There are various ways Christians have attempted to resolve this apparent contradiction. Here are some links to internet resources. I think the best is the one AT THE VERY BOTTOM of this blog where Mike Winger spends a little over an hour to explain the problems and his solutions. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND Mike Winger's video.
The Anointing of Jesus
Women Anointing Jesus: The Same Story?
J.P. Holding wrote an interesting article on the topic of the Anointing of Jesus and whether it was one incident with one woman, or whether it was more than one incident that involved at least one more woman.
Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?
by Mike Licona
The types of explanations Licona provides in this lecture would be considered by some Evangelicals to violate Biblical inerrancy. I myself am not sure they do violate inerrancy. Mike Licona and Norman Geisler are two prominent figures in the modern inerrancy debate. With the Geisler group considering Licona teaching heresy. Licona's explanations might be applicable to the issue of the anointing of Jesus.
Pastor Mike Winger's attempt at resolving the apparent contradiction.
A Very Challenging "Contradiction" in the Gospels: The Mark Series pt 57 (14:1-12)
My comments after having watched Mike Winger's video.
The fact that John HAD TO mention that Lazarus was reclining at the table wouldn't be necessary if it was his home. It would have been assumed if it was Lazarus' home. But, that he had to be specifically referred to as reclining at the table there suggests it WASN'T Lazarus' home .
I came to the same conclusion as Pastor Mike Winger that the anointing story in Mark and Matthew was meant to be a non-chronological excursus explanation of how the chief priests and scribes were able to solve the problem of how to get Jesus arrested. I just didn't know about the concept of a "Markan sandwich". That addition makes it all the more reasonable and plausible.
I think that Pastor Mke has solved these problems in the most satisfactory way. Having said that there are other possibilities that I'd like to offer which aren't as satisfactory, but which should be on the table too.
Maybe "on the next day" in John 12:12 is an idiom to mean "on another [unspecified] day" [cf. John 1:29, 35]. In which case, the events of Jesus anointing and Palm Sunday in John 12 need not be chronological. It's not uncommon for writers to write stories out of chronological order for emphasis' sake to show his readers what he thinks is a more important lesson. For example, Noah's sons are always listed as "Shem, Ham and Japheth" even though Gen. 9:24 says Ham was the youngest. Or how in lists Moses and Rachel are sometimes listed first even though the texts make it clear that there were siblings who were older than them [Aaron and Miriam were older than Moses; and Leah older than Rachel].
Maybe Simon the Leper was a famous person who had died and whose home was popularly known to be associated with his name. And Lazarus and his sister were living in it. Just like like some homes of famous Hollywood celebrities are still called celebrity X's home even though the celebrity has been dead for decades and other families have lived in that house. Another possibility is that they were living in the house while Simon was outside of the community because he still had leprousy. So, he was still being quarantined according to the Mosaic law for leprosy. But he wasn't healed by Jesus because Simon hadn't gone to Jesus to be healed. Since in most cases of healing, Jesus didn't unilaterally go to the sick person to heal them, but rather, in faith, the sick people came to Him to be healed, and He healed them in response to their faith. Or maybe Lazarus and his sisters were tenants in Simon's house and they paid "rent" to Simon and or his family after he died or was still away being quarantined.
Three anointings is not implausible. It's not uncommon for intimate friends to have heated arguments, or couples to have lovers' quarrels on the same topic over the same issue using virtually the exact same words, same complaints, and the same justifications repeatedly. In fact, the more intimate they are, the more heated. Maybe there was an anointing 6 days before the Passover, then another 2 days before Passover. But the one 2 days before was when Judas had had enough. This 3rd time was what "broke the camel's back". He was finally disgusted enough and/or jealous enough of Jesus because how he was being preferentially treated and what he might have considered hypocrisy on Jesus' part to finally conspire with Jesus' enemies. Judas was a thief. He helped himself to the moneybag whenever he wanted. Because of the rebuke Jesus gave that [in Judas' mind] hinted at Judas' greed and fake concern for the poor, Judas' pride may have been offended so much, as well as his greed gotten the better of him, that he wanted to teach Jesus a lesson by conspiring with Jesus' enemies. He might have justified it in his mind thinking, "If he's really the messiah, this might be what triggers the insurrection against the Romans I've [i.e. Judas] wanted for a long time [long before he met Jesus]. In defending himself, Jesus will be forced to use his miraculous powers to strike back against the Romans and compromising Jewish leaders. If he's not the messiah, then he'll just be getting what's coming to him."
No comments:
Post a Comment