It is interesting to note that this event of the anointing of Jesus with oil by a woman occurs in all four Gospels, even if not in exact same detail. Matthew and Mark say the event took place in the house of a certain Simon the Leper (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3). Luke says the event took place in the house of “one of the Pharisees,” who apparently had invited Jesus to have dinner with him (Luke 7:36). John in turn says the event occurs in the house of Lazarus, Martha and Mary (John 12:1-3). In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the identity of the woman is not revealed. In John however, she is revealed to be Mary, the sister of Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Luke in any case describes her as a sinful woman who should not have been permitted to touch the body of a prophet such as Jesus (Luke 7:39).
Another discrepancy to note in the rendering of the passage in the different gospels is that Matthew and Mark say that the woman poured the ointment on the head of Jesus (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3), while Luke and John both say she poured the ointment on his feet (Luke 7:38; John 12:3). The actual words used, and the characters that used them also differ from one gospel account to another. John’s Gospel in particular mentions Judas (John 12:4-6). All four gospels in any case hint at the concept of money or wages or debt, and so it is clear that finance is a central concern in this passage. This paper will treat this theme in due course.
Prior to so doing, however, it bears questioning why this particular passage should be contained in all four gospels. Perhaps it is a story that was very common in the Christian communities at the time. Perhaps women, who were a major part of the early church, felt it important to tell such a story with a central feminine character; one that shows courage and grace in her lavish anointing of the Lord; one who could serve as a model to the otherwise hesitant female penitent who, though thirsty for the draught of salvation, is too hamstrung by scrupulosity and a fear of the crowd to step forward and seek the face of the savior, Jesus Christ. Recall in this regard in any case the example of the woman with an issue of blood, who summoned up the courage to answer the question of Jesus, “Who touched me?” (Matt. 9:20-22; Mark 5: 25-34; Luke 8: 43-48). Recall as well the example of the Syrophoenecian woman, who insisted on receiving a blessing from the Lord even if she felt undeserving of it and had to defend her insistence (Mark 7:25-30; Matt. 15:21-28).
Perhaps as well, it could be that all the gospel writers considered the tale important and worth preserving. They must have discovered in it a lasting communication of the mercy of God through Christ for whomever it is that seeks it, regardless of the moral state of the person. The gesture of the woman pouring oil at the feet of Jesus was one that transcended economic concern. The woman was not thinking of herself or of her own gratification. Rather, she was interested in pleasing Jesus. She was expressing the feelings of gratitude in her heart, gratitude for her salvation. Her act was one of faith, of belief in the reality of Jesus having forgiven her sins. And in view of such great forgiveness, her showing of love in the lavish anointing was justified. This sort of love was not shown by Simon the Leper (Luke 7: 40-47). Because Simon did not feel as convicted of sin and indebtedness to God as the sinful woman did, he did not care to minster to Jesus in hospitable ways (Ibid.v44-47).
Unique to Luke’s version of the event is the Parable of the Two Debtors, which is contained in Luke 7:41-43. The parable tells of two debtors. One owed five hundred days’ wages, and the other owed fifty, to a certain creditor who ultimately forgave both debts, seeing that the debtors were unable to repay. Jesus asked his host, Simon, which of the two debtors would love the creditor more for the favor of forgiving the debt, and Simon correctly replied that it was bound to be the one who owed more to begin with.
Another discrepancy to note in the rendering of the passage in the different gospels is that Matthew and Mark say that the woman poured the ointment on the head of Jesus (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3), while Luke and John both say she poured the ointment on his feet (Luke 7:38; John 12:3). The actual words used, and the characters that used them also differ from one gospel account to another. John’s Gospel in particular mentions Judas (John 12:4-6). All four gospels in any case hint at the concept of money or wages or debt, and so it is clear that finance is a central concern in this passage. This paper will treat this theme in due course.
Prior to so doing, however, it bears questioning why this particular passage should be contained in all four gospels. Perhaps it is a story that was very common in the Christian communities at the time. Perhaps women, who were a major part of the early church, felt it important to tell such a story with a central feminine character; one that shows courage and grace in her lavish anointing of the Lord; one who could serve as a model to the otherwise hesitant female penitent who, though thirsty for the draught of salvation, is too hamstrung by scrupulosity and a fear of the crowd to step forward and seek the face of the savior, Jesus Christ. Recall in this regard in any case the example of the woman with an issue of blood, who summoned up the courage to answer the question of Jesus, “Who touched me?” (Matt. 9:20-22; Mark 5: 25-34; Luke 8: 43-48). Recall as well the example of the Syrophoenecian woman, who insisted on receiving a blessing from the Lord even if she felt undeserving of it and had to defend her insistence (Mark 7:25-30; Matt. 15:21-28).
Perhaps as well, it could be that all the gospel writers considered the tale important and worth preserving. They must have discovered in it a lasting communication of the mercy of God through Christ for whomever it is that seeks it, regardless of the moral state of the person. The gesture of the woman pouring oil at the feet of Jesus was one that transcended economic concern. The woman was not thinking of herself or of her own gratification. Rather, she was interested in pleasing Jesus. She was expressing the feelings of gratitude in her heart, gratitude for her salvation. Her act was one of faith, of belief in the reality of Jesus having forgiven her sins. And in view of such great forgiveness, her showing of love in the lavish anointing was justified. This sort of love was not shown by Simon the Leper (Luke 7: 40-47). Because Simon did not feel as convicted of sin and indebtedness to God as the sinful woman did, he did not care to minster to Jesus in hospitable ways (Ibid.v44-47).
Unique to Luke’s version of the event is the Parable of the Two Debtors, which is contained in Luke 7:41-43. The parable tells of two debtors. One owed five hundred days’ wages, and the other owed fifty, to a certain creditor who ultimately forgave both debts, seeing that the debtors were unable to repay. Jesus asked his host, Simon, which of the two debtors would love the creditor more for the favor of forgiving the debt, and Simon correctly replied that it was bound to be the one who owed more to begin with.
No comments:
Post a Comment