John 12:3

Mary therefore took a pound of pure nard, very precious, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.

Pure nard ... Spikenard was a perfume highly prized by the ancients, and was produced from Nardostachys jatamansi, a small plant (which is) a native of the Himalaya Mountains.[4] The high cost derived partly from the transportation of it thousands of miles from India to Jerusalem. There were "cut" varieties of it, but this was expensive pure nard itself.

Anointed the feet ... See below.

And the house was filled with the odor ... Again the unmistakable mark of an eye-witness appears in John. The possession of a whole pound of so rare a perfume is evidence of the wealth and social position of the Lazarus family.

THE TWO ANOINTINGS

It is an unqualified wonder that some scholars view this anointing as the same one recorded in Luke (Luke 7:36-50), an interpretation which is here rejecled out of hand as being illogical and unreasonable. The melding of the two accounts serves no purpose except that of giving the critics an excuse for alleging "contradictions" between Luke and John. Where is any PROOF that both incidents did not occur? Resemblances between the two events are harder to find than differences.

Note:

<MONO>

IN LUKE IN JOHN

In home of Simon the Pharisee. In home of Simon the leper.

Dinner given by a critic of Jesus. Dinner given by friends.

Dinner was not in Jesus' honor. Dinner was in Jesus' honor.

Occurred at least a year before Occurred the last week of the Lord's death. the Lord's life.

This took place in Galilee. This occurred in Bethany.

The woman here was a "sinner." This woman was noble Mary.

The woman wept. Mary did not weep.

This woman wiped her tears Mary wiped the excess ointment from Jesus' feet. from his feet.

Here, Simon the Pharisee was In this, Jesus rebuked Judas rebuked. Iscariot.

Jesus forgave the woman's sins The sins of Mary are not in but not Simon's sins. view at all.

This was received as a token of This was received as a the woman's love. preparation for his burial.MONO>

Modern commentators should do better than to confuse these two incidents, as there is absolutely no excuse for accepting the superstition to the effect that the sinful woman mentioned by Luke, Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Bethany were all the same individual, a confusion referred to by Robertson as "a medley of medieval mysticism."[5]

[4] New Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, Inc., 1972), Vol. 22, p. 154.

[5] A. T. Robertson, op. cit., p. 60.