The Anointed One

 

Today is the day before Palm Sunday.   Palm Sunday is the first day of Holy Week, the week that ends with the Paschal Triduum – Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday, in commemoration of the Last Supper/Betrayal, the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, and the Entombment/Harrowing of Hell respectively – leading up to the Christian Passover, the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday.   The Sunday prior to these events was the day in which Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the colt of a donkey while the crowds strewed the path before Him with palm branches – hence “Palm Sunday” – and cried “Hosanna, Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord.”   The traditional name for this – the Triumphal Entry – strikes the modern ear as ironic considering the timing of the events of Holy Week but that is not the intent behind the name.   A triumph was when a general or emperor returned from war and entered the city with much pomp and ceremony, parading his troops and the spoils of war before the populace.   While obviously not the exact equivalent, a triumph was the closest analogy in the terminology of earthly cities and kingdoms for what was going on that first Palm Sunday as the King of Kings entered the City of David.   This was the fulfilment of the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9.   This was Jesus publicly and officially presenting Himself to national Israel as the Promised Redeemer – the Christ, the Messiah, or, to render both of these words by their literal English meaning, the Anointed One.   

 

That Jesus was the Christ was not news to His disciples.   Some of these had heard this from John the Baptist before Jesus’ ministry had even begun.   He had been teaching them since St. Peter’s confession that He was “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” that His upcoming Death and Resurrection were essential to His being the Messiah although this did not really sink in until after they encountered the Risen Lord.   Indeed, “The Kingdom of God is at hand”, the Gospel He had been preaching throughout His earthly Ministry, was another way of saying that He was the Christ.   The Promised Kingdom was at hand, that is, present, here, among you right now, because He, the Christ, had come.   By entering the city in this way, however, as Zechariah had long ago foretold, He confronted Israel as a collective whole, with His claims as their Anointed One.

 

It is what took place the day before the Triumphal Entry, however, that makes this a particularly appropriate time for a discussion of what it meant for Jesus to be the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One.   For on that day Jesus was anointed in the literal sense of the word.    This was the day when Jesus, Who had been living in Ephraim since a conspiracy against Him had arisen following the raising of Lazarus, and Who having set out for Jerusalem, telling His disciples that the journey would end in His Death and Resurrection and having passed through Jericho where He had opened the eyes of the blind men and supped with the repentant tax collector Zacchaeus, arrived at Bethany.   A supper was held in His honour.   SS Matthew and Mark tell us that it was held at the home of one Simon the Leper.    St. John tells us that Lazarus sat at the table with Jesus, possibly indicating that either he and Simon the Leper were one and the same or that they were closely related, and that a large crowd showed up to see both Jesus and Lazarus.   St. John also tells us that Lazarus’ sister Martha served the meal, and his other sister Mary was the one who anointed Jesus.   She took an alabaster box containing a pound of very expensive ointment made from the perfume spikenard, broke the box (St. Mark), poured it on His head (SS Matthew and Mark) and feet (St. John) and wiped His feet with her hair.   This provoked an angry reaction from Judas Iscariot, who, along with at least one other disciple (SS Matthew and Mark) asked why the ointment had not been sold and the money given to the poor.   St. John, who is the only Evangelist to identify Judas by name as the disciple who complained, also gives an explanation for this odd expression of indignation, that Judas was the treasurer and a thief.   Jesus’ response was to say “Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.  For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always” (John 12:7-8).   SS Matthew and Mark add His proclamation that “Wheresover this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her”. (Matt. 26:13)

 

Interestingly, this was the second time that Jesus was anointed in this way.   The seventh chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel ends with an account of Jesus having been invited to supper at the home of a Pharisee named Simon.   A woman who is described as a “sinner” – this is generally taken to mean prostitute here – comes to the house and weeps, washes Jesus’ feet with her tears and wipes them with her hair, before anointing His feet with ointment, here too from an alabaster box.   This results in a conversation of an entirely different sort.   Jesus gives Simon, who had thought to himself “This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner”, a parable explaining that the more one is forgiven, the greater one’s love for the forgiver.   He concludes the episode by telling the woman “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace”.   There are some who think that St. Luke was describing the same event as the other Evangelists but this is as implausible as the interpretation of those who think that SS Matthew and Mark were recounting a third anointing different from that told by St. John. (1)  The first verse of the eighth chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel makes it clear that the anointing he had just described occurred very early in Jesus’ ministry, two to three years before the anointing described by the other Evangelists, and almost certainly took place in Galilee.  (2)   (3)

 

Those who hold the implausible interpretation that SS Matthew and Mark were describing a different anointing from St. John, one that took place in the same town and with the same following conversation, four days later, often do so for a theological reason.   As the Christ – the Anointed One – Jesus was the prophesied descendant of David Who would inherit his kingdom and rule it forever.   When Saul was chosen by God for the kingship of Israel, Samuel informed him of the fact by taking a vial of oil, pouring it upon his head, and saying “Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance” (1 Sam 10:1).   Later, when God rejects Saul because of his disobedience, and chooses David, Samuel similarly anointed him (1 Sam 16:13).   The title Messiah or Christ is primarily a reference to Jesus’ Kingship.   It was not just kings that were traditionally anointed with oil, however.   Priests were also inducted into their office with an anointment by oil (Ex. 40:13, 15) as were the Tabernacle/Temple in which they ministered and all the holy objects found within (Ex 40:9-11).     Elijah was also instructed to anoint Elisha, his successor, as a prophet. (4) Jesus, as the Messiah, is Prophet, Priest, and King in One, which many see as reason for believing that He was anointed three times.

 

As it so happens, they are right about Jesus having been anointed thrice, once for each Office, but there is no need to separate the anointing recounted by SS Matthew and Mark from that told by St. John to find these three anointings.   St. Peter in his sermon to Cornelius the centurion in mentions another:

 

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.   (Acts 10:38)

 

While St. Peter could have had an eternal anointing outside of time and history in mind, (5) the reference to the baptism of John immediately prior to this verse makes it more likely that he was speaking about what had happened when John had baptized Jesus, when the Holy Spirit visibly descended upon Him.   

 

If we take that to be the right interpretation of St. Peter’s words then the Gospels do indeed record three anointings of Jesus and this is the only one that is mentioned in all four Gospels, being narrated by the Evangelists themselves in the case of the Synoptics, and by John the Baptist to his disciples in the first chapter of St. John’s Gospel.

 

If, furthermore, we take the three anointings to correspond to the three Offices of the Christ, then this one is clearly the anointing that pertains to the Office of Prophet.      A prophet is someone who speaks the Word of God.   Jesus exercised the duties of this Office from the onset of His public ministry in Galilee, a ministry of proclaiming the Gospel that the Kingdom was at hand, and calling on the people to repent and believe, which He accompanied and complemented by the healings and other miracles He performed exactly as St. Peter said.  As the Christ Jesus was more than just a prophet, He was The Prophet, that is, the One of Whom Moses said “The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken” (Deut. 18:15).   St. Peter and St. Stephen the martyred deacon, both make this identification in Acts 3 and 7 respectively.    Moses, as a prophet, had given to Israel the Old Covenant, the Law.   Jesus, as Prophet, brought the New Covenant.   The first four chapters of St. Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews, about the superior revelation God has given in His Son, to that which He gave through the prophets of old, comparing Him to Moses specifically in the third chapter, are an extended discussion of just this very truth.

 

At the end of the fourth chapter of Hebrews, St. Paul switches to a discussion of Jesus as Priest which goes on into the tenth chapter of the epistle.  This would be the Office most logically to be related to the anointing of the seventh chapter of the Gospel according to St. Luke.   A priest is someone who, by contrast with a king whose vocation pertains to civil government, a farmer, who obtains his living from the land, or the butcher, baker and candlestick maker the work of each of which is oriented towards the market, serves in things which are considered holy or sacred, words which basically mean separated unto God from all of those secular or mundane matters to which everyone else attends.   The primary duty of a priest is to offer sacrifices to God on behalf of the people for the forgiveness of their sins.   The woman who anoints Jesus’ feet in St. Luke’s Gospel is identified as a sinful woman.  Before anointing His feet she weeps over Him – a sign of repentance.   The conversation that follows is all about the forgiveness of sin, and the account concludes with Jesus proclaiming her forgiveness, or, to put it in priestly terminology, pronounces her Absolution.   This is an exercise of His Priestly Office.   St. Paul in Hebrews goes into great length about Jesus’ priesthood.   He contrasts it with the Aaronic priesthood established for Israel in the Mosaic Covenant.  The priests of the latter had to offer sacrifices for their own sins as well as those of the people, the blood of bulls and goats which they offered could not actually take sins away, and the priests had to be continually replaced because they continually died.   Jesus, however, is a High Priest “after the order of Melchisedec”, i.e., the mysterious priest-king of Salem in the Book of Genesis.   It is not the earthly Tabernacle that He entered as High Priest, but the heavenly one upon which the earthly was patterned.   Having died and risen again, He lives forever and continues in the Office of Priest forever.   He is without sin Himself, although having undergone temptation he can sympathize with sinners.   He entered the heavenly Tabernacle once with one offering – His own blood – which effectively takes away all sins once and for all and secures the salvation of all who come to God through Him in faith.

 

This leaves for the anointing at Bethany the Office of King.   This makes perfect sense as it took place on the eve of the Triumphal Entry.   Here is Zechariah’s prophecy of that event:

 

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. (Zech. 9:9)

 

In His Triumphal Entry, Jesus presented Himself to the nation as the promised King of this verse and the first thing He is recorded doing upon entering the city in the Synoptic Gospels is to exercise His Kingly authority by driving the merchants and moneychangers out of the Temple.    His Kingdom is a prominent theme of His teachings for the rest of that week.   The mid-week Discourse given at the Mount of Olives, for example, is about both the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple as a judgement upon Israel for rejecting their King and about His Coming in judgement on the whole world at the end of time (see especially Matt. 25:31-46, where He first refers to Himself as the Son of Man, then for the remainder of the account of the Final Judgement as “the King”).   By the end of the week the chief priests and Pharisees who have captured Him with Judas’ help, condemned Him at an illegal and rigged Sanhedrin trial, and brought Him before Roman Governor Pontius Pilate are able to persuade the crowd to turn on Him, demand His Crucifixion, and the release of Barabbas instead.    Neither these, nor even at the time His own closest disciples to whom He had been explaining it ever since St. Peter’s confession of Him as the Christ, understood that the road to His Kingdom passed through the Cross.   To Pilate, however, He explained that His Kingdom was not of this world and Pilate, on the superscription over the Cross declared Him to be “the King of the Jews”.

 

These three anointed Offices, each of which can be associated with one of the three anointings of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament, is an indispensable part of what it means for Jesus to be the Christ, the Anointed One.    Were He not the Prophet Who proclaimed the grace of God as Moses had delivered the Law, the High Priest Who offered Himself up as the Sacrifice that took away the sins of the world before entering the Heavenly Tabernacle with His Own Blood, and the King Who will judge the world, both the quick and the dead, and rule eternally, He would not have been able to say to Martha:

 

I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.   (Jn. 11:25-26)

 

Jesus asked Martha whether she believed this and in response received her confession of the same truth which when confessed by St. Peter, prompted His declaration that “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) and which St. John declares to be the faith that brings everlasting life (Jn. 20:31):

 

Yea Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. (Jn. 11:27).

 

If anyone does not believe this going in to Holy Week, let us pray that they come to believe it by the end of Week that they may fully enter into the joy of the Resurrection of the Anointed One on Easter Sunday.

 

(1)   Those who think that SS Matthew and Mark are describing a third anointing do so because both of these Evangelists recount the anointing immediately after talking about a meeting of the chief priests at Caiaphas’ palace where they conspired to put Jesus to death by craft.   This meeting took place two days before the Passover.   The Evangelists do not say that the supper at Bethany took place later that day.   Immediately after they tell about the supper at Bethany, they tell about Judas going to the conspiring chief priests and striking his deal to betray Jesus into their hands for thirty pieces of silver.   Since the account of Judas’ betrayal is obviously part of the same episode in the Evangelists’ narrative as the account of the meeting of the chief priests, the placing of the account of the supper in between the two includes it as well within the same episode, which only makes sense if it is being done to explain Judas’ betrayal.    This further identifies the supper with the one recounted by St. John, in which Judas is named as the disciple who receives Jesus’ rebuke, although the anointing being followed by an identical exchange in all three Evangelists, an exchange the nature of which makes it extremely unlikely to have occurred more than once, let alone twice in four days, ought to make it sufficiently clear that SS Matthew, Mark, and John all record the same incident.

(2)   Those who think that St. Luke was talking about the same incident as the other Evangelists despite his placing it two to three years earlier, think it too much of a coincidence that that women in both occurrences bring the ointment in alabaster boxes, and that the host of both suppers was named Simon.   Neither of these is a particularly unlikely coincidence.  Perfume and ointment containers in this time and region were typically made of calcite alabaster also called Egyptian alabaster.   As for the two Simons, this was the most popular name in Judea at the time.  It was the Hellenized form of Simeon, the name of one of Jacob’s sons and the tribe of Israel that he begat.   The twelve Apostles had two Simons among them, just as they had two Jameses and two Judases, these names also being those of Israel’s patriarchs (James is the Latinized form of Jacob, Israel’s original name, and Judas or Jude is a form of Judah).   In the Book of Acts, St. Peter – a Simon – confronts another Simon, Simon Magus in Samaria in the eight chapter, then at the end of the next chapter lodges with another Simon, Simon the Tanner, in Joppa.

(3)   The Church of Rome, in what looks like a failed attempt to simplify matters that instead complicated them much further, has traditionally followed Pope Gregory the Great in maintaining that all four Gospel accounts, whether they describe one anointing or two, involved the same woman, and that this woman was Mary Magdalene.    The Eastern Church has followed the Greek Fathers in maintaining that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany were two different women and that the sinful woman of St. Luke’s Gospel was a third.   While the Roman interpretation is not impossible, the Eastern tradition seems to fit the Scriptural texts better.   The surname of Mary Magdalene suggests that Magdala, on the Sea of Galilee was her home town.    While this might make it easier to identify her with the sinful woman in St. Luke’s Gospel, as the most natural understanding of the text is that she was from the same community as Simon the Pharisee which appears to have been in Galilee, it makes it unlikely that she is the same person as Mary of Bethany, who lived with her brother and sister in Bethany, a town in Judaea that was a short distance from Jerusalem.    Mary Magdalen is mentioned in all four Gospels – in St. Luke’s she is mentioned by name two verses after the account of Jesus’ anointing by the sinful woman in Galilee – which, while they don’t tell us a whole lot about her, tell us that Jesus cast seven devils out of her, that she was one of the women who followed Jesus with the Apostles’ and ministered to Him, that she was a witness to the Crucifixion and Burial, and that she was the first to encounter the Risen Christ.   Mary of Bethany, like her two siblings, is mentioned by name only in the Gospels of SS Luke and John.   Both Evangelists depict her at home with her sister Martha with Jesus dropping in to see them, which is almost the opposite of how Mary Magdalen is depicted.   It is possible, of course, that the East and West have each latched on to half of the right interpretation and that Mary Magdalen was the woman in St. Luke’s account – his not identifying her despite mentioning her by name immediately after being, perhaps, explained by the rather delicate nature of what is said about her in the account of the anointing – and Mary of Bethany the woman in the other anointing in the three other Gospels.   The coincidence of both women being Marys is no more unusual than both hosts being Simons, note 2, vide supra.   Mary, derived from Miriam (Moses’ sister), was as common a name as Simon.

(4)   There are no general instructions for anointing prophets as there are for anointing priests, and Elisha is the only specific example given of such a practice by contrast with the kings for whom anointing upon accession was the standard practice.   This is only to be expected, however.   Priest and king were ordinary offices of the established civil order.   Prophet – at least with regards to the named prophets whose words are recorded, the schools of prophets mentioned in the books of Samuel and Kings may have operated differently - was an extraordinary office to which God directly called the individual.

(5)   This interpretation better first the anointing mentioned in the Forty-Fifth Psalm and quoted by St. Paul in Hebrews 1:9.   Such an eternal anointing should not be counted with the others as a fourth, but would rather be The Anointing, to which the title Christ and the three temporal anointings associated with His Offices all point.