Pastor Daniel's Bible Notes

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
** Scholarly Articles **

** Luke 7:36-50 **

  * [[https://www.academia.edu/27695093/Jesus_The_Friend_Of_Sinners_Luke_7_36_50_|Jesus, The Friend Of Sinners (Luke 7:36-50) (Joshua L. Allen)]]


**Claude 3 (AI) Commentary**

//Is the story in Luke 7:36-50 likely referring to the same event recorded in Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9, or does Luke refer to a different event? Why or why not? I notice that the Luke story appears to be set in Galilee, while Matthew and Mark record that the anointing took place in Bethany.//

This is an interesting question that touches on the complexities of harmonizing Gospel accounts. There are similarities between these passages, but also some significant differences. Let's examine the key points:

Similarities:
1. A woman anoints Jesus with expensive perfume
2. The anointing takes place in the house of a man named Simon
3. There is criticism of the act (though from different sources)
4. Jesus defends the woman's actions

Differences:
1. Location: As you noted, Luke's account seems to be set in Galilee, while Matthew and Mark explicitly place the event in Bethany.
2. Timing: Luke's account appears earlier in Jesus' ministry, while Matthew and Mark place it just before the Passover and crucifixion.
3. Simon's identity: In Luke, he's a Pharisee; in Matthew and Mark, he's identified as "Simon the Leper."
4. The woman's identity: Luke describes her as a "sinful woman," while Matthew and Mark don't specify.
5. The anointing: In Luke, she anoints Jesus' feet; in Matthew and Mark, his head.
6. Reaction: In Luke, Simon criticizes Jesus for allowing a sinful woman to touch him; in Matthew and Mark, the disciples criticize the waste of expensive perfume.

Given these differences, many scholars believe that Luke is recording a separate event from the one described in Matthew and Mark. The different location, timing, and details suggest that these could be two distinct occasions where Jesus was anointed.

However, some scholars argue for a single event, suggesting that the differences can be reconciled or explained by the different emphases and sources of the Gospel writers. They might argue that Luke placed the story earlier in his Gospel for thematic reasons, or that the apparent difference in location is due to Luke's less specific description.

Ultimately, there isn't a consensus among biblical scholars on this question. The similarities suggest a possible common event, but the differences are significant enough that many see these as separate occurrences.

It's worth noting that such apparent discrepancies are common in the Gospels and often reflect the different purposes, audiences, and sources of the individual writers, as well as the oral tradition from which they drew. Each Gospel writer shaped their narrative to emphasize particular theological points and to speak to their specific audience.

// 
How does Mrs. Ellen G. White reconcile this issue in her writings, such as the Desire of Ages? //

Ellen G. White, a prominent figure in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, addresses this issue in her work "The Desire of Ages." In her interpretation, White harmonizes these accounts, treating them as a single event rather than separate occurrences. Here's how she approaches it:

1. Single event: White presents the anointing as one event, combining elements from all Gospel accounts.

2. Location and timing: She places the event in Bethany, at the house of Simon the leper, shortly before Jesus' final entry into Jerusalem, aligning with Matthew and Mark's accounts.

3. Identity of the woman: White identifies the woman as Mary, sister of Lazarus and Martha, though this identification is not explicitly made in the Gospel accounts themselves.

4. Reconciling Luke's account: White incorporates elements from Luke's narrative into this unified story. She suggests that Simon the Pharisee (from Luke's account) is the same person as Simon the leper (from Matthew and Mark), having been healed by Jesus earlier.

5. Purpose of the anointing: White interprets the act as Mary's expression of gratitude for the forgiveness of her sins and the resurrection of her brother Lazarus.

6. Symbolic meaning: She sees the anointing as a symbolic act prefiguring Jesus' death and burial, in line with Jesus' own interpretation in the Synoptic Gospels.

7. Judas' role: White emphasizes Judas' criticism of the act, as mentioned in John's Gospel, seeing it as a pivotal moment in his decision to betray Jesus.

It's important to note that White's approach is characteristic of many 19th-century Protestant writers who sought to harmonize apparent discrepancies in the Gospel narratives. This harmonization approach is not universally accepted in biblical scholarship today, with many scholars preferring to analyze each Gospel account on its own terms.

White's interpretation reflects her belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture and her desire to present a unified narrative of Jesus' life. However, her approach does not address all the differences between the accounts, particularly the apparent difference in timing between Luke's account and the others.

Modern biblical scholarship often takes a different approach, acknowledging the distinct perspectives and purposes of each Gospel writer. Nevertheless, White's interpretation remains influential within Seventh-day Adventist circles and among some other Christian groups.

//
In Luke 7:47, the KJV and ESV translate "ἀφέωνται" as "are forgiven." However, it appears that the tense of this word in context indicates that the women's sin had already been forgiven. Can you shed some light on how to accurately translate this, and what theological implications this could have?//

You've raised an excellent point about the Greek verb "ἀφέωνται" (apheōntai) in Luke 7:47. This is indeed a nuanced grammatical issue with potential theological implications. Let's break it down:

1. Grammatical Form:
"Ἀφέωνται" is a perfect passive indicative form of the verb "ἀφίημι" (aphiēmi), which means "to forgive" or "to send away."

2. Perfect Tense:
The perfect tense in Greek typically indicates a completed action with ongoing results. It can often be translated as "have been" in English.

3. More Accurate Translation:
Given this, a more precise translation might be "have been forgiven" or "stand forgiven." This suggests that the forgiveness occurred in the past but has ongoing effects in the present.

4. Contextual Considerations:
The context of the passage supports this interpretation. Jesus is explaining the woman's actions as a response to forgiveness already received, not as a means of obtaining forgiveness.

5. Theological Implications:
This grammatical nuance has several potential theological implications:

a) Order of events: It suggests that the woman's acts of love were a response to forgiveness already granted, not a means of earning forgiveness.
   
b) Nature of forgiveness: It emphasizes forgiveness as a completed divine act with ongoing effects, rather than a process or a conditional state.
   
c) Relationship between faith and works: It could be seen as supporting the theological concept that good works flow from salvation/forgiveness rather than earning it.
   
d) God's initiative: It underscores the idea that God's forgiveness precedes and motivates human response, aligning with concepts of prevenient grace.

6. Broader Biblical Context:
This interpretation aligns well with other New Testament teachings about the nature of forgiveness and salvation, such as Ephesians 2:8-9.

7. Translations:
Some modern translations, recognizing this nuance, render the phrase differently:
   - NIV: "have been forgiven"
   - NASB: "have been forgiven"
   - NLT: "have been forgiven"

It's worth noting that while this grammatical point is significant, it doesn't fundamentally alter the core message of the passage. However, it does provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between forgiveness and human response in this narrative.

This kind of detailed grammatical analysis is crucial in biblical interpretation, as it can reveal subtleties that might be lost in translation and can have meaningful theological implications.