Are you familiar with the term “the Synoptic Problem”?
Our text this morning (March 16, 2025) gives us an opportunity to talk about the “synoptic problem” and more. The synoptic gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Merriam-Webster defines synoptic as “presenting or taking the same or common view; specifically, often capitalized: of or relating to the first three Gospels of the New Testament.”[1] Since Matthew, Mark, and Luke generally tell the same story very similarly, they are the Synoptic Gospels, while John’s Gospel, according to the Apostle John, is quite different. In the sermon, we will ask whether Jesus got anointed 1, 2, or 3 times during his adult ministry. According to the harmony of the gospels on www.blueletterbible.org, Jesus was anointed one time. According to the popular www.GotQuestions.org website, Jesus was anointed three times. And the ESV Study Bible limits the anointing to only two times. The first is in Luke 7, and the second is just before the triumphal entry in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and John 12.
What accounts for the “one, two, or three times issue” are the similarities and differences between all four accounts. The more someone is comfortable harmonizing all four accounts, the greater the probability they will conclude that Jesus was anointed only one time, and the more one refuses to see the differences as differences in perspective, the more you will say Jesus was anointed three times. If I say we had steak for dinner and you say we had chicken for dinner—does that mean we did not eat at the same house? Or does that mean both steak and chicken were served at the same meal? These differences and similarities create questions in harmonizing different stories in the gospels.
Our story presents questions. In Matthew, the woman anointing Jesus is anonymous; in John, she is Mary. In John, Jesus’s feet get anointed; in Matthew, His head gets anointed. Both stories are in Bethany, but Matthew states it is Simon the leper’s house, but Martha is serving. Are the differences too many to reconcile? Or must we reconcile the accounts?
Some might even suggest that we do not waste time harmonizing the gospels. Read and study each gospel as the author intended for it to be read. But, a simple Google search reveals that attempts have been made to harmonize the four gospels as early as 170 AD. Google the “Diatessaron”. Again, consider our passage from Matthew 26. In Matthew, a woman anoints Jesus, but in John 12, Mary anoints Jesus. You, the student of the Bible, finished reading John, so you start over with Matthew. And when you get to Matthew, you see a woman anointed Jesus—if your memory serves you well—you vaguely remember an anointing in John—so you can’t help yourself. You want to know—does John give us a name that Matthew withheld? And thus, you attempt to harmonize the two passages.
When we read the gospels, we must first read the gospels vertically. By vertically, we mean that you should pay attention to what came before and what comes after each story. This guidance is helpful. In our story. We see in John 11 an emphasis on feet—yes, you read that right. And, in chapter 13, more emphasis on feet. This may help explain why John points to Jesus’s feet being anointed. Whereas Matthew says nothing about feet and does not include the story of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet in his gospel. Some are content not to do the work in studying the potential account repeated in the gospels. For me, I struggle not to look. I want to be as comprehensive as possible. Even if the setting does not permit a comprehensive lesson, I want to be prepared. I want to carefully examine the vertical context—the information before and after my text. And then, I want to see if there is something important recorded in one of the other gospels. (An example of that is Matthew 26:13 for our sermon today.) So, to conclude, vertical is more important than horizontal, but horizontal should be considered if time permits. A detailed vertical and horizontal study would be as contextual as one could get. That will be our goal today.
[1] Inc Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1996).
