Luke does a peculiar thing with this passage about the woman who washes Jesus’ feet and anoints him with precious oil. In the other three gospels, this story appears just before that of Jesus’ Passion.  In Luke’s Gospel, however, the story not only carries a different focus, but is placed instead in the midst of Jesus’ ministry before he goes to Jerusalem in the final days of his life.

There are other differences as well in Luke’s account from that of the others: the naming (or not naming) of the characters; the description of the woman as someone in the city who was a sinner, echoed by the Pharisee in his derogatory reference to her; Luke’s emphasis on gratitude in contrast to the theme of extravagance highlighted in the other three versions; and the portrayal of the women who figure in the verses that follow this story. We note that the woman in the other gospel accounts performs a priestly and prophetic act, that of anointing Jesus and foreshadowing his coming death, whereas Luke reshapes this story as an extreme example of penitence, forgiveness, and resultant gratitude. The emphasis here is on Jesus’ act of forgiveness rather than on the woman’s actions toward him.  This account turns upon a submissively grateful act because of her absolution from an undesignated sin rather than an extravagant act of anointing which is emphasized in the other gospels.

The woman in Luke’s story thus becomes a literary tool. Her response to Jesus and the way she receives his forgiveness is held up as a model for others. It is Jesus’ redemptive response that points toward his crucifixion and resurrection, rather than the woman’s act of anointing, so that the focus moves from her to Jesus as central to the action.  Jesus then tells the woman her faith has saved her and sends her on her way with a benediction. In Mark and Matthew, Jesus lifts up this woman’s act as one which will be remembered forever. Luke denies her that honor, and John omits that final declaration about her as well. This woman thus joins the ranks of anonymous and silent women, spoken for, but not given speech.

To give Luke credit for what he did accomplish in this story, however, there are some significant features embedded here. For example, there remains the depiction of Jesus as advocate and defender of women, whatever their background.  He does not object to this alleged sinner touching him, a gesture that can defile a righteous man. In the version we have here he senses her love pouring out with her tears. We see him accept the anointing power of her gratitude for his forgiveness, symbolized by the ointment. She has received him, as he has received her. When he points out to his host the contrast in how each of the two has welcomed him, we are given a lesson in offering inclusive love to all who come to Jesus through us without showing distinction or discrimination.

To consider briefly the verses following this incident, in the listing of women who accompanied Jesus and the disciples, Luke unwittingly opens the door to an error of interpretation in future biblical scholarship. The proximity of the two passages strengthens that false understanding. One of the women in that group, “Mary, called Magdalene”, named in reference to the seven devils cast out from her, becomes permanently linked to the woman in the previous story who was in all likelihood a prostitute. In truth, there is no justification for such an interpretation, other than tradition. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of Luke’s version of this story, however, is the depiction of a subordinate role for women in Jesus’ life. They are portrayed as serving him and the male disciples, a role which church tradition then perpetuates by denying women an equal status in the church hierarchies which developed afterward.

By Rev. Jean Rodenbough, Presbytery of Salem and President, NC Council of Churches, Greensboro