Smearing Oil Symbolism

Smearing Oil Symbolism

Smearing the annointing oil So this is interesting when Moses has given the pattern of putting the colorful garments on the new high priest Aarin and then he’s gonna annoy him with oil but then there’s gonna be a smearing. It’s not just the pouring. It’s also in essence a rubbing in and in the account of Mary anointing Jesus with oil, she then uses her hair to smear it in so that reminded me of a passage from Paul where Paul is talking about a woman’s hair being her glory and I’m wondering if that has anything to do with it and then also if there’s any meaning behind the woman first of all smearing and second of all, if her hair had anything to do with it, I think a third point would be in order for her to smear the oil with her hair on his feet Then she would need to be on her knees bowing before him and he let her do this, which is a form of worship to be kneeling before, but there’s also the anointing and the active rubbing it in and I’ve been trying not to say it because I didn’t want to muddy The study. It’s ironic that it’s not a man who is anointing Jesus, but a woman and I can’t help, but to think there’s some sort of bride mechanism there or that women submit to your husband’s as Christ submitted him or father husband, submit your wise of Christ, made himself to the church When women are submitting to Jesus it is in essence as symbolic of the church, submitting to their husband, their groomsmen Jesus, so I wanna start tethering some of the human caricatures of the symbolism to better understand why it was that God put it on a woman’s heart to smear Jesus with this oil and I think it would it comes to like the widows might where the woman gave all she had on tithing and she was praised for it as a woman she wouldn’t have means by herself to go generate money, and if this was a dowry that was given to her, this was not a widows might but a widow‘s fortune. This was her absolute security and she gives up her security in this act of worship by breaking the jar and then is there also any sort of correlation between the jar and the vessel, some vessels are made for honor and summer for dishonor. I think we can start getting into some fringe interpretations as long as we qualify them as speculation, and that way you’re not constantly correcting me on how I am taking not explicit and not implicit, but rather a exploratory look at best of some of the symbolism which I want you to allow in this portion of the study and will just keep in mind that this is not specified in the Bible this is interpretive and then we can see if the Matthew PFIR can fit into this and still maintain where it is biblically supportedgives God glory, and is true to the arcs of the scripture

I’ll treat this in layers: what the text says directly, what the pattern strongly supports, and then a clearly labeled contemplative/symbolic layer so the exploratory pieces do not get confused with doctrine.

One important correction before building the symbolism: John 12 explicitly gives Mary wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair; Matthew/Mark emphasize oil poured on His head/body. So the safest study path is “head/body/feet” as a fuller burial-anointing witness, not forcing one Gospel to say every detail.

Thought for 42s

Yes — this is a very fruitful layer, as long as we mark the categories clearly.

I would frame it this way:

1. The explicit text#

In the Bethany oil accounts, the oil is not random. Jesus Himself interprets it as burial preparation.

Matthew/Mark emphasize the oil poured on His head/body. John emphasizes Mary anointing His feet and wiping them with her hair.

So the fuller picture becomes:

head/body/feet — costly oil — fragrance filling the house — Jesus interpreting it as burial — Judas/disciples objecting — Jesus defending her act.

That already gives us a strong pattern: Jesus is being visibly marked before the final work.

2. Smearing / wiping is more than a simple pour#

In the priestly pattern, oil is not treated as a casual decoration. Moses pours/anoints; the oil marks, consecrates, and identifies the person or object for holy service. Exodus 29:7 and Leviticus 8:12 show Aaron’s head being anointed. Psalm 133 then gives the vivid image of oil running down Aaron’s head, beard, and garments.

So with Mary, the wiping/smearing with her hair adds a very personal, embodied act. She is not merely donating perfume. She is actively applying it to Jesus.

That makes her act feel like:

faith made visible, worship made physical, glory lowered into service, costly treasure transferred to Christ.

3. The hair connection is very strong as contemplative symbolism#

Paul says:

“if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her…” — 1 Corinthians 11:15

John says Mary wiped Jesus’ feet with her hair.

That is not explicitly explained by John as “her glory,” so we should not make it doctrine. But contemplatively, it is powerful:

Her glory becomes the servant-cloth at Jesus’ feet.

That is beautiful.

Her hair, which Paul calls a woman’s glory, is lowered beneath the feet of Christ. So the picture is not self-display. It is glory surrendered.

This fits the arc:

not self-preservation, but surrender; not calculation, but trust; not control, but worship; not keeping her glory for herself, but placing it beneath Christ.

4. Her posture matters#

For Mary to wipe His feet with her hair, she is almost certainly low before Him. Kneeling, bowed, humbled, close to His feet.

That matters.

The text does not say, “Mary worshipped Him by kneeling,” but the physical posture fits worship, submission, and humble service. Jesus receives it. He does not rebuke her. He defends her.

So the picture becomes:

The rejected Anointed One is honored by a believing woman bowed at His feet, pouring out costly treasure, using her own glory to spread the fragrance of His burial.

That is a huge symbolic moment.

5. The woman / bride / church layer is worth exploring carefully#

This should be marked as contemplative typology, not explicit doctrine.

Mary is not literally “the church” in the text. But she can function as a bride-like witness, or faithful remnant representative.

Why?

Because Scripture later gives the church-bride pattern:

“the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church…” — Ephesians 5:23 “as the church is subject unto Christ…” — Ephesians 5:24 “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it…” — Ephesians 5:25

So in Mary’s act, we can contemplate a preview of proper church posture:

The bride-like witness submits to the Bridegroom. The faithful woman pours out treasure on the Anointed One. Her glory is placed at His feet. Her security is surrendered to His burial. Her fragrance fills the house before His death.

That is not replacing the cross. It is witnessing to it.

Mary’s faith witnesses. Jesus’ faithfulness accomplishes. The church receives and follows.

6. The “widow’s mite” comparison is very good — with guardrails#

We do not know for certain that the nard was Mary’s dowry, inheritance, or total financial security. So that part has to stay speculative.

But the value was enormous. John says Judas valued it at three hundred pence/denarii — roughly close to a working man’s annual wage in that world.

So your “widow’s fortune” phrase is a strong contemplative phrase, as long as we qualify it:

If this nard represented Mary’s stored security, inheritance, dowry, or future provision, then this was not merely a generous gift. It was the surrender of earthly security at the feet of Jesus.

That pairs beautifully with the widow’s mite.

The widow gives all she has into the temple context. Mary pours costly treasure on the true Temple before His burial.

One woman gives all in the shadow system. Another woman pours costly faith upon the Substance.

7. The broken jar / vessel symbolism can be explored#

Mark says she broke the alabaster container.

That matters. Once broken, the gift cannot be recalled, resealed, or partly preserved.

So symbolically:

the vessel is broken, the treasure is released, the fragrance fills the house, the act becomes irreversible.

Now, we must be careful connecting this to “vessels of honor and dishonor” from Romans 9 or 2 Timothy 2. That is not John’s direct point. But as an exploratory layer, it can be used carefully.

Possible contemplative line:

Mary’s vessel is broken for honor, not dishonor. It releases costly fragrance upon Christ. In contrast, Judas becomes a vessel of betrayal, calculating the value of worship as wasted money.

That gives a sharp contrast:

That is a very strong contrast.

8. This fits the Matthew PFIR if we label it correctly#

Here is a clean PFIR-style peg:

Peg Phrase#

Mary at the Feet of the Anointed One — Glory Lowered, Treasure Broken, Fragrance Released

Faithful-to-Scripture Core#

Mary pours costly ointment on Jesus. John says she wipes His feet with her hair and the house is filled with fragrance. Matthew/Mark connect the act to His head/body and burial. Jesus defends the act and says it will be remembered wherever the gospel is preached.

Prophetic / Pattern Field#

Old Covenant holy service used oil to mark priest, tabernacle, and holy things. Kings were anointed. Priests were anointed. The tabernacle was anointed. Jesus, the true Priest-King-Temple-Sacrifice, receives visible oil before His final work. But the old priesthood does not anoint Him. A believing woman does.

Interpretive / Contemplative Layer#

Mary may be viewed as a faithful remnant/bride-like witness. Her hair, her glory, is lowered to Jesus’ feet. Her costly treasure is poured out. The broken vessel releases fragrance. Her posture pictures submission, worship, and surrender. This does not create doctrine, but it harmonizes with the biblical arc of the church-bride submitting to Christ, the Bridegroom who gives Himself for her.

Result#

God is glorified because the scene shows that Jesus is the true Anointed One, and the right human response is not control, calculation, or self-preservation, but worshipful surrender.

9. A strong summary statement#

Mary’s act is not merely perfume. It is costly faith made visible. The old priesthood does not come to anoint Jesus; a believing woman does. The temple rulers reject Him, Judas calculates Him, the disciples misunderstand Him, but Mary bows before Him. Her treasure is broken open. Her glory is lowered to His feet. The fragrance fills the house. Jesus receives the act and names it for His burial. In contemplative bride-language, the faithful woman becomes a preview of the church’s proper posture before Christ: surrendered, submitted, worshipping, pouring out all security and glory upon the Anointed One who will give Himself for her.

This one has two parts: the Genesis wording itself, then the “church” word/meaning bridge from Matthew 16 to Ephesians 3. I’ll keep the symbolic connection available, but separate it from what the text directly says.

Thought for 24s

Yes on the Genesis wording — with one careful wording guardrail.

1. Jacob poured oil on the top/head of the stone after setting it upright#

Genesis 28:18 says Jacob:

“took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.”

The Hebrew word translated “top” is rosh, which often means head, top, chief, beginning, summit.

So, yes, the picture is basically:

Jacob’s head had rested at the stone. Jacob sees the heavenly ladder/stairway. Jacob rises. Jacob raises the stone upright as a pillar. Jacob pours oil on the head/top of the stone. Jacob names the place Bethel, “house of God.”

I would avoid saying Genesis explicitly says “ascending position,” because the text says pillar, not “ascending.” But your instinct is fair: he takes a horizontal/resting stone and sets it upright as a standing witness-stone.

So the clean wording would be:

Jacob raised the stone as a standing pillar and poured oil upon its head/top.

That is very strong for your Bethel → Christ → Mary oil line.

2. The Bethel connection is strong#

Jacob says:

“This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.” — Genesis 28:17

Then he anoints the stone.

That gives you this pattern:

stone raised → oil on the head/top → house of God → gate of heaven → God’s promise → heaven and earth connected.

Then John 1 gives the fulfillment rope: Jesus tells Nathanael he will see heaven opened and angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man. Jesus is the living Bethel — the true meeting-place of heaven and earth.

So Mary anointing Jesus fits beautifully as contemplative fulfillment:

Jacob anointed the stone at Bethel. Mary anointed the true Bethel. Jacob poured oil on the head/top of the witness-stone. Mary poured oil on the true Stone, true Temple, true dwelling-place of God in flesh.

3. Matthew 16 and Ephesians 3 use the same word for “church”#

Yes. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says:

“upon this rock I will build my church.”

The word is ekklesia.

In Ephesians 3:10, Paul says that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God is made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places.

That is also ekklesia.

So yes, it is the same word: church / assembly / called-out people.

But the emphasis is different.

Matthew 16:18 is Jesus announcing:

I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Ephesians 3:10 is Paul revealing more of the mystery-purpose:

Through that church, God displays His manifold wisdom to heavenly rulers and authorities.

So they are not two different churches. Ephesians 3 is a fuller unfolding of what Jesus said He would build.

4. The best bridge passage is actually Ephesians 2#

Ephesians 2:19–22 is the perfect connector between Matthew 16 and Ephesians 3.

Paul says believers are:

“of the household of God,” “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” “Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,” growing into “an holy temple in the Lord,” “an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

That ties almost everything together:

5. One important distinction#

Matthew 16 says rock, not technically “stone.” The Greek word is petra, rock. Other passages use “stone” language for Christ, especially cornerstone language.

So I would not say Matthew 16 directly means “Jacob’s stone.” But I would say:

Matthew 16 belongs to the same biblical stone/rock/house-building pattern-field.

That is safer and still powerful.

6. Strong formulation for the study#

Here is a clean version:

In Genesis 28, Jacob raises the stone as a pillar and pours oil on its head/top, naming the place Bethel, the house of God and gate of heaven. In John 1, Jesus presents Himself as the true meeting-place of heaven and earth, the Son of man upon whom angels ascend and descend. In Matthew 16, Jesus says He will build His church upon the rock, and in Ephesians 2–3 Paul reveals that this church is the household and temple of God, built on Christ the cornerstone, through which God displays His manifold wisdom. Therefore, Mary’s anointing of Jesus can be contemplated as the faithful anointing of the true Bethel: the living Stone, the true Temple, the house of God in flesh, through whom the church is built and God’s wisdom is revealed.

And in the end of revelation, there is no temple, Gods dwelling place is in his people, and Peter says the church is made up of living stones, and God is the God of the living.

Thought for 4s

Yes — that completes the rope very cleanly.

The movement is:

stone → house of God → true Stone → living stones → no temple, because God and the Lamb dwell with His people.

That is a very strong biblical arc.

The arc#

Jacob raises the stone, pours oil on its head/top, and calls the place Bethel — house of God and gate of heaven.

Jesus then comes as the true Bethel: the true meeting-place of heaven and earth, the Word made flesh, the true Temple, the true dwelling of God among men.

Then Peter says believers are built into that reality:

“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood…” — 1 Peter 2:5

That is huge.

The people joined to Christ become living stones because Christ is the living Stone:

“To whom coming, as unto a living stone…” — 1 Peter 2:4

So the church is not merely an institution. It is a living temple-house built from living stones, joined to the rejected-but-chosen Stone.

Revelation completes the temple pattern#

Revelation 21 says:

“Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them…” — Revelation 21:3

And then:

“I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.” — Revelation 21:22

So the final state is not “no dwelling place.” It is the opposite.

There is no separate temple building because the purpose of the temple has reached fullness:

God with His people. The Lamb present. No veil. No guarded distance. No earthly shadow structure. No need for a separate holy building because the Holy One dwells openly with His people.

“God of the living” ties beautifully#

Jesus says:

“God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” — Matthew 22:32

That fits the living-stone arc.

Jacob anoints a stone at Bethel. Christ is the living Stone. Believers become living stones in Him. God is the God of the living. The final city has no dead temple-shadow because the living God dwells with living people through the Lamb.

That is very strong.

How this connects back to Mary#

Mary anoints Jesus, the true Bethel, the true Stone, the true Temple, the true dwelling-place of God in flesh.

Then, through His death, resurrection, ascension, and Spirit-gift, those joined to Him become living stones.

So Mary’s oil is not just an isolated honor. In contemplative pattern-language, it touches the whole temple arc:

Jacob poured oil on the raised stone of Bethel. Mary poured costly oil on the living Stone, the true Bethel. Christ builds His church with living stones. The Spirit makes the people a dwelling-place of God. In the end, there is no separate temple, because God and the Lamb dwell openly with the living.

Clean study statement#

Here is the polished version:

The Bible’s stone-and-temple arc moves from Jacob’s anointed stone at Bethel to Christ the living Stone, and from Christ the living Stone to His people as living stones. Jacob anointed the witness-stone and called the place the house of God. Mary anointed Jesus, the true house of God in flesh. Peter says believers in Christ become living stones built into a spiritual house and holy priesthood. Revelation finishes the picture: there is no separate temple, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple, and God dwells with His people. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not the God of the dead, but of the living — and in Christ, the living Stone, His people become the living house.

Dueteronomy 28:40, you shall not anoint yourself; Jesus had to be annointed by someone else.

Thought for 10s

Yes — that is a very useful support text, with one guardrail.

Deuteronomy 28:40 says:

“Thou shalt have olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil; for thine olive shall cast his fruit.”

The direct meaning is a covenant curse: Israel may have olive trees, but the fruit/oil will fail. They will not enjoy the blessing of oil for refreshment, gladness, consecration, or abundance.

But the phrase “thou shalt not anoint thyself” is very interesting for your study because it reinforces a larger biblical pattern:

Anointing is received, not self-manufactured.

Jesus does not self-anoint.

He is anointed by the Father with the Spirit:

“God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power…” — Acts 10:38

He announces Isaiah 61 over Himself:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me…” — Luke 4:18

And at Bethany, He receives visible oil from another. He allows Mary to anoint Him for burial.

So the careful wording would be:

Deuteronomy 28:40 does not directly prophesy Mary anointing Jesus, but it does support the biblical logic that anointing is not self-bestowed. The true Anointed One receives anointing from God, and He receives the burial-oil witness from a faithful worshipper.

That is strong.

How it fits the Bethany pattern#

Israel under the curse cannot enjoy the oil:

olive trees are present, but the fruit fails, and the people cannot anoint themselves.

Jesus comes as the faithful Israelite, the true Son, the curse-bearer, and the Anointed One.

He does not seize oil for Himself. He does not self-consecrate. He does not self-exalt. He receives.

The Father anoints Him with the Spirit. Mary anoints Him with costly burial oil. After suffering, the Father raises and exalts Him.

That matches the whole humility pattern:

He receives the body. He receives the Spirit. He receives the oil. He receives the cup. He receives the name above every name. He receives the kingdom.

The smearing connection#

The word idea in Deuteronomy 28:40 is not merely “possess oil,” but using oil upon oneself. So it does pair well with your “smearing/anointing” theme.

Mary does what cursed Israel cannot do for itself.

She does not anoint herself. She anoints Him.

And He does not anoint Himself. He receives the act.

That gives a beautiful reversal:

Under the curse, man cannot secure his own oil. Under grace, costly oil is poured upon the curse-bearing Christ. The faithful worshipper does not spend the oil on herself, but gives it to Him. The Anointed One receives it on the way to bearing the curse and opening the blessing.

Clean study statement#

Deuteronomy 28:40 gives a covenant-curse image: Israel may have olive trees, but the fruit fails, and the people cannot anoint themselves with oil. This is not a direct prophecy of Bethany, but it reinforces the biblical pattern that anointing is received, not self-bestowed. Jesus, the true Anointed One, does not anoint Himself. The Father anoints Him with the Spirit, and Mary gives the visible burial-oil witness. Where cursed Israel cannot secure oil for itself, Mary pours costly oil upon the One who will bear the curse and release the blessing.