While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de Tou Iēsou genomenou en Bēthania en oikia Simōnos tou leprou
The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Jesus Anointed at Bethany
Matthew 26:6–13 — Jesus Anointed at Bethany. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de Tou Iēsou genomenou en Bēthania en oikia Simōnos tou leprou
a woman came to Him with an alabaster jar of expensive perfume, which she poured on His head as He reclined at the table.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
gynē prosēlthen autō echousa alabastron barytimou myrou kai katecheen epi autou tēs kephalēs anakeimenou
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant and asked, “Why this waste?
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de hoi mathētai Idontes ēganaktēsan legontes Eis ti hautē hē apōleia
This perfume could have been sold at a high price, and the money given to the poor.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
gar touto edynato prathēnai pollou kai dothēnai ptōchois
Aware of this, Jesus asked, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful deed to Me.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
de Gnous ho Iēsous eipen autois Ti parechete kopous tē gynaiki gar ērgasato kalon ergon eis eme
The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
gar tous ptōchous pantote echete meth’ heautōn de ou pantote echete eme
By pouring this perfume on Me, she has prepared My body for burial.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
gar balousa hautē touto to myron epi me epoiēsen mou tou sōmatos to pros entaphiasai
Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached in all the world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Greek — tap a word ↓
amēn legō hymin hopou ean touto to euangelion kērychthē en holō tō kosmō ho hautē epoiēsen kai lalēthēsetai eis mnēmosynon autēs
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
⚙ Matthew hangs the whole episode on one genitive absolute, Τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γενομένου ("Jesus having come to be"), and gives no date. Ellicott, Cambridge and Pulpit are unanimous that the placement is not chronological: Ellicott fixes the supper by John 12:1 at six days before the Passover, Cambridge says St Matthew has here disregarded the strictly chronological order, and Pulpit states the principle, that Matthew describes events according to a logical or spiritual connection which overrides time. Barnes gives the reason for the placement in this spot: Matthew introduced it here to give a connected account of the conduct of Judas. Poole, harmonising, proposes instead that John dates the arrival and Matthew the feast, four days apart. We record both and settle neither.
✦ On the host, the voices converge. Benson, Barnes, Gill, Cambridge and Pulpit all read τοῦ λεπροῦ as a name that stuck rather than a diagnosis, and infer a healing; Gill uniquely checks the usual argument and rejects it, noting from the Mishnah (Celim 1.7) that lepers were barred from walled cities and not from an open village like Bethany, so the proof must be the feast itself and not the residence. Pulpit adds the parallel of Matthew still called "the publican" after leaving the trade, and reports, without a source, a tradition making Simon the father of Lazarus or the husband of Martha. ⚙ The room is therefore furnished with evidence: a cleansed leper hosting, a raised man at the table (John 12:2, cited by Ellicott, Barnes and Cambridge), a sealed flask of βαρυτίμου μύρου worth a labourer's year, and a guest reclining, ἀνακειμένου, in the posture the lexicon assigns to a corpse and to a banqueter alike.
✦ Every commentator here notices the narrowing of the guilt. Matthew writes the plural, οἱ μαθηταί; Mark 14:4 has "some"; John 12:4 names Judas. Ellicott and Cambridge both lay the three side by side; Geneva calls Matthew's plural a synecdoche, since John says only Judas was moved; Barnes supposes several felt the indignation and Judas alone gave it a voice; Gill, characteristically, weighs whether the resentment was aimed at the woman, at Christ, or only at the act, and concludes it was at the act.
⚙ The Greek supplies the sting. The word they choose is ἀπώλεια, whose lexicon range is ruin or loss, physical, spiritual or eternal. Ellicott renders it perdition and observes that Jesus later applies the same noun to Judas as a son of perdition (John 17:12); Pulpit credits the same catch to Wordsworth. Neither claims Matthew has engineered the echo, and neither should we: the noun is common enough (17 verses) that the coincidence is a coincidence of vocabulary. What is not a coincidence is the shape of the complaint. Ellicott and Gill both supply the sum from the parallels, three hundred denarii, and Ellicott adds John's verdict that the zeal for the poor was a cloak. Pulpit and Barnes, who both defend the duty of almsgiving at length, still insist the complaint was an interference: Barnes, that the ointment was Mary's property and she was answerable to God and not to them.
✦ Cambridge and Ellicott agree that καλὸν ἔργον must not be read as "a good deed": Ellicott, a noble and honourable work; Cambridge, a noble and beautiful work, denoting an almost artistic sense of the fitness of things which the blunter perception of the rest lacked, and adding that the Lord passes a higher commendation on this than on any other act recorded in the New Testament. Pulpit, following Bengel, notices that the censure was really aimed at Jesus and that he rebukes them only for what they did to her.
✦ On v. 11 Gill and Pulpit both hear Deuteronomy 15:11 behind the words, Pulpit quoting it in full, Gill adding the rabbinic gloss from Shabbat 63a that concludes there will for ever be poverty and riches. Both, with Barnes, restrict "me ye have not always" to bodily presence, against Matthew 28:20. Geneva compresses the whole ethic into one line: Christ, once anointed in his own person, must always be anointed in the poor.
⚙ Then v. 12 turns the perfume into grave cloths. The verb is ἐνταφιάσαι, found in only two verses of the New Testament, and the other is John 19:40, the actual wrapping of the actual body. Benson says plainly that this was not her design and that Jesus put the construction on her act; Barnes says the apostles themselves did not yet comprehend the death; Gill offers the alternatives that she had some intimation or that the Spirit directed her without her knowledge, and declines to choose. Ellicott alone follows the fragrance forward: their Master, alone of all that company, knew that the perfume would not have faded when his body was laid in the sepulchre. ⚙ Our own reading adds only this: Jesus does not say she meant a burial. He says her act was done toward one, πρὸς τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι, and that is a claim about the act, not about her mind.
✦ Henry states the fulfilment flatly: this act was so remarkable that it would be reported as a memorial of Mary's faith and love wherever the gospel should be preached, and this prophecy is fulfilled. Ellicott weighs the prediction as evidence, noting that the foresight of a universal gospel at that particular hour is itself remarkable, since others saw only immediate victory while he saw shame and death and a dominion beyond their dreams. Gill ties the promise to the content of the message, the death, burial and resurrection, which this woman's act pictures. Pulpit hands the paragraph to Chrysostom, whose point is that the memorial outlasted the memorials of kings and generals who built walls and set up statues.
⚙ Two things restrain the celebration. First, μνημόσυνον is a memorandum, and its one other New Testament use outside the parallel at Mark 14:9 is Acts 10:4, where a memorial goes up before God: the record is kept upward, not merely repeated downward. Second, and against the grain of every commentator's warmth, Matthew does not give her name. Ellicott notices the reticence and calls it singular; Pulpit admits it is not known why the synoptists omit her. It is John who names Mary. ⚙ So the sentence promising that her deed would be told everywhere stands in a gospel that declines to tell who she was, and the memorial as Matthew wrote it is of an act and not of a person.
⚙ Under Sola Scriptura, offered to be tested and corrected: this scene is the coronation Matthew never otherwise reports. In Israel's Scriptures, oil poured down on the head is how a king is made (1 Samuel 10:1; 16:13) and how a priest is consecrated (Psalm 133:2), and Matthew's title for Jesus from the first verse of his book is Christos, the anointed one. No priest, no prophet and no council anoints him in this gospel. The only oil that reaches his head is βαρυτίμου μύρου in the hand of an unnamed woman, in the house of a man still called leprous, two days before he dies, and Jesus receives it with the word καλόν, beautiful, and reassigns it to his entombing. We do not claim Matthew says this; he does not. What the text does say is that the disciples priced the act and Jesus dated it, and that their category for it was ἀπώλεια, ruin. That is the test the passage sets, and it is not a test about ointment. The one interpretive line we would put on the wall is the sentence that follows this paragraph, and it is our sentence and not Scripture: the reader should weigh it against the text and discard it if it will not hold.
The only anointing this gospel grants its King is poured by a woman it does not name, and he receives it as a burial.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
⚙ ἐνταφιάσαι (G1779) occurs in only two verses of the New Testament: here, where Jesus assigns the woman's act to his entombing, and John 19:40, where Joseph and Nicodemus bind his body with spices as is the custom of the Jews to prepare for burial. The Verifier records both the rare verb and the shared noun σῶμα (G4983) for this pair. ✦ Barnes states the ancient practice plainly, that bodies were anointed and embalmed for the sepulchre and that this was really such a preparation; Gill documents from the Mishnah (Shabbat 23.5) that anointing and washing the dead were permitted works, and notes that the women who set out with spices on the first day of the week arrived too late (Luke 23:56). ⚙ The two Greek texts are both New Testament, so the verbal link is a genuine intra-Greek one; it is a lexical link and not a quotation of one passage by the other.
John 19:40
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G1779 ἐνταφιάζω (in 2 vv, the rarest verb in the unit and found nowhere else in the New Testament) and G4983 σῶμα (in 120 vv). Both refs are New Testament Greek, so a real verbal link is recordable; the rarity of G1779 carries it, and no claim is made that either verse quotes the other.
⚙ μνημόσυνον (G3422) is rare, three verses in all: this one, the parallel promise at Mark 14:9, and Acts 10:4, where the angel tells Cornelius that his prayers and alms have gone up as a memorial before God. The Verifier supplies all three. ⚙ Read together they correct a sentimental hearing of Matthew 26:13. The word is not "fond memory" but a record entered; in Acts it is entered in heaven and concerns alms given to the poor. The bite is that the disciples' objection in v. 9 was precisely about alms to the poor, and the act they called ruin is the one that gets the memorial. ✦ Gill reaches the same destination by a different road, that the memory of the just is blessed and that if her act is told for a memorial, much more should what Christ did and suffered be told as a memorial of him.
Mark 14:9 · Acts 10:4
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexeme G3422 μνημόσυνον (in 3 vv, that is every occurrence in the New Testament), with G281 ἀμήν (in 104 vv) and G2889 κόσμος (in 151 vv) also shared with Mark 14:9. All refs are New Testament Greek. Mark 14:9 is the synoptic parallel, not an independent witness; Acts 10:4 is the one genuinely separate use.
✦ Both Gill and Pulpit hear Deuteronomy 15:11 behind Matthew 26:11. Pulpit quotes the verse and says the saying is in strict accordance with the old Law; Gill says Christ seems to have respect to it, and adds the rabbinic gloss from Shabbat 63a which infers from that same verse that there will for ever be poverty and riches, and which the rabbis referred to the days of the Messiah. ⚙ The wording is close to a quotation: Deuteronomy says the poor will not cease from the midst of the land, Jesus says the poor you always have with you. But Matthew gives no citation formula, no "it is written," and the refs cross the Testaments, so no shared Strong's number can exist between a Greek text and a Hebrew one. We therefore decline the verbal tier on both counts and record the link where it can honestly be recorded: as a confirmed structural and thematic dependence, the standing provision of the Law about the permanence of the poor being reapplied to date the presence of Christ.
Deuteronomy 15:11
basis: Close to verbatim in sense and near in wording, and still not tierable verbal: the refs cross the Testaments, so the basis cannot be a shared Strong's lexeme (Greek G4434 πτωχός against Hebrew ʼebyôn / ʻānî, different numbering systems), and Matthew supplies no quotation formula. Recorded basis: the shared legal motif of the permanence of the poor in the land, attested as an allusion by Gill and by the Pulpit Commentary.
⚙ A figural reading, offered as such. κατέχεεν ἐπὶ αὐτοῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς, she poured it down upon his head, is the gesture of installation in Israel's Scriptures: Samuel pours the vial of oil on Saul's head (1 Samuel 10:1) and anoints David in the midst of his brothers (1 Samuel 16:13); Psalm 133:2 pictures the precious oil on the head running down on the beard of Aaron; Psalm 23:5 sets a table, an anointed head and an overflowing cup in one image. ✦ Cambridge comes nearest of our voices to saying this, that her faith enabled her to see the truth of the Kingdom as no one else then did, and that she saw that Jesus was still a King though destined to die; Barnes notes that anointing the head was the customary form and that pouring on the feet was the unusual, humbler act. ⚙ Neither Cambridge nor Barnes cites the royal anointings, and Matthew makes no citation, so the connection is ours and is typological, not verbal: a figural reading of a gesture, resting on the shared image of oil poured down on a head, with no claim that Matthew is quoting anything.
1 Samuel 10:1 · 1 Samuel 16:13 · Psalm 133:2 · Psalm 23:5
basis: Cross-Testament figural link, so no shared Strong's lexeme is possible (Greek κεφαλή and μύρον against Hebrew rōʼš and šemen). Basis: the shared ritual gesture of oil poured down on the head as installation of a king or priest. The kingly reading of the anointing is widely held and is approached by Cambridge; the specific four-text figure drawn here is our own and should be weighed as novel.
⚙ ἀλάβαστρον (G211) appears in only three verses of the New Testament, and the third is Luke 7:37, the woman who was a sinner in the house of Simon the Pharisee. The Verifier also finds μύρον (G3464) and κεφαλή (G2776) shared with Luke 7:38 and 7:46. ✦ Whether the two scenes are one event is disputed in our own sources and has been for centuries. Ellicott reports the prevalent Western tradition identifying Mary of Bethany with the woman of Luke 7 and says there is not the shadow of proof for it, then suggests the Bethany household may have heard of that act and been prompted by it. Cambridge merely says to compare a similar act. Gill lists the differences (Simon the Pharisee against Simon the leper, Galilee against Bethany, feet against head, no such conversation) and concludes that one woman may have done a like thing twice. Pulpit says flatly that the two must not be confounded, the scene, time, actor and significance all differing. Poole leaves Luke to one side as the most different of the four accounts. Chrysostom, as the Pulpit editors note against him, identified them. ⚙ Because the rare lexeme is real but the identity of the events is contested, we record the lexical echo and refuse the quotation tier.
Luke 7:37 · Luke 7:38 · Luke 7:46
basis: Verifier: shared Greek lexemes G211 ἀλάβαστρον (in 3 vv, rare), G3464 μύρον (in 13 vv), G2776 κεφαλή (in 67 vv), G3614 οἰκία (in 85 vv). Deliberately downgraded from verbal: the rarity would permit that tier, but there is no quotation in either direction and whether Luke 7 records the same event is contested by our own sources (Ellicott, Gill, Pulpit and Poole all distinguish it; the Western tradition and Chrysostom conflate it).
✦ The Pulpit Commentary reports that tradition makes Simon the father of Lazarus or the husband of Martha, and adds that his connection with the household of Bethany by relationship or close friendship seems well established. Barnes conjectures Lazarus was a relative of Simon and was living with him; Cambridge says only that Simon was evidently a disciple and probably a near friend of Lazarus and his sisters, and that nothing further is known; Ellicott says we know nothing of the man beyond this mention. ⚙ The New Testament texts joined here (John 11:1 on the household, Luke 10:38 on Martha's house) never mention Simon, and none of our commentators names a source for the tradition. We record it as circulating and unverified, and we do not build on it.
John 11:1 · Luke 10:38
basis: Provenance disputed and unsourced: the Pulpit Commentary reports an unnamed tradition, Barnes offers a conjecture, while Ellicott and Cambridge state that nothing further is known about Simon. The linked verses contain no shared Strong's lexeme with this unit and never name Simon; the connection rests on the tradition alone.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
⚙ The redemptive-historical weight of this unit is carried by one very rare verb. ἐνταφιάσαι (G1779, two verses in the New Testament) puts the supper at Bethany and the garden tomb into one sentence: what was poured out here is what was needed there, and John 19:40 is the only other place the word occurs. ✦ This reading is not ours. Barnes: bodies were anointed and embalmed for the sepulchre in ancient times, and Jesus said that this was really a preparation for his burial, a fitting him for the tomb. Gill: she was come beforehand to anoint his body for the burying (Mark 14:8), and the women who came with spices on the first day found it too late. Ellicott: the fragrance of that perfume would not have died away when his body should be laid in the sepulchre. Cambridge documents the custom from 2 Chronicles 16:14. Pulpit: by this effusion she anticipated the embalming of the Lord's body. Benson and Barnes both add the honest qualification that the intention was probably not hers and that the construction is Christ's. ⚙ The point of the accumulation is that the passion is already operative two days out. The body at the table is treated as the body in the tomb, by his own word, while the disciples are still pricing perfume.
John 19:40 · Mark 14:8 · Luke 23:56
⚙ Matthew names Jesus Christos, the anointed, in his first verse and never records an anointing of him by prophet, priest or council. This is the only oil in the gospel that reaches his head, and it is poured by a woman Matthew leaves unnamed, in a house named after a disease, two days before the execution. ✦ Cambridge comes closest of our sources to the thought, holding that her faith let her see the truth of the Kingdom as no one else then did and that she saw Jesus was still a King though destined to die; Geneva puts the corollary in one line, that Christ, once anointed in his own person, must always be anointed in the poor, which refuses to let the reading become an excuse against v. 9. ⚙ We mark the specific framing as our own: no commentator in our brief argues from the absence of any other anointing in Matthew, and the Greek verb for anointing (chriō) does not occur here at all, so the connection is thematic and not lexical. Held loosely, it says something the whole unit supports: the kingship is conferred in the same gesture that prepares the corpse.
Matthew 1:1 · Matthew 1:16 · 1 Samuel 16:13
✦ Ellicott sets the two horizons side by side: the disciples were expecting that the kingdom of God should immediately appear (Luke 19:11) and looked to the next day for its triumph, while their Master, alone in the room, knew what was coming, and yet in v. 13 speaks of a gospel heralded in the whole world. Gill ties that gospel expressly to the death, burial and resurrection, and says these are the principal part of it. Henry states the fulfilment as accomplished fact. Pulpit gives Chrysostom's version of the argument, that the deeds of countless kings and generals have sunk into silence while this act is celebrated throughout the world. ⚙ What makes this christological rather than merely predictive is the content: the thing promised universal publication is not a victory or a law but an anointing for burial. The death is not an interruption of the mission; in v. 13 it is the message that travels.
Matthew 24:14 · Luke 19:11 · Mark 14:9
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
Text: BSB (CC0) with the Berean interlinear and Strong's numbering as given in the brief; all parses, glosses, lexeme frequencies and thread bases are taken from that brief and none were computed here. Greek surfaces are quoted as the interlinear prints them.
What is uncertain in this unit, stated plainly. (1) Chronology: Matthew gives no date; John 12:1 places the supper six days before the Passover, and Matthew's context suggests two. Ellicott, Cambridge, Barnes and Pulpit all resolve this by saying Matthew has arranged the material logically rather than chronologically; Poole instead proposes that John dates the arrival in Bethany and Matthew the feast four days later. We record both and decide neither. (2) The woman: Matthew does not name her. John 12:3 names Mary the sister of Lazarus, and Ellicott, Benson, Barnes, Gill, Cambridge and Pulpit all import that name. Every use of the name Mary in our synthesis is therefore on John's authority and not Matthew's, and where we speak of Matthew's own text we say "the woman." (3) Luke 7:37 to 50: whether that anointing is this one is disputed inside our own sources, and the thread on it is tiered structural for that reason. (4) Head and feet: Matthew and Mark report the head, John the feet; Barnes harmonises by taking both as done, and Pulpit notes that the Greek of v. 7 supplies no object after the verb, which leaves room for it. We have not treated the harmonisation as certain. (5) Intent: Jesus says her act was done toward his entombing; he does not say she intended a burial. Benson denies the intention outright, Gill offers a revelation or the secret direction of the Spirit as alternatives, and Barnes says the apostles themselves did not yet comprehend the death. Our notes preserve the ambiguity of πρὸς τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι rather than resolving it.
Sources: JFB supply no exposition of these verses in Matthew at all, referring the reader to Mark 14:1 to 11, so the one JFB excerpt here is their chapter heading and is labelled as such. Poole comments on the whole block at v. 13, and both his entry and Gill's at v. 7 are capped in our brief; we quoted only inside the text we were given and did not reconstruct the remainder. The Chrysostom passage at v. 13 and the Quesnel passage at v. 9 reach us through the Pulpit Commentary and are attributed accordingly, with the note that Chrysostom misidentifies the woman. Gill's rabbinic citations (Celim 1.7, Shabbat 23.5, Shabbat 63a) are reported as his, unverified by us. Bengel and Wordsworth likewise reach us only through Pulpit, and Doddridge only through Benson.
Cross-reference method: no thread joining a Greek text to a Hebrew one is tiered verbal, because shared Strong's numbers cannot exist across the two numbering systems; those links are tiered structural or typological with the reason stated in the badge. Deuteronomy 15:11 is close to verbatim and is still tiered structural on that ground, and because Matthew supplies no citation formula. The Simon tradition is flagged for want of any named source. Every thread basis reproduces the Verifier's computed lexemes and frequencies where a Verifier candidate exists; where it does not (the royal anointings, the Simon tradition), the badge says so.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)