A woman in the city, which was a sinner. — The word is clearly used as pointing to the special sin of unchastity. The woman was known in the city as plying there her sinful and hateful calling. The question who she was must be left unanswered. Two answers have, however, been given. (1) The widespread belief that she was Mary Magdalene — shown in the popular application of the term “Magdalen” to a penitent of this class — has absolutely not a single jot or tittle of evidence in Scripture. Nor can there be said to be anything like even a tradition in its favour. The earliest Fathers of the Church are silent. Origen discusses and rejects it. Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine are doubtful. It first gained general acceptance through the authority of Gregory the Great. The choice of this narrative in the Gospel for the Feast of St. Mary Magdalene stamped it as with the sanction of the Western Church. The omission of that feast from the calendar of the Prayer Book of 1552 shows that the English Reformers at least hesitated, if they did not decide against it. We may note further (a) that if the popular belief were true we should have expected some hint of it on the occurrence of the name of Mary Magdalene in Luke 8:3; (b) that the description given of that Mary, as one out of whom had been cast “seven devils,” though not incompatible with a life of impurity, does not naturally suggest it; (c) that, on the assumption of identity, it is difficult to say when the “devils” had been cast out. Was it before she came with the ointment, or when our Lord spake the words, “Thy sins are forgiven thee?” It is obvious that the conduct of the woman in the Pharisee’s house was very different from the wild frenzy of a demoniac. (2) The belief adopted by some interpreters, and more or less generally received in the Church of Rome, that the woman was none other than Mary the sister of Lazarus, who, on this hypothesis, is identified also with Mary Magdalene, is even more baseless. The inference that when St. John speaks of Mary of Bethany as “that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment,” must refer to the previous anointing which St. Luke narrates, and not to that which St. John himself records (John 12:3), is almost fantastic in its arbitrariness; and it will seem to most minds inconceivable that such a one as the sister of Lazarus, who appears in Luke 10:42 as “having chosen the good part,” could so shortly before have been leading the life of a harlot of the streets. Occurring as the narrative does in St. Luke only, it is probable enough that the “woman which was a sinner” became known to the company of devout women named in Luke 8:1-3, and that the Evangelist derived his knowledge of the facts from them. His reticence — possibly their reticence — as to the name was, under the circumstances, at once natural and considerate.
When she knew that Jesus... — The words imply that she had heard of Him — perhaps had listened to Him. She may have heard of His compassion for the widow of Nain in her sorrow. She might have been drawn by the ineffable pity and tenderness of His words and looks. She would show her reverence as she could.
Brought an alabaster box of ointment. — See Note on Matthew 26:7. There is not the same stress laid here, as in the anointing by Mary of Bethany, on the preciousness of the ointment; but we may believe that it was relatively as costly. Passages like Proverbs 7:17; Isaiah 3:24, suggest the thought that then, as perhaps in all ages, the lavish and luxurious use of perfumes characterised the unhappy class to which the woman belonged. The ointment may have been purchased for far other uses than that to which it was now applied.