Thoughts going in, June 12th, Pentecost +4

When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37 A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. 38 As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them. 39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.” 40 Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.” “Tell me, teacher,” he said. 41 “Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven.” “You have judged correctly,” Jesus said. 44 Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.” 48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”50 Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” (Luke 7:36-50)

            Our "Learning from the Master" series continues this week with yet another "outsider" taking center stage. To re-cap, Week 1's outsider was a Roman Centurion; his ethnicity made him an outsider. Last week's outsider was the widow of Nain; tragic life's circumstances made her an outsider. This week the outsider is a woman who had lived a sinful life (vs 37). Without exception every commentary consulted draws the conclusion that this woman is either a prostitute (earns her living by selling her body for sex), or is at the very least the 'town hussy' whose moral standards lay far below the accepted standard of decency. Regardless, she is an outsider--in her case, a designation brought about by her life's choices. [Note: at least one commentator has mentioned that then, as now, it was entirely possible for a woman to be so economically marginalized that the 'choice' of prostitution was literally a choice between selling one's body, and death. This could very well be the case for this woman too. In which case, the point in emphasizing her 'choices' is not to stand with Simon the Pharisee and condemn her, but rather to simply emphasize that her 'choice' has led to her status as 'outsider.']

            I found this next bit online and thought it was helpful, so I'm including it here: The Pharisee in our text is part of a holiness movement, a movement of lay people who have taken upon themselves the ‘Holiness Code,’ those who see the entire people of Israel as a “kingdom of priests.” When we recall the divisions that plagued Judaism from the time of the Hasmoneans on with regard to the ‘holiness’ of the Temple priests and the unhappy relations between Pharisees and Sadducees, we can understand the Pharisees’ concerns. They desired not to co-opt the commandments, as had the Sadducees, but to follow God with a whole heart. The Sadducees had eventually (so said the Pharisees) corrupted themselves by accommodating their lifestyle to that of the world around them (the problem of Hellenization). The First Book of Maccabees is excellent reading for getting a handle on this. At the time following the Maccabean revolution with the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty, movements arose as to the quality and legitimacy of the Temple priesthood. It is probable that the sect at Qumran had its origins at this time. Another separatist movement was the Pharisees. They too had a problem with the holiness of the Temple but they also had an issue with the holiness of the people. And so they referred to themselves as ‘the separated’ and the regular Miriam’s and Joshua’s as "am ha-eretz," or people of the land.

We know Jesus also had a problem with the Temple authorities. And Jesus also appears in the Gospels to have had problems with the Pharisees.  Yet, Jesus with his critique of the Temple system and hierarchy would have found much in common with the teachings of the Pharisees, so Luke’s ‘invitation’ is not an unhistorical probability.

            At a dinner given in the home of a Pharisee, a ‘sinful woman’ enters and weeps at Jesus’ feet. In order to get the proper picture, Barclay's words are helpful: In the east the guests did not sit, but reclined, at table. They lay on low couches, resting on the left elbow, leaving the right arm free, with the feet stretched out behind; and during the meal the sandals were taken off. That explains how the woman was standing beside Jesus' feet.

            Our Pharisee, Simon, is appalled. He asks two questions of himself which both expect a negative answer. “If this man were a prophet (and he is not), he would know what kind of woman this is (and he doesn’t).” Therefore, he must not be a prophet. Jesus is aware of what his host, Simon, was thinking (because in reality he's more than a prophet). So Jesus tells a little parable. Like the story of Nathan “parabling” King David, Simon answers correctly but in so doing condemns his own reaction to the woman. We know the rest of the story: Jesus praises the woman for her ‘honorable acts of hospitality’ and critiques Simon for his lack thereof.

            Simon, as a Pharisee, knows the value of repentance and its strategic role in forgiveness. Why then does he judge this woman when she comes repenting? What has caused his negative critical attitude? In the process he also criticizes Jesus, why does he do so?

Simon’s repentance had taken him far. He followed Torah and heeded the commandments that hedged the Torah. His life was a detailed perfection of holiness, he followed God’s ways, he obeyed God’s laws. He was an example of moral perfection. But he would not fellowship with those who had not come as far as he. He is still of the mind that a great gulf exists between himself and this woman. He does not perceive that the goodness and mercy of God forgive both him and woman. Has he become dependent on what he considers his merits? Has he become self-satisfied with his own status before God?

            Simon’s division between himself and the woman indicates that he has co-opted the religion of grace. He has measured his value before God in terms of others whom he has devalued. He is better than this one and that one, holier than her, more righteous than him. He has compared himself to others when he ought to have been comparing himself with himself.

Cheers,

T.M.