple practice. Because they had access to temple
ritual, they thought they had no need for either the baptism of John or the
forgiveness of Jesus. Proper adherence to the ritual laws of sacritice permitted Jews to fulfill their social and religious obligations and thus receive
forgiveness. Why would a Jewish leader need the hair-coated Baptist when
he could bring his sacrifices to the altar? Why would a Pharisee seek forgiveness from the carousing Jesus when the means of atonement were
clearly spelled out in the Levitical code? The history of Israel was replete
with sacrificial ritual, beginning with the patriarchs, the tabernacle, and
later the Temple. The latter was designed to provide a means of atonement
for devout Jews and was thus the center of Jewish life. The Jews were people ofthe Temple, and sacrifice was the central ritual of this life. Thus,
Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sins was remarkable, if not blasphemous,
in the ears of proper Jews.
This authority to forgive sins is clearly the focal point of our narrative.
The term aphiemi is used four times. Only Luke includes the mini-parable
ofthe two debtors, and only Luke concludes the story by having the marveling guests ask: 'Who is this who even forgives sins?' (7.49). The fact
that the precise point of conflict is the authority to forgive sins is also
borne out by the very structure ofthe narrative. Not only is the parable of
forgiveness unique to the Lukan narrative, it is also literally central to the
structure ofthe passage. Note the following chiastic structure that places
the parable of forgiveness at the very heart ofthe narrative:

78

Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15.1 (2006)

7.36 Jesus is guest at the house of a Pharisee.

7.37 A woman enters the house as a sinner.
7.38 The woman wets, kisses and 'anoints' Jesus.
7.39 The Pharisee asks himself whether Jesus is really a prophet.
7.40 MINI-PARABLE OF THE TWO DEBTORS
7.41 Jesus asks the Pharisee: 'who will love the master more?'
7.44-46 Simon had not cleansed, kissed or anointed Jesus.
7.47-48 A woman leaves the house forgiven.
7.49 The other guests at the house ofthe Pharisee marvel at Jesus.
7.50 A concluding priestly blessing for the woman.

By highlighting the theme of forgiveness through repeated use ofthe term

aphiemi, plaeing the mini-parable at the heart of the passage, and eoneluding with an announcement of forgiveness, Luke clearly establishes
forgiveness as the focus of his narrative.
The sinful woman, whom all recognized as needing forgiveness, enters
the all-male gathering. When she touches Jesus, it prompts Simon's inner
outburst: 'Doesn't he know what kind of woman this is who is touching
him?' Jesus, knowing Simon's thoughts, uses this moment to introduce
the Parable ofthe Two Debtors and then asks Simon, 'Who is likely to
love the creditor more?' Simon grudgingly admits that one who has been
forgiven more will likely love more. Jesus' question becomes a telling
indictment of Simon and a vindication ofthe woman.
How is the woman forgiven and thus vindicated, in contrast to Simon?
Clearly, the answer is connected to the symbol of pouring out ointment on
the feet of Jesus. Luke emphasizes that the woman poured out her precious
oil at Jesus' feet by repeating the term podos seven times within the
narrative.^ By pouring out her ointment on ]esus'feet, she performs an aet
that is symbolically identical to the ritual of pouring out of blood at the
foot ofthe altar.' In the temple tradition, the priest would smear a bit of
blood on the horn ofthe altar, and the person making the offering would
then pour out the remainder ofthe blood at the foot ofthe altar.'" This
pouring out was required for both sin and guilt offerings. These offerings
served to atone for the very kinds of sins the 'sinful woman' may have
committed." The woman, a Jewess, knew the temple ritual system. She,
like Simon, would have recognized her need for forgiveness. However,
unlike Simon, she recognized the true source of forgivenessJesus. Thus,
8. The term is mentioned three times in v. 38, twice in 44 and once in 45 and 46.
9. See Gen. 31.13; Exod. 29.12; Lev. 1.15, 4.7-34, 5.9, 7.2, 8.15, 9.9; and Deut.
12.27.
10. LXX basin tou Thusiasteriou.
11. Cf e.g. Lev. 4.1-5.13, 6.24-30, 8.14-17 and 16.3-22.

VAN TIL Three Anointings and One Offering

79

she performs a perfectly appropriate expression of her desire for forgiveness. She symbolically pours out her offering at the feet of Jesus, as a
Jew would pour out his offering at the foot ofthe altar.
Her action follows the system of sacrifice established in Leviticus, and
yet it was a radical departure from Levitical custom in at least three
ways.'^ First, instead ofa priest making the sacrifice and offering, a layperson did. Secondly, instead ofa man making the offering, a woman did.
Finally, instead of making an offering on the altar in the Temple, she
poured herself as well as her offering at the feet of Jesus.
Note that Luke here does not 'christen' Jesus by using the term chrio
for 'pour out' as do Matthew and Mark with its implication of Messianic
anointing. Instead, both Luke and John use the less technical and theologically loaded term aleipho^^ to describe the woman's action. Luke's
symbol of'pouring out' thus needs not imply the sense, 'you are the Christ/
anointed', as do the other Synoptics. Rather, the more generic aleipho
leaves interpretive space to see this symbol as something other than a
royal anointing.
The woman's action was certainly symbolic. The question for this narrative is: symbolic of what? The standard interpretation is that the 'pouring
out' is a symbol of gratitude. But this raises further and difficult questions.
Why is this symbol used to express gratitude, and why this outpouring at
theyee; of Jesus? In Matthew and Mark the symbol ofa royal anointing is
appropriateJesus is being recognized as the Messiah. In John, the anointing is clearly in preparation for his burial. In the Lukan narrative, however,
both a royal anointing and an anointing for burial are foreign to the theme
ofthe passage. What, if anything, does a royal anointing have to do with

12. Judith K. Applegate, in '"And She Wet his Feet with her Tears": A Feminist
Interpretation of Luke 7.36-50', in Harold C. Washington, Susan Lochrie Graham
and Pamela Thimmes (eds.), Escaping Eden (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1998), pp. 69-90, argues that the act is also radical in light ofthe fact that the
woman's sexuality is approved of by Jesus.
13. While ekcheo is most commonly used to describe the pouring of blood at the
side/feet ofthe altar in the LXX, (Exod. 29.12; Lev. 4.1-5,7.2, 8.15,9.9; Deut. 12.27),
two other terms are also attested: stranggeo (Lev. 1.15) and aleipho (Gen. 31.13).
Heinrich Schlier (in Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich [eds.]. Theological Dictionary ofthe New Testament [trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1964-], 1,229-32) establishes this non-technical use oialeipho for offerings
in both the New Testament and Old Testament (e.g. Gen. 31.13, 'to pour an offering of
oil over...'). Similarly, in Synonyms ofthe New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953), pp. 136-37, R.C. Trench discusses the non-technical aspects of aleipho
throughout the New Testament. My thanks to Edward Maniscalco for this reference.

80

Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15.1 (2006)

forgiving? How would a royal anointing yield forgiveness? It is the priest,

not the king, who announces forgiveness. Why would this woman anoint
Jesus for burial and then be granted forgiveness? If we see the 'pouring
out' as a symbol of an offering, now made at the feet of the new altar,
however, it serves as a perfect symbol ofthe woman's need to make a
sacrifice and her desire for forgiveness.
The final statement of forgiveness is also unique to Luke and, if read as
an anointing, raises problems of chronology.'"* In the parable each debtor
is forgiven and is then expected to show love to the creditor in proportion
to their previous debt. However, by saying 'your sins are forgiven' after
the woman anoints him, Jesus' words seem to suggest that the woman's
outpouring of love came first and that forgiveness resulted. Thus the
chronology of love and forgiveness in the parable and the narrative are
reversed: the parable ofthe debtors shows forgiveness followed by acts of
love, whereas the woman first performs an act of love and sacrifice and is
then declared forgiven.
If the narrative is seen as an offering, however, the ending statement of
forgiveness is most fitting. In Leviticus 4-5, where the requirements for
sin and guilt offerings are first set forth, a statement of forgiveness concludes each section. For example, Lev. 4.20b says, 'In this way the priest
will make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven'.'^ By announcing
that the woman is forgiven, Jesus may well be making a priestly statement
regarding her new, forgiven condition. Like the priest, his concluding
statement of forgiveness implies that she has made an acceptable offering
and may now go in peace. By viewing the symbol as an offering, the chronology question is resolved. When is it that sinners are actually forgiven:
before or after they reach the altar? Does one come to the altar because of
a prior desire for forgiveness but not actually receive it till the offering is
physically made? No, coming to the altar with an offering is a sign that
renewed fellowship with God is sought and that forgiveness is expected.
The woman came to Jesus with the confidence that she was approaching
the true source of forgiveness. She brought appropriate offerings (precious
ointment and tears of genuine repentance) and poured them out at Jesus'
feet. She then received the expected announcement of forgiveness.
Viewing this passage as an offering also fits another of Luke's overall
purposes. John Elliott makes a strong case that Luke intentionally contrasts

14. Cf. e.g. a recent revisitation of this question by John J. Kilgallen, 'Forgiveness
of Sins (Luke 7.36-50)', Novum Testamentum 40 (1998), pp. 105-16.
15. Cf. also Lev. 4.26, 31, 35; 5.10, 13, 16.

VAN TIL Three Anointings and One Offering

81

the new Christian table fellowship with the old temple practice.'^ At various points in his gospel and Acts, Luke contrasts the exclusivist purity
system ofthe Temple with the inclusive fellowship ofthe new spiritual
Christian household.'^ The social differences between these systems are
noteworthy. In the temple-dominated culture, forgiveness is mediated by
a complex series of rituals; but in Luke's writings, forgiveness is found
only through one's relation to Jesus. The temple culture is uniquely Jewish and available only to Jews, whereas table fellowship is available to all.
The temple culture required male priests, but the new Table is open to
women. Luke, known as a companion of Paul, reports and approves ofthe
inclusive Gentile mission. The Gentiles, who previously had no means of
forgiveness, can now receive it through the self-offering of Jesus and the
reception ofthe Spirit.'^ The universal availability of forgiveness thus
makes possible the universal proclamation ofthe gospel. Table fellowship
replaces temple ritual.
In this way Jesus establishes a new standard for worship. Worship is
no longer mediated through priests at the Temple but through the Spirit
among the forgiven. Table fellowship, of course, is completed at the Last
Supper. As N.T. Wright notes, the cleansing ofthe Temple and the celebration ofthe Supper challenge the foundations of Jewish practice and proclaim a new way.
Jesus' action in the Temple brought his challenge to the prevailing symbolic
world to its climax. The Temple was the greatest Jewish symbol, and Jesus
was challenging it, claiming authority over it, claiming for himself and his
mission the central place the Temple had occupied. The Last Supper was
Jesus' own alternative symbol, the kingdom-feast, the new exodus feast.
And, just as the Temple pointed to the sacrificial meeting ofthe covenant

16. John H. Elliott, 'Household and Meals versus Temple Purity Replication Patterns in Luke-Acts', Biblical Theology Bulletin 2\ (1991), pp. 102-108.
17. In Lk. 15.1 -2 the Pharisees and teachers ofthe law condemn Jesus saying, 'This
man welcomes sinners and eats with them'. This, it seems, was Jesus' customary practice. In Acts chs. 10 and 11 Peter shares a meal with the Gentile, Cornelius. The
brothers in Jerusalem hear of this and accuse Peter of impropriety, saying, 'You went
into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them' (Acts 11.3). After Peter retells
the story of his vision, and the outpouring ofthe Spirit on the Gentiles, the brothers are
convinced and conclude, 'So then, God has even granted the Gentiles repentance unto
life' (Acts 11.18). A shared meal, of course, becomes the Church's unique sacrament,
uniting forgiven Jews and Gentiles at the table.
18. Springs E. Steele and others propose that Greek readers of this narrative would
have seen it as a Hellenistic symposium. See Steele, 'Luke 11.37-54a Modified Hellenistic Symposium?', Journal of Biblical Literature 32.3 (1984), pp. 379-94.

82

Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15.1 (2006)

God and his people, the sign of forgiveness and hope, of God dwelling in
their midst as the God of covenant renewal, covenant steadfastness, covenant love, so now Jesus hy his douhle action was claiming that here, in his
own work, in his own person, all that the Temple had stood for was being
summed up in a new and final w a y . "

What the other gospel writers represent as the anointing of a king or

preparation for burial is transformed hy Luke into a story of forgiveness
and worship. Viewing the Lukan narrative in this way has numerous advantages. First, itfitsLuke's placement of the story early in his gospel. Second,
it serves Luke's theme of forgiveness, also found in Acts. Third, it clears up
the reason for the presence of the parahle of the two debtors embedded in
this narrative as well as its possible interpretation. Fourth, it alleviates the
chronology problem that arises between the Parable of the Two Debtors
and the sinful woman. Fifth, it does not require us to postulate two nearly
identical events in order to explain the differences between Luke's account
and those of the other gospels. Sixth, itfitsthe immediate context in which
insiders like the Pharisees are contrasted with outsiders like John the Baptist and the widow. Finally, it reflects the Lukan perspective that the Temple has been replaced by the Table.
The symbol of the out-pouring as an offering shows that the authority
to forgive sins is found in Jesus rather than in the sacrificial system that
Simon and others like him relied upon. True worship is symbolized by
pouring oneself out at the source of forgiveness. Luke's gospel shows
how access to this forgiveness is becoming available to allnotorious sinners. Gentiles and women. In Acts, this gospel of forgiveness will become
available to all via the poured out Spirit.

19. N.T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1999), p. 83.