WAS MARY THE SISTER OF LAZARUS THE SINFUL WOMAN MENTIONED IN LUKE 7:36-50?
By Ezekiel Kimosop
Martha and Mary are the two sisters of Lazarus, the man Jesus raised from the dead (John 11:1-44). Assuming that the narrative of Luke 10:38-42 relates to the two sisters, Mary appears to be an extrovert. She took time to listen to Jesus even as her sister focused on preparing to serve a meal. The biblical order of names suggests that Martha was the elder sister. Jesus loved the three siblings and was closely associated with them. This article seeks to establish from the study of the relevant passages of Scripture if Mary sister of Lazarus was the sinful woman mentioned in Luke 7:36-50.
Bible scholars generally agree that the incident recorded in Matthew 26:6-13 is synonymous with the one described in John 12:1-8. The locations are similar but the host in John's case is not identified. On both occasions, a woman anointed Jesus' feet in the presence of invited guests. Under Luke's context, this intrusion by a sinful woman on a male guest was understood to violate the Jewish cultural code.
In Matthew's case, the incident took place in Bethany at the house of one Simon, the leper. (v.7). The incident is elsewhere captured in Mark 14:3-9 where the woman broke an alabaster flask containing very costly oil worth more than three hundred denarii [about 15,000 USD] and poured it on Jesus' head. One distinction however stands out. In Matthew's and Mark's narratives, the woman who wiped and anointed Jesus' feet is unidentified. No mention of Lazarus' presence is made by Matthew and Mark. Jesus' reaction in Mark's account is unique. He commended the woman for anointing his body in preparation for burial.
The scene recorded in John 12:1-8 captures John's narrative of the same event. John reports that the gathering took place at the home of Simon the leper and Lazarus was among those who welcomed Jesus in that home. Lazarus was perhaps a close associate of Simon the leper.
The mention of Lazarus being raised from the dead in Bethany in John 12:1 is perhaps merely coincidental and serves to remind the Bible reader that the raising of Lazarus had taken place earlier. It is not necessarily evidence that it was a separate incident from the one described by Matthew. It is instructive that Lazarus is listed among those who sat with Jesus during the incident (John 12:2).
My view is that the narratives captured by Matthew and John appear to focus on the same event from two distinct theological perspectives. While Matthew failed to mention the woman by name, John did. Curiously, Luke's account assigns a stigmatic title to the woman by identifying her as a sinful woman. This distinctive feature appears to significantly contrast Luke's narrative from the rest.
Bible scholars acknowledge that Matthew's gospel was primarily intended for a Jewish audience under which the prominence of women was culturally suppressed. This could partly explain the anonymity of the woman in his context. It is instructive that all the four Gospel Books have captured this incident. A. M. Honore observes that three quarters of Mark's content is found in Matthew and Luke, and 97% of Mark is found in at least one of the other two Synoptic Gospels. [1] . This observation reveals that the narratives were of utmost importance to the Gospel writers.
The next question to address is thus: is Mary the sister of Lazarus the woman mentioned by Matthew?
Some scholars say the woman in Matthew's context may have been a different Mary. However, given the location of the incident and the presence of Lazarus among the guests, it is most likely that his sister Mary had accompanied him to the house of Simon the leper where Jesus was expected.
In John's context, Mary's act of pouring expensive perfume on Jesus' feet was perhaps an expression of her deep gratitude to Jesus for raising her brother Lazarus under the incident described in John 11. She was possibly not the only woman to have expressed gratitude to Jesus in this manner during His earthly ministry. Charles Huddon Spurgeon notably observes thus: “It ought not to astonish you that there were two persons whose intense affection thus displayed itself; the astonishment should rather be that there were not two hundred who did so....” [2].
Jesus' statement in John 12:7-8 is evidence that Mary's sacrificial act received divine approval. Jesus commended her for the unusual honor. This incident serves as reminder to God's people that we should demonstrate our gratitude to God through sacrificial service that glorifies Him. God's grace in Christ is immeasurable but our response to this grace cannot escape God's attention. Mary's sacrifice was by all standards a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God (cf. Genesis 8:20-21; Philippians 4:18:20).
The incident captured in Luke 7:36-50 appears to be notably distinct from the two narratives conveyed by Matthew and John but Jesus' response in v. 40 is quite unsettling to the reader! The Pharisee's name is disclosed by Jesus at this point. He is Simon the Pharisee. His name readily connects with Simon the leper. Some consider the mention of Simon the Pharisee as evidence that Luke's narrative is synonymous with Matthew's and John's save for the additional details conveyed to the reader. Some scholars arguably pointed out that the similarity of names suggests that the Pharisee could be Simon the leper mentioned in Matthew's account. Still others insist that another Simon was contemplated in Luke's case notwithstanding the similarity of names.
This brings to the fore the million dollar question: Is the sinful woman in Luke's context Mary the sister of Lazarus mentioned in John 12:1-8? If so, how should the Bible reader reconcile her sinfulness which is apparently not mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and John? Did the three Scripture writers deliberately decline to capture this significant feature in Mary's life?
In Luke's case, the sinful woman's encounter with Jesus took place at the house of a Pharisee who had invited Jesus to dine with him. Luke 7:11 suggests that Jesus was possibly still within the precincts of the city of Nain at this point. Some say the sinful woman who kissed Jesus' feet and anointed them with expensive fragrant oil was possibly a well-known prostitute in the city of Nain. Given the chronological sequence in the Synoptic Gospels, and Jesus' relationship with Lazarus and his two sisters described in John 11, it is difficult to conclude that Mary the sister of Lazarus was a sinful woman of the kind contemplated under Luke's narrative. Besides, Simon the Pharisee would perhaps have treated Lazarus' sister with better decorum! His statement touching on the sinful woman would have bordered on a condescending attack on a section of his guests!
The reaction by Simon the Pharisee in Luke 7:39 is consistent with the discrimination of social outcasts by the Jewish religious order. This incident is one among many where Jesus broke the religious taboo and showed love and compassion to the downtrodden in society. His encounter with the Samaritan woman in John 4:1-42 is perhaps a classic example.
He still does the same today...
In conclusion, it is plausible to suppose that Matthew 26:6-16, Mark 14:3-9, and John 12:1-8 describe the same incident from three theological standpoints. This inevitably ranks the incident described in Luke 7:36-50 as a separate event. I find no conclusive theological evidence that the sinful woman in Luke's context was Mary the sister of Lazarus.
The two incidents should therefore not be conflated merely on account of notable similarities. The theological implications of their exhortations are nonetheless of profound significance. They both reveal Jesus' humility and deep concern for the disadvantaged and ostracized members of His society. His saving grace cuts across the social class distinctions in any society of context.
The sinful woman's courage was by any standards astonishing, given the conservative Jewish culture of Jesus' day. David Guzik rightly posits that "it was bold for a woman with a sinful reputation to come into the house of a Pharisee, but she was willing to do anything for the love of Jesus" [3]. Guzik's observation is consistent with the moral in Luke's account where the sinful woman is mentioned.
We shall conclude this evaluation study by examining a moral question. How should the reader react to the sinful woman's conduct before Jesus?
Some would perhaps consider the the sinful woman's act as culturally inappropriate in the context of a Rabbi of Jesus' standing. It was culturally and religiously inconceivable. that a woman would publicly touch a man's feet in the manner she did, let alone a Rabbi! However, one theological truth is inescapable - the condition of the sinful woman is representative of our sinful depravity and alienation from a holy and righteous God in Adam until God graciously reached out to us in Christ (Romans 5:8). The sinful woman's tears and her broken heart touched the heart of God. There are people who suffer the pain of social disgrace in silence but God hears the cries of their hearts.
In our stench of sinfulness, we too were undeserving of God's grace. We learn that Jesus forgives broken-hearted sinners that dare to reach out to Him. God gives us a new life in Him no matter how depraved we are (Psalm,51:10-17; 2 Corinthians 5:17,21). God's opinion counts far above the din and clutter of cultural exigencies.
Morgan G. Campbell notes that "it is not easy for us to blot out a past, and to free ourselves from all prejudice resulting from our knowledge of that past. Yet that is exactly what the Lord does" [4].
Nothing, not even the most expensive resources on earth, can compare with God's grace in Christ Jesus. The sinful woman received the most precious gift from God. It was far greater than what she could offer to God. She was finally freed from her burden of sin and guilt. Our response to God's appeal in Christ Jesus is evidence of the working of God's effectual grace in our lives.
God edifies His saints even as He deals with the lost and broken of society. Neither task takes precedence over the other. Simon the Pharisee could not contemplate that a social outcast could reach out to God in the serene comforts of the nobility settings of his privileged social class. He was utterly mistaken.
No cultural, religious or social class barrier, however venerable in a given society, can stand between us and God. The Pharisee and the sinful woman were both alienated from God until and unless they submitted to Christ. We should therefore reach out to God at any moment through Christ our High Priest and receive our healing and restoration.
Shalom.
© Ezekiel Kimosop 2024
[1] A. M. Honore, "A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem", in Novum Testamentum 10, (2/3), 1968, pp. 95-147.
[2] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, "The New Park Street Pulpit" Volumes 1-6 and "The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit" Volumes 7-63 (Pasadena, Texas: Pilgrim Publications, 1990).
[3] David Guzik, "The Sick Healed, the Dead Raised, the Sinner Forgiven" in Study Guide for Luke 7, Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/guzik_david/study-guide/luke/luke-7.cfm.
[4] Morgan, G. Campbell "Searchlights from the Word" (New York: Revell, 1926).
Thanks Rev, blessed.
ReplyDelete