 |
| Earl Gillespie |
Text: Luke 7:36-50
Part One
Part One
The hypothesis: Our thankfulness to Christ is in direct proportion to our consciousness of the amount of sin forgiven. Thankfulness is an expression of love.
Purpose: We should consider just how thankful we are, for the forgiveness we have received (or will receive).
The setting is the second year of Christ’s ministry. Both Jesus and John (The Baptist) had been preaching throughout Galilee, both proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43; 3:3). In response to their preaching, those with open and receptive hearts were baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (John 4:1; Luke 7:29; 3:3). Significantly though, especially for our message, is the fact that the Pharisees rejected the God’s call for baptism. Luke 7:29-30: All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.
With few exceptions, the Pharisees were not interested in the message of grace, which both Jesus and John proclaimed. They saw no need to have their sins forgiven, because (amazingly) they believed that they had no sins. Truly, they saw themselves as righteous before God; but sadly, theirs was a self-righteous (Luke 18:9). They were justified in their own eyes (Luke 16:15). Yet from God’s perspective, their sins clearly remained.
Our text is Luke 7:36-50. The NIV, from which I am using for this study, entitles this passage, “Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman.” But as we continue, I believe that we will begin to see that as a rather poor title. Instead, why not call it, “Jesus Anointed by a Forgiven Woman,” because that is what she really was: a once sinful woman, who was now forgiven. Or perhaps we might entitle the passage, “A Woman Who Showed Great Love” because certainly we will see that, as well.
7:36 Now the Pharisees are noted in Scripture as the strictest sect of the Jews (Acts 26:5). Moreover, it was their policy to maintain a certain “safe” distance from the rank and file populace, the people of the land. They sought after a ritual purity, and so separated themselves from “contamination,” as it were. But again, theirs was a self-righteousness. The Pharisees (by and large) had no need for grace; they saw no need for forgiveness. As far as the Pharisees were concerned, they already were right with God. Now again with very few exceptions (like Nicodemus, John 3:1), Jesus spoke harshly of this group, in passages such as Matt. 23: “Woe to you Pharisees . . . hypocrites . . . blind guides . . . blind fools!” But for all that, here we see that Jesus was invited to dinner by a Pharisee, named Simon (v. 40); and we further see that Jesus accepted the invitation.
Now at this point, many will find themself wanting to ask, “Why? Why would a Pharisee even want to have Jesus, as his guest, in the first place?” And there are several possible explanations to that question: First, Simon might have been looking for a reason to accuse Jesus. The Pharisees were noted for doing that; they would try to entrap Jesus in one way or another (Luke 6:7). Perhaps Simon hoped to “catch” Jesus violating some Pharisaic tradition. A second plausible explanation is that Simon invited Jesus in hopes of increasing own righteous (Simon’s own self-righteousness, that is); because it was considered a meritorious act to invite a guest rabbi to a meal. A third reason (and the one that I believe is best supported by the text) is simply that Simon wanted to personally see for himself whether the rumors that Jesus was a “great prophet” (Luke 7:16) were actually true. But regardless of what Simon’s motivation for inviting Jesus may have been, as we continue, it will become increasingly clear that his invitation was surely not extended to Jesus out of friendship. And neither did Simon invite Jesus out of his love for, or even out high regard for, the Lord.
And notice again, that when given the invitation, Jesus did, in fact, go. And this was not the only time that Jesus dined with the Pharisees, either. And while it is surely true that he despised the self- righteous attitudes of most of the Pharisees, it should also be remembered that he never wrote them off completely. For truly, Jesus came to seek and to save the lost (Luke19:10). And whether they realized it, or not, that also meant that Jesus came to save, even the Pharisees.
Verse 36 tells us that Jesus was “reclining” at the meal which indicates that this was something of a special meal, a banquet of sorts. In such a formal sort of setting, dinner guests were not seated on chairs, such as we are accustomed. Instead they reclined on low couches (or mats or cushions) around a short table. They would lean on their left elbows with their heads toward the table and their bodies stretched away from it. In this position, their right hands were free to pick up the food and their feet were as far away from the food, as possible. Try to visualize Jesus’ in this position: reclining, with his feet stretched out behind.
Luke 7:37-38 Then with the Greek text indicating something of a surprise (“and behold, and look”), a woman who had lived a sinful life walks into the banquet. We are not told her name, but only her history. She had lived a sinful life. She traditionally has been identified as a prostitute (and she may have been), but the text does not really say that she was. Instead God’s Word only tells us that she was known as a sinner in the town, that she had lived a sinful life. Yes, she was a sinner. In Jesus own words, she had committed “many sins” (v. 47). So in many ways, she sounds very much like you and like me. In fact, since we’re not told her name, nor her specific sins, . . . how about in your mind penciling in your name and your sins as we watch this scene unfold?
Somehow the woman had learned that Jesus was at Simon’s house, and so she also came to his house and entered the banquet area. And while her “crashing” Simon’s party from our 21st century perspective might seem rather presumptuous, it was not at all unusual in the ancient world to allow access to a meal which was being given in a rabbi’s honor. Instead, interested people were most welcome to enter the room (or perhaps courtyard) in which these sorts of functions were held. They would sit on the edges of the banquet area, listen to the discussion, and perhaps even obtain some of the leftover food. And yet, for this particular woman, a known “sinner” to enter a Pharisee’s house, now that was quite another matter.
But now why? Why did she come? Before we can adequately answer that question, it is important to clearly understand that she did NOT come in hopes that Jesus would forgive her sins. Far from that idea, her sins had already been forgiven. Yes, she had (past tense) lived a sinful life. But as we will see (especially at v. 47) her sins had already forgiven, prior to this banquet taking place. Now among the townspeople her reputation as a flagrant sinner continued; and yet God was no longer charging her with past sins. Luke does not give us the details surrounding her forgiveness. Yet given the context of the passage, it seems reasonable to suggest that upon hearing the good news (most likely through Jesus’ preaching, or maybe through John’s) that she had repented, was baptized, and her sins were washed away.
But again, Why did she come? The answer to that question begins to emerge when we notice what she has brought with her: an alabaster jar of perfume. In antiquity, alabaster was quarried only in Egypt and was a luxury item, as was the perfume, or ointment (literally myrrh). And so with Jesus reclining at the table, she positioned herself behind him, near his feet. She then must have bent over or knelt to reach his feet in order to anoint them with them with the perfume. And then, apparently, she was overcome with emotion and began “to wet” his feet with her tears. Indeed, she was weeping so profusely that she let down her hair and used it as a makeshift towel in order to dry his feet. And all the while she continued anointing his feet with the costly perfume, and kissing his feet over and over again. The cultural implications of what she was doing were enormous. First, for a woman to let down her hair in public was looked upon as disgraceful and indecent. Yet in this spontaneous moment of devotion, propriety was not her greatest concern. So also there is much to be seen in that fact that she kissed Jesus feet, as this was a cultural sign of the most heartfelt gratitude — the kind of thankfulness a person might have for someone who had saved their life. So why had she come? She came to express her overwhelming gratitude to Jesus for saving her, saving her from sin. And her tears? Surely they were tears of sorrow for the sins she had committed in the past; but even more than that they were tears of profound gratitude for the forgiveness she had received.
7:39 As I already suggested, the clearest explanation as to why Simon invited Jesus to the meal was to ascertain whether, or not, Jesus was a prophet of God. Moreover, it looks as if Simon was probably suspicious of Jesus, even from the beginning. But now that he has witnessed, for himself, how Jesus interacted with the woman, Simon was absolutely convinced that Jesus could not be a prophet. Simon reasoned within himself, “Just like I thought, just as I suspected ‘this man, this fellow’ (with an apparent measure of contempt). . . he’s no prophet. A prophet would maintain a respectable distance from a sinner like her. A prophet would realize that she (unlike me) is contemptible and keep a safe distance.” But Simon’s understanding was completely mistaken. Instead a true prophet of God does not isolate himself from sinners; and neither should we. Indeed Jesus was noted for welcoming and eating with sinners, in hopes of calling them to repentance (Luke 5:29-32; 15:1-2). And God calls us to do likewise.
7:40 Simon’s reasoning process, with the conclusion that Jesus could not be a prophet, was not audibly spoken. He did not verbally say the words, instead it was only Simon speaking within himself. And yet, Jesus was able to “hear” what Simon was saying to himself. He was able to read Simon’s thoughts, which he then addresses with a parable. And whereas Simon believes that the woman is the sinner in the house, as the story continues, we will see that is not her, after all.
7:41-43 The parable is about two men who were both in debt to a certain moneylender. One man owed 50 denarii, the other owed 500. A denarius was the daily wage for a common laborer, farm hand, or soldier. Thus one man owed a couple of months wages and other man owed ten times as much, almost a year and a half’s worth of pay. With regard to their ability to repay, however, both of them were in exactly the same position—neither could pay what they owed. Indeed, both of them were bankrupt. Both of them were at the mercy of the lender, who could have rightly foreclosed on their debt and thrown them both in jail. But instead with incredible generosity, the lender canceled both of their debts. Jesus then asked Simon, which debtor would then love (or thank) the lender more. And Simon correctly responds, “I suppose (or I imagine, I presume) the one who had he larger debt cancelled or forgiven.”
Continued in part #2
No comments:
Post a Comment